Client Alerts & Insights
Gender Dysphoria Protected by the ADA, Per Fourth Circuit
August 19, 2022
Authored By:
Recent case law continues to develop the scope of legal protections for transgender individuals. One month after a Texas court enjoined the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) from enforcing its 2021 guidance protecting transgender individuals, the Fourth Circuit has recognized gender dysphoria as a disability protected by the Americans with Disability Act (“ADA”).
In Williams v. Kincaid, Kesha Williams, a transgender woman with gender dysphoria, filed suit against the Sheriff of Fairfax County alleging violations of the ADA stemming from her treatment as an inmate at a Virginia detention center. Williams was housed in the men’s unit of the facility, faced delayed access to her prescribed hormone therapy medication, and was denied various accommodations she had requested relating to her gender dysphoria. The district court dismissed her claim, holding that it failed to state grounds for relief and that gender dysphoria is not a disability under the ADA.
The Fourth Circuit reversed. Although the statutory text of the ADA excludes “gender identify disorders not resulting from physical impairments” from the statutory definition of disability, the court concluded that gender dysphoria is different than gender identity disorder. Gender dysphoria is defined as the “clinically significant distress” felt by individuals who experience incongruity between their gender identity and assigned sex. Gender dysphoria is thus categorized by extreme distress. In addition, it may result from a physical impairment, with the need for hormone therapy indicative of a physical basis for the condition. Thus, Williams’ claims survived a motion to dismiss.
While this ruling focused on Title II of the ADA regarding government services, its impact may be felt by employers, particularly those operating within the Fourth Circuit. Employers are already prohibited from discriminating against employees based on gender identity, but the Williams decision indicates that employers may also need to grant accommodations to such employees if they suffer from gender dysphoria. Employers in the Fourth Circuit should, therefore, treat requests for accommodation based on gender dysphoria in the same manner as any other disability-related request for accommodation.
Although it is unclear if other circuits follow the Fourth Circuit, this decision provides insight into what may lie ahead. Employers should evaluate their current policies. For more information, please contact a member of Benesch’s Labor & Employment Practice Group.
Adam Primm at aprimm@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4451.
Latest News
Connecticut Broadens Data Privacy Act Requirements Effective July 1, 2026
Key Takeaways Revised Applicability Scope and Exemptions Effective July 1, 2026, the CTDPA’s existing applicability thresholds are reduced, resulting in …
SCOTUS Extends FAA Exemption to Last-Mile Drivers: What the Flowers Foods decision means for motor carriers and transportation providers
On May 28, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, expanding reach of the Federal Arbitration Act’s (“FAA”) Section 1 exemption for transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce. The Court held that a worker who transports goods on an intrastate leg of an interstate journey can qualify for Section 1’s exemption without crossing state lines or interacting with vehicles that do. This decision has significant implications for motor carriers and transportation providers that rely on arbitration agreements to resolve disputes with independent contractors and employee drivers.
Beyond the Buzzwords: State AGs Put Enforcement Muscle Behind Algorithmic Pricing and Age Verification Crackdowns
State AGs are doubling down—across party lines—on consumer protection, with a sharp focus on vulnerable groups and increased scrutiny of algorithmic pricing models and online age verification practices.
California SB 54 Is Here: What Companies Using Plastic Packaging Need To Do Now
Learn how California’s SB 54 impacts companies using plastic packaging, including key compliance deadlines, producer responsibilities, and steps to reduce risk under new recycling and sustainability regulations.