Hobby Lobby and gay rights

A higher court's finding that Hobby Lobby violated Illinois's anti-discrimination laws by denying a transgender employee access to the women's restroom may have ramifications across the nation, legal experts posit.

Meggan Sommerville, a trans woman working at a Hobby Lobby location in Aurora for over two decades, faced denial of access to the women's restroom after transitioning at work in 2010. Consequently, she has experienced pronounced anxiety, recurring nightmares, and has been compelled to restrict fluid intake, according to court documents.

On Friday, the Illinois Second District Appellate Court affirmed a lower court's decision, declaring the craft store chain in breach of the Illinois Human Rights Act, both as an employer and a public accommodation.

The three-judge panel asserted, "Sommerville is female, like those women permitted access to the women's restroom. The only reason Sommerville is denied this access is her transgender status."

This ruling establishes a new precedent in this jurisdiction, concerning a legal issue yet to be definitively resolved within this court's purview.

"They held firm to the law," stated Sommerville, 51, in an interview with Forbes. "This marks a landmark case in Illinois, as the Human Rights Act has not previously been tested in this manner, neither in Illinois nor nationally."

Illinois Department of Human Rights director Jim Bennett highlighted the decision, emphasizing the robust protections afforded trans individuals in the state against discriminatory practices.

Bennett further emphasized in a statement, "Ms. Sommerville's experience with discrimination isn't unusual; countless transgender friends and neighbours continue facing discriminatory and hateful acts. This ruling provides the IDHR with a clear path forward in enforcing the Commission's decisions related to the rights of trans people."

Jacob Meister, Sommerville's legal counsel, highlighted the decision's potential impact nationally, asserting it would initiate a process wherein courts across the nation could address the issue of bathroom access.

Camilla Taylor, Lambda Legal's litigation director, concurs that the ruling's ramifications might extend widely, impacting various sectors and jurisdictions.

"Numerous states will be inclined to cite this sweeping ruling," she observed. "This extends beyond employment, reflecting the state of Illinois's public policy. The court deliberately rejected all justifications for disparate treatment of transgender individuals in public spaces. No grounds for such differentiation were accepted."

Although the 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, Supreme Court ruling recognized that sex-based discrimination includes gender identity and sexual orientation, it did not address access to sex-segregated facilities, services, or sports teams.

"Arguing against denying someone access to a restroom or locker room as non-sexist is nonsensical," Ms. Taylor underscored.

Taylor anticipates the decision could be utilized by opponents of discriminatory "bathroom bills," additionally impacting legal battles concerning legislation barring transgender girls from female sports teams.

According to the Movement Advancement Project, nine states have established such prohibitions.

"The ruling promises significant ramifications throughout numerous aspects of daily life, impacting education, commerce, gyms, and sports," Taylor continued. "The ruling clearly establishes the correlation between gender identity and sex, solidifying nondiscrimination principles related to sex-segregated spaces."

Hobby Lobby may pursue an appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court. Attorney Whitman Brisky, representing the company, did not comment on this matter promptly.

The 2021 legislative session saw a record number of anti-transgender bills introduced, with nearly seventy measures across thirty states aimed at prohibiting transgender youth from participating in sports that align with their gender identity. Additionally, fifteen bills prohibiting trans individuals from using restrooms or locker rooms congruent with their gender identity emerged.

Contrarily, the judicial system has generally been supportive. Alongside the Bostock ruling, the Supreme Court declined to review a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the constitutional right of transgender student Gavin Grimm to use the boys' restroom at his Virginia school.

In that case, the lower court determined that policies barring transgender students from using restrooms corresponding to their gender identity violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

Connect with NBC Out on Twitter, Facebook & Instagram