A Philadelphia hair salon is learning that the hard way.

Daniel Brant claims the salon fired him because he doesn’t “conform to stereotypes regarding how males should appear and behave.” While employed, Brant normally went to work in high heels and women’s clothes.

He says the company stopped sending him male customers, believing Brant would make them uncomfortable. His hours were eventually reduced to one shift per week. Eventually he was fired for referring customers to another salon.

Brant has filed a lawsuit, arguing that was pretext for gender discrimination.

However, the salon claims it wasn’t the cross-dressing that got him in trouble — it was the women’s clothes he decided to wear. “If he had wanted to wear a dress, that would have been fine,” said Brant’s former manager. “But at one point, he was wearing Daisy Dukes shorts. He was basically uncovered.”

How will the case turn out? On the one hand, several federal courts have held that firing someone for not conforming to gender stereotypes is sex discrimination. But on the other hand, cross-dresser or not, companies are normally allowed to enforce a dress code.

We’ll keep you posted.

A man was hired to teach courses at a community college. Shortly after he started working, he was diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder and began “functionally living as a female.”

The school began receiving complaints that the male teacher was using the women’s restroom, and he was told to use the men’s room. He refused and was fired.

The employee sued, claiming he was being discriminated against because of his gender. Who won?

Answer: the company.

The court acknowledged that discrimination based on gender stereotypes is discrimination based on gender — therefore, in some case, companies can be sued for bias against transgender employees.

However, in this case, the company had a good reason for enforcing its rest room rule — students expressed concerns about their privacy and safety. The case was thrown out.

Cite: Kastl v. Maricopa County Community College District.

In one recent case, a woman came to interview for a job that required some heavy lifting. The hiring manager told her the position was a “man’s job” because of the physical labor involved.

She was turned down in favor of a male applicant. The woman sued for sex discrimination.

The company tried to get the case thrown out, arguing that she wasn’t hired because she didn’t meet the job’s education requirements — however, it had previously hired several people without the “required” education for similar positions.

Therefore, the court decided the interviewer’s comments were enough evidence of gender bias. The company lost the case.

Cite: Sims v. Coosa County Board of Education