Firm Considers Cross-Dressing a Disability,|So It Can’t Fire Him For it, Man Says

CLEVELAND (CN) – A steel company salesman says he was unfairly fired for “bringing shame to the company” in a “cross-dressing incident” outside of work. John Doe claims Majestic Steel viewed him “as being mentally disabled because of his penchant for wearing women’s clothing,” but if that is true, then he’s a member of a protected class.




     Doe claims in Cuyahoga County Court that he was one of Majestic Steel’s top salesmen after working for Majestic for 4 years.
     He claims that Majestic has an “Employee Assistance Program” for workers whose problems are “not directly associated with an individual’s job function.” He claims Majestic has not punished workers who “have engaged in both in and out-of-work conduct that Majestic deems to be ‘acceptable,’ e.g. driving a boat in a manner that causes it to land on top of a breakwall in the Flats, and sexually harassing female employees on numerous occasions.”
     He says he was fired “at least in part, because defendants perceived that plaintiff suffered from a disability. Defendants regarded plaintiff’s cross-dressing as a mental impairment that substantially limited one or more of plaintiff’s major life activities.”
     He says he was fired “as a result of a biased decision making process by defendants due to sexual stereotyping.” He points out that the “cross-dressing incident … occurred off Majestic’s premises and during plaintiff’s non-work hours.”
     He also claims Majestic refused to pay him sales commissions it owes him, and vacation time.
     He demands punitive damages for discrimination.
     He is represented by Caryn Groedel.

%d bloggers like this: