CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ) Civil Case No.

COMMISSION

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

vs.

) )

C O M P L A I N T

)

DELUXE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. )

)

Defendant.

)

)

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, and to provide appropriate relief to Britney Austin, who was adversely affected by such practices. As alleged with greater particularity below, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or the “Commission”) alleges that Defendant, Deluxe Financial Services, Inc. (“Deluxe”), engaged in unlawful discrimination against Austin, a woman who is transgender, because of sex by: (a) subjecting Austin to different terms and conditions because of sex, and (b) subjecting Austin to a hostile work environment because of sex. Additionally, Defendant had, and continues to maintain, a companywide policy or practice that discriminates against transgender female employees by precluding them use of a restroom that is consistent with their sex.

1

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 2 of 16
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(f)(1), (3), and 706(g), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1), (3), and (g), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706(f)(1) and (3), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, a Minnesota corporation, with a principal executive address at 3680 Victoria Street N, Shoreview, Minnesota, has continuously been doing business in the state of Minnesota, and has continuously employed at least fifteen (15) employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e (b), (g) and (h).
2

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 3 of 16
6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Britney Austin filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant.
7. The EEOC provided Defendant with notice of the charge of discrimination. 8. EEOC investigated the charge of discrimination. 9. Based on evidence uncovered during the EEOC’s investigation, EEOC issued a letter of determination to Deluxe Financial Services, finding reasonable cause to believe that Defendant had engaged in unlawful employment practices prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 10. The Commission’s determination included an invitation for Defendant to join the Commission in informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion in an attempt to eliminate and remedy the alleged unlawful employment practices. 11. Defendant participated with EEOC in conciliation, during which process Defendant and EEOC communicated regarding the alleged unlawful employment practices and how to eliminate and remedy them. 12. The Commission and Defendant were unable to reach an agreement acceptable to the Commission through the conciliation process. 13. The Commission sent notice to Defendant that conciliation had failed. 14. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
3

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 4 of 16
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 15. Since at least 2010 and continuing until today, Defendant has maintained a companywide policy or practice with respect to transgender employees’ use of restrooms resulting in unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a). 16. Defendant used to operate in Phoenix, Arizona, under the name “Deluxe Financial”, and currently operates in twenty-seven (27) locations in the United States. 17. Defendant’s headquarters are located in Shoreview, Minnesota. 18. Britney Austin is female. 19. She has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. 20. Austin is transgender, having been assigned the male sex at birth but having a female gender identity. 21. By definition, transgender individuals identify and conform to a sex and gender different from the sex assigned to them at birth, contradicting dominant cultural expectations, assumptions, and norms that an individual assigned one sex at birth will or should identify with that same sex as their gender identity throughout their life. 22. Austin began her employment with Defendant Deluxe Financial Services in Phoenix, Arizona, on October 8, 2007. 23. When she applied for work with Defendant and for the first several years of her employment, Austin presented as male (e.g., she had a traditionally male name).
4

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 5 of 16
24. On or about October or early November 2010, Austin announced her intention to present as female at work to her local then-supervisor, Mike Jeffers.
25. On or around the middle of November 2010, Austin began to present female at work.
26. Around the end of 2010 or beginning of 2011, Rebecca Chavez replaced Jeffers as Austin’s immediate supervisor.
27. On or about January 2011, Austin began hormone therapy as part of her gender transition.
28. Austin provided Deluxe with documentation of her gender dysphoria diagnosis.
29. On January 19, 2011, Austin spoke with Cynthia Ridley, the manager assigned to oversee Chavez’s team, and to Araceli Hernandez, a Human Resources officer, about her transition.
30. Austin informed Ridley and Hernandez that on February 1, 2011, she was scheduled for a court date to change her name officially to Britney Erica Austin.
31. On January 19, 2011, Austin asked Defendant to be allowed to begin to use the women’s restroom on the Defendant’s premises after her name change.
32. In the January 19, 2011, meeting, Austin also asked that her sex-designation be changed in internal personnel and communications systems, including, inter alia, personal profiles, the email server, phone directories, and other personnel and communication systems.
5

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 6 of 16
33. Hernandez told Austin she could not change the status of her sex-designation in internal records without supplying proof of legal documentation acknowledging her name change.
34. After consulting with Tracy Warn, Human Resources Director for Defendant in Minnesota, Ridley and Hernandez told Austin that Defendant would not change Austin’s sex-designation in internal records from male to female until Austin “completed the surgery portion of the gender change process.”
35. On January 21, 2011 Warn, by email, ordered that Austin be prohibited from using the women’s restroom.
36. Defendant’s asserted reason for this prohibition was its “consideration” of “other employees.”
37. In a meeting between Ridley and Austin on or about January 26, 2011, Ridley told Austin, “we’ve dealt with this before” after Austin again requested to use the women’s restroom.
38. Austin is not the first transgender employee at Deluxe Financial who has requested to use a restroom consistent with his or her gender identity, but was prohibited from doing so.
39. On January 26, 2011, Hernandez and Ridley told Austin that she was prohibited from using the women’s restroom on its premises.
40. Defendant did not preclude female employees who were not transgender from using the women’s restroom.
6

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 7 of 16
41. On or about February 3, 2011, Austin provided Deluxe with documentation establishing her legal name change to Britney Austin.
42. On February 7, 2011, Austin asked her immediate supervisor, Rebecca Chavez, and Ridley, to change her name and sex-designation in Defendant’s internal records. Instead of agreeing they asked Austin invasive medical questions about her gender transition and related surgeries.
43. Defendant changed the sex-designation and Austin’s name only in some records, but left an erroneous male sex-designation and male name on other records.
44. On February 21, 2011, Austin emailed Ridley about additional internal records that needed her female name and female sex-designation reflected, including the company phone system.
45. Defendant did not change Austin’s name or sex-designation in Defendant’s customer phone ordering system or in two internal employee communication systems.
46. On March 18, 2011, Austin again emailed Defendant and asked that her name be changed to Britney on other internal records where her name was still registering under her former name.
47. On March 22, 2011, Austin emailed Chavez about correcting her name in internal records.
48. On or about May 27, 2011, Austin again approached Chavez and asked that her sex-designation be changed on all internal company records and systems.
49. Because many of Defendant’s systems were not updated to reflect Austin’s female sex and name, outside vendors, customers, and colleagues who contacted Austin
7

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 8 of 16
referred to her by her former male name, forcing her to correct them and explain that her name was Britney.
50. On June 1, 2011 – more than seven months after Austin first explained her gender transition to Defendant’s officials and asked to be allowed to use the restroom consistent with the gender identity of female -- Austin approached Chavez and again asked that she be allowed to use the women’s restroom and that all internal records be changed to accurately reflect her name and sex.
51. Austin had been consistently presenting as female since November, 2010. 52. On June 1, 2011, Austin provided Chavez with another medical note, this one from her doctor not only confirming her diagnosis of gender dysphoria but also requesting that Deluxe change all internal records to reflect Austin’s female sex and proper name. 53. During the conversation on June 1st, Chavez asked to see Austin’s license. 54. On June 2, 2011, Austin provided Chavez with her driver’s license. The license was issued to Britney Erica Austin and designated Austin’s sex as female. 55. Despite receiving Austin’s medical records, notice of Austin’s legal name change, and a copy of her driver’s license, Defendant continued to deny Austin use of the women’s restroom on its premises. 56. On June 6, 2011, a female employee reported that three days earlier she had seen someone she believed to be Austin using a women’s restroom in a common shared area near the cafeteria, outside of the Deluxe offices, that both Deluxe and other tenants and customers in the building had the right to use.
8

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 9 of 16
57. The restroom near the cafeteria was not in the sole ownership, custody, or control of Defendant.
58. Hernandez immediately reported the incident to Warn via email, and added: “And just an FYI, the restroom that Britney was using wasn’t one of the restrooms in Deluxe, it was in the common area part that we share with Fidelity.”
59. On June 13, 2011, Warn instructed Hernandez via email to prohibit Austin from using the common female restroom, even though she acknowledged that “[h]onestly, I am not sure we can mandate her use of the bathroom outside of the call center, but let’s keep that to ourselves.”
60. Ridley and Hernandez informed Austin that she was not allowed to use the common restroom near the cafeteria although that restroom was outside of Deluxe’s sole control.
61. During the conversation, Austin complained to Chavez that Defendant was violating her rights by refusing to recognize her gender identity and forcing her to use restrooms inconsistent with her gender identity.
62. After Defendant restricted Austin’s use of women’s restrooms throughout the building, Cynthia Perez, one of Defendant’s managers, advised Austin to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC.
63. From around the end of 2010 or beginning of 2011 until July 2011, some of Defendant’s managers and Austin’s co-workers repeatedly and intentionally referred to Austin with male pronouns and made derogatory statements about her female appearance,
9

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 10 of 16
even though they knew she had transitioned from male to female and that she wished to be referred to by female pronouns consistent with her gender identity.
64. Co-workers regularly referred to Austin in a demeaning and derogatory manner. For example, one coworker:
a. Repeatedly and intentionally referred to Austin by using male pronouns; b. Referred to Austin as “boy;” c. Called Austin a “Cheetah;” d. Called Austin “Tarzan” to tease her about her hairiness, appearance, and
clothes. 65. Another co-worker told Austin that she needed to make her hair more attractive. 66. Co-workers’ harassment of Austin was done in such an open and notorious manner that Defendant knew or should have known that Austin was being subjected to a hostile work environment. 67. Supervisors and managers regularly referred to Austin with male pronouns and by her former male name when communicating with each other, even after Austin began to present as female at work. 68. On June 29, 2011, an outside vendor who came to do training for Austin and her co-workers made fun of Austin’s female appearance during the staff training, and Austin’s co-workers laughed at her publicly. 69. On July 7, 2011, Austin emailed Chavez and complained about some of the harassing comments.
10

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 11 of 16
70. In the email, Austin asked Chavez to warn her harassers that they should stop deliberately misgendering her and making offensive comments about her appearance.
71. Upon information and belief, Defendant neither investigated Austin’s complaints nor disciplined any person whom Austin reported as having made harassing comments.
72. Continuing until late July 2011, when her employment with Defendant ended, Defendant continued to designate Austin as a male on many internal records, including the program hosting her personnel records, where her name was changed but not the designation of her sex.
73. Defendant never notified Austin’s health insurance provider of Austin’s sexdesignation and name change, even though, according to the provider’s policy, it was Defendant’s responsibility under the policy to do so.
11

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 12 of 16
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF [Disparate Treatment Because of Sex – 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1)-(2)] 74. The allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs are hereby incorporated herein by reference. 75. Defendant violated Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), by subjecting Austin to disparate terms and conditions because of sex. Despite uncontroverted evidence that Austin’s gender identity was female and that Austin had begun living and working full-time as female as part of a gender transition, Defendant refused to allow Austin to use the women’s restroom and forced her to use the men’s restroom instead. 76. Defendant imposed these terms and conditions of employment due to sexbased considerations – specifically, because: a. Austin is a woman who is transgender; and/or, b. Because of Austin’s transition from male to female; and/or, c. Because Austin did not conform to Defendant’s sex- or gender-based
preferences, expectations, or stereotypes of women; and/or, d. Because of Defendant’s sex- or gender-based expectations or stereotypes
related to individuals assigned the male sex at birth. 77. The effect of the practices complained of in the foregoing paragraphs has been to discriminate against Austin with respect to the terms and conditions of her employment and/or to limit, segregate, and classify Austin in a way that deprives or tends
12

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 13 of 16
to deprive her of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee because of sex.
78. The unlawful employment practices complained of in the foregoing paragraphs were intentional.
79. The unlawful employment practices complained of in the foregoing paragraphs were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Austin.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF [Sex-Based Hostile Work Environment – 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)] 80. The allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference. 81. From around the end of 2010 through July 2011, Defendant engaged in unlawful employment practices, in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) by subjecting Britney Austin to severe or pervasive harassment, constituting a hostile work environment due to sex-based considerations – specifically, because: a. Austin is a woman who is transgender; and/or, b. Because of Austin’s transition from male to female; and/or, c. Because Austin did not conform to Defendant’s sex- or gender-based preferences, expectations, or stereotypes of women; and/or, d. Because of Defendant’s sex- or gender-based expectations or stereotypes related to individuals assigned the male sex at birth.
13

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 14 of 16
82. As described with more particularity above, Defendant’s managers and employees regularly subjected Austin to gender-based derogatory comments about her appearance, intentionally referred to her with male pronouns, and called her insulting names.
83. In addition, Defendant refused to change Austin’s sex-designation to female or her name to “Britney” in many of the company’s internal systems, which caused Austin upset and humiliation.
84. In addition, Defendant denied Austin use of all the women’s restrooms in the building, including those on its premises as well as common or shared restrooms not solely within its control.
85. Despite Austin’s repeated complaints about the harassing comments and conduct, Defendant created or tolerated this sex-based hostile work environment and failed to prevent or correct it.
86. The effect of the practices complained of in the foregoing paragraphs has been to deprive Austin of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee, because of sex.
87. The unlawful employment practices complained of in the foregoing paragraphs were intentional.
88. The unlawful employment practices complained of in the foregoing paragraphs were done with malice or reckless indifference to Austin’s federally protected rights.
14

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 15 of 16
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in the unlawful conduct of discriminating against employees who have undergone, or are undergoing, a gender transition. B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for employees who have undergone, or are undergoing, a gender transition and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of Defendant’s unlawful employment practices. D. Order Defendant to make Austin whole by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in the foregoing paragraphs, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial. E. Order Defendant to pay Austin punitive damages for its malicious or reckless conduct described in the foregoing paragraphs, in amounts to be determined at trial. F. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest. G. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
15

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 1 Filed 06/04/15 Page 16 of 16

Dated: June 4, 2015

P. David Lopez General Counsel
Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel
Mary Jo O’Neill Regional Attorney Phoenix District Office
Rita Byrnes Kittle Supervisory Trial Attorney Denver Field Office
/s/ Iris Halpern Iris Halpern Lead Trial Attorney Denver Field Office Telephone: 303-866-1374 Email: iris.halpern@eeoc.gov
/s/ Laurie Vasichek Laurie Vasichek (171438) Senior Trial Attorney Minneapolis Area Office Telephone: 612-335-4061 Email: Laurie.Vasichek@eeoc.gov
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

16

 
 CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 1 of 41
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

BRITNEY AUSTIN,

)

)

Plaintiff/Intervenor,

)

)

v.

)

)

DELUXE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. )

)

Defendant.

)

_______________________________________)

Case No. 0:15-cv-02646
Judge Ann D. Montgomery Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF PLAINTIFF/INTERVENOR MS. BRITNEY AUSTIN

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §

2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”), Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a,

and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1991, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.

(“ADA”). As set forth below, Plaintiff/ Intervenor Ms. Britney Austin (“Plaintiff/

Intervenor”) alleges that Defendant Deluxe Financial Services, Inc. (“Deluxe” or

“Defendant”) subjected Ms. Austin to sex discrimination, disability discrimination, and

retaliation in violation of Title VII and the ADA.

PARTIES

1.

Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), is the

agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 2 of 41

and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections

706(f)(1) and (3), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).

2.

Plaintiff/Intervenor Ms. Britney Austin formerly worked for Defendant at a

call center it operated in Phoenix, Arizona from October 2007 through July 2011.

3.

At all relevant times, Defendant, a Minnesota corporation, with a

principal executive address at 3680 Victoria Street N., Shoreview, Minnesota, has

continuously been doing business in the state of Minnesota, and has continuously

employed at least fifteen (15) employees.

4.

At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer

engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g)

and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e (b), (g) and (h).

	  

PROCEDURAL HISTORY	  

5.

Plaintiff/Intervenor Ms. Britney Austin filed a charge of discrimination

with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII and the ADA, including

retaliation, by Defendant on or about June 28, 2011.

6.

The EEOC provided Defendant with notice of the charge of discrimination.

7.

EEOC investigated the charge of discrimination.

8.

Based on evidence uncovered during the EEOC’s investigation, EEOC

issued a letter of determination to Deluxe Financial Services, finding reasonable cause

to believe that Defendant had engaged in unlawful employment practices prohibited by

Title VII, including sex discrimination and retaliation.

2

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 3 of 41

9.

The Commission’s determination included an invitation for Defendant to

join the Commission in informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion

in an attempt to eliminate and remedy the alleged unlawful employment practices.

10.

Defendant participated with EEOC in conciliation, during which process

Defendant and EEOC communicated regarding the alleged unlawful employment practices and how to eliminate and remedy them.

11.

The Commission and Defendant were unable to reach an agreement

acceptable to the Commission through the conciliation process.

12.

The Commission sent notice to Defendant that conciliation had failed, and

commenced litigation.

13.

Plaintiff took all necessary steps to exhaust her administrative remedies.

14.

All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

15.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331

because the action is based on Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act, federal

statutes, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1337 because the action is based on a federal statute

regulating commerce.

16.

This Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, in that

Defendant is a citizen of the State of Minnesota, and Plaintiff/Intervenor is a citizen of

the State of Arizona, and the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs,

exceeds $75,000.00.

3

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 4 of 41

17.

Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of

Minnesota pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the unlawful

employment practices are alleged to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the

United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

FACTS

18.

Ms. Britney Austin is a female citizen of the United States.

19.

Ms. Austin has a feminine gender expression.

20.

Ms. Austin has a female gender identity.

21.

Ms. Austin is a transgender woman.

22.

Ms. Austin has been diagnosed with gender identity disorder, now known as

gender dysphoria.

Sex, Gender, Gender Expression and Gender Identity

23.

Sex is an ambiguous term of art that includes gender, gender expression and

gender identity within its meaning.

24.

Sex stereotyping refers to the application by an employer of stereotypes

related to sex assigned at birth to restrict or disparage an employee’s gender expression or

gender identity.

25.

Gender refers to cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to

physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes.

26.

Gender expression refers to a person's gender-related appearance and

behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.

4

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 5 of 41

27.

Gender identity refers to characteristics related to a person’s internal sense

of gender, being male, female, or other.

28.

Gender identity is intractably rooted in the psyche, and cannot be changed.

29.

Transgender individuals are persons who have a gender identity that does

not match the sex they were assigned at birth.

30.

Gender dysphoria (known as gender identity disorder until 2013) is found

in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition (“DSM V”)

of the American Psychiatric Association.

31.

Gender dysphoria is the formal diagnosis used by psychologists and

physicians to describe persons who experience significant discontent with their biological

sex and/or the gender they were assigned at birth.

32.

Based on many scientific studies during the past two decades, gender

dysphoria has been identified as a gender identity disorder resulting from a physiological

condition of the brain and neurological system.

33.

Discrimination against transgender persons for being transgender is based

on their sex, sex stereotyping, gender, gender expression or gender identity.

34.

In the alternative, discrimination against transgender persons diagnosed

with gender dysphoria is based on disability, and the discrimination described herein

against Ms. Austin was based upon her disability and/or others’ perception of Ms. Austin

as being disabled.

35.

Transgender individuals often seek out legal, social, and medical means of

aligning external manifestations of their gender with their gender identity. This process is

colloquially known as gender transition or transition.

5

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 6 of 41

36.

A core component of gender transition entails publicly expressing one’s

gender as a member of the gender that comports with one’s gender identity.

37.

Scientific studies have shown that transgender persons have brain structures

that are typical of nontransgender persons with the same gender identity. For example, transgender women (i.e. those assigned male sex at birth but who have female gender identity) have brain structures that are similar to those of nontransgender women. It is appropriate to refer to a transgender woman who has transitioned with female titles,

honorifics (e.g., Miss, Ms. or Mrs.), and pronouns (e.g., her, hers, and she).

38.

It is appropriate for a nontransgender woman to use a women’s multi-stall

restroom.

39.

It is appropriate for a transgender woman who has transitioned to use a

women’s restroom.

40.

It is appropriate for a nontransgender woman to wear traditionally female

clothing, such as a skirt.

41.

It is appropriate for a transgender woman who has transitioned to wear

traditionally female clothing, such as a skirt.

42.

Another core component of gender transition is utilizing medical therapies

to align the patient’s body with the patient’s gender identity.

43.

Myriad peer-review studies demonstrate that medical therapies, including

hormone treatments, are one form of medically necessary care for transgender persons.

44.

The American Medical Association, the American Psychological

Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of

Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the World Professional Association for Transgender

6

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 7 of 41

Health (“WPATH”) have all publicly endorsed the efficacy of medical therapies,

including hormone treatments, for transgender persons.

45.

The American Medical Association, the American Psychological

Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and WPATH all recognize that medical therapies, including hormone treatments, are a form of medically necessary care for transgender persons.

46.

The American Medical Association, the American Psychological

Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of

Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and WPATH have all publicly called for both private

and public insurers to eliminate transgender-specific exclusions in health insurance plans.

Ms. Austin’s Employment at Deluxe

47.

Since at least 2010 and continuing until today, Defendant has

maintained a companywide policy or practice with respect to transgender employees’

use of restrooms resulting in unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII

and/or the ADA.

48.

Defendant used to operate in Phoenix, Arizona, under the name “Deluxe

Financial,” and currently operates in twenty-seven (27) locations in the United States.

49.

Defendant’s headquarters are located in Shoreview, Minnesota.

50.

Ms. Austin began her employment with Defendant Deluxe Financial

Services in Phoenix, Arizona, on October 8, 2007.

51.

When she applied for work with Defendant and for the first several years of

7

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 8 of 41

her employment, Ms. Austin presented as male (e.g., she had a traditionally male name).

52.

On or about October or early November 2010, Ms. Austin announced her

intention to present as female at work to her local then-supervisor, Mike Jeffers.

53.

On or around the middle of November 2010, Ms. Austin began to present

female at work.

54.

Ms. Austin consistently presented as female at work from November 2010

onward.

55.

Around the end of 2010 or beginning of 2011, Rebecca Chavez replaced

Jeffers as Austin’s immediate supervisor.

56.

On or about January 2011, Ms. Austin began hormone therapy as part of

her gender transition.

57.

Ms. Austin provided Deluxe with documentation of her gender identity

disorder diagnosis.

58.

On January 19, 2011, Ms. Austin spoke with Cynthia Ridley, the manager

assigned to oversee Chavez’s team, and to Araceli Hernandez, a Human Resources

officer, about her transition.

59.

On January 19, 2011, Ms. Austin asked Defendant to be allowed to begin to

use the women’s restroom on the Defendant’s premises after her name change.

60.

In the January 19, 2011, meeting, Ms. Austin also asked that her sex-

designation be changed in internal personnel and communications systems, including,

inter alia, personnel profiles, the email server, phone directories, and other personnel and

communication systems.

61.

Hernandez told Ms. Austin she could not change the status of her sex-

8

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 9 of 41

designation in internal records without supplying proof of legal documentation

acknowledging her name change.

62.

After consulting with Tracy Warn, Human Resources Director for

Defendant in Minnesota, Ridley and Hernandez told Ms. Austin that Defendant would

not change her sex-designation in internal records from male to female until she

“completed the surgery portion of the gender change process.”

63.

On January 21, 2011 Ms. Warn, by email, ordered that Ms. Austin be

prohibited from using the women’s restroom.

64.

Defendant’s asserted reason for this prohibition was its “consideration”

of “other employees.”

65.

In a meeting between Ms. Ridley and Ms. Austin on or about January 26,

2011, Ms. Ridley told Ms. Austin, “we’ve dealt with this before” after Ms. Austin again

requested to use the women’s restroom.

66.

Upon information and belief, Ms. Austin is not the first transgender

employee at Deluxe Financial who has requested to use a restroom consistent with his

or her gender identity, but was prohibited from doing so.

67.

On January 26, 2011, Ms. Hernandez and Ms. Ridley told Ms. Austin

that she was prohibited from using the women’s restroom on its premises until the

“surgery/procedure was complete,” referring to Ms. Austin undergoing genital

reconstruction surgery, a form of sex reassignment surgery.

68.

Defendant did not preclude female employees who were not transgender

from using the women’s restroom.

9

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 10 of 41

69.

Ms. Austin informed Ms. Ridley and Ms. Hernandez that on February 1,

2011, she was scheduled for a court date to change her name to Britney Erica Austin.

70.

On or about February 3, 2011, Ms. Austin provided Deluxe with

documentation establishing her legal name change to Britney Austin.

71.

On February 7, 2011, Ms. Austin asked her immediate supervisor, Rebecca

Chavez, and Ms. Ridley, to change her name and sex-designation in Defendant’s internal

records.

72. Instead of agreeing to make the requested changes they asked Ms. Austin if she

had “the surgery,” although they did not specify what type of surgery was intended,

implying questions concerning the configuration of Ms. Austin’s genitals.

73. They also asked about Ms. Austin’s breasts, breast development, and whether she

would have breast surgery.

74.

Defendant changed Ms. Austin’s name only in some records, but

intentionally left an erroneous male sex-designation and her former male name on other

records.

75.

On February 21, 2011, Ms. Austin emailed Ms. Ridley about these

additional internal records that needed her female name and female sex-designation

reflected, including the company phone system.

76.

Nonetheless, Defendant did not change Ms. Austin’s name or sex-

designation in Defendant’s customer phone ordering system or in two internal employee

communication systems.

10

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 11 of 41

77.

On March 18, 2011, Ms. Austin again emailed Defendant and asked that

her name be changed to Britney on other internal records where her name was still

registering under her former name. Ms. Austin did not receive a response.

78.

On March 22, 2011, Ms. Austin emailed Ms. Chavez about correcting her

name in internal records. Ms. Austin did not receive a response.

79.

On or about May 27, 2011, Ms. Austin again approached Ms. Chavez and

asked that her sex-designation be changed on all internal company records and systems.

Ms. Chavez made no reply.

80.

Because many of Defendant’s systems were not updated to reflect Ms.

Austin’s female sex and name, outside vendors, customers, and colleagues who contacted

Ms. Austin referred to her by her former male name, forcing her to correct them and

explain that her name is Britney and that she is female.

81.

On June 1, 2011—more than seven months after Ms. Austin first explained

her gender transition to Defendant’s officials and asked to be allowed to use the restroom

consistent with the gender identity of female— Ms. Austin approached Ms. Chavez and

again asked that she be allowed to use the women’s restroom and that all internal records

be changed to accurately reflect her name and sex.

82.

On June 1, 2011, Austin provided Chavez with another medical note, this

one from her doctor not only confirming her diagnosis of gender identity disorder but

also requesting that Deluxe change all internal records to reflect Austin’s female sex and

proper name.

83.

During the conversation on June 1st, Chavez asked to see Austin’s license.

11

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 12 of 41

84.

On June 2, 2011, Ms. Austin provided Ms. Chavez with her driver’s

license. The license was issued to Britney Erica Austin and designated Austin’s sex as

female.

85.

Despite receiving Ms. Austin’s medical records, notice of Ms. Austin’s

legal name change, and a copy of her driver’s license, Defendant continued to deny

Austin use of the women’s restroom on its premises. In addition to denying Ms. Austin

access to a restroom that comports with her gender identity, Defendant’s agents informed

Ms. Austin that she could only use the women’s restroom when she had proven that she

had undergone “the surgery,” implying genital reconstruction surgery.

86.

On June 6, 2011, a female employee reported that three days earlier she had

seen someone she believed to be Ms. Austin using a women’s restroom in a common

shared area near the cafeteria, outside of the Deluxe offices, that both Deluxe and other

tenants and customers in the building had the right to use.

87.

The restroom near the cafeteria was not in the sole ownership, custody, or

control of Defendant.

88.

Ms. Hernandez immediately reported the incident to Ms. Warn via email,

and added: “And just an FYI, the restroom that Britney was using wasn’t one of the

restrooms in Deluxe, it was in the common area part that we share with Fidelity.”

89.

On June 13, 2011, Ms. Warn instructed Ms. Hernandez via email to

prohibit Ms. Austin from using the common female restroom, even though she

acknowledged that “[h]onestly, I am not sure we can mandate her use of the bathroom

outside of the call center, but let’s keep that to ourselves.”

12

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 13 of 41

90.

Ms. Ridley and Ms. Hernandez informed Ms. Austin that she was not

allowed to use the common restroom near the cafeteria although that restroom was

outside of Deluxe’s sole control.

91.

During the conversation, Ms. Austin complained to Ms. Chavez that

Defendant was violating her rights by refusing to recognize her gender identity and

forcing her to use restrooms inconsistent with her gender identity.

92.

Upon hearing Ms. Austin’s complaint, Ms. Chavez reiterated that Defendant

had a policy of allowing transgender female employees to use the women’s restroom only

after they presented Defendant with proof that they had undergone “the surgery,”

implying genital reconstruction surgery.

93.

From around the end of 2010 or beginning of 2011 until July 2011, some of

Defendant’s managers and Ms. Austin’s coworkers repeatedly and intentionally referred

to Ms. Austin with male pronoun and/or her former male name, and made derogatory

statements about her female appearance, even though they knew she had transitioned

from male to female and that she wished to be referred to by female pronouns consistent

with her gender identity.

94.

Co-workers regularly referred to Ms. Austin in a demeaning and derogatory

manner. For example, one coworker:

a. Repeatedly and intentionally referred to Ms. Austin by using male

pronouns and/or her former male name;

b. Referred to Ms. Austin as “boy;”

c. Called Ms. Austin “Tarzan” to tease her about her hairiness,

appearance, and clothes;

13

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 14 of 41

d. Called Ms. Austin “Cheetah (a reference to a chimpanzee in the Tarzan television series);” and
e. Another co-worker told Ms. Austin that she needed to make her hair

more attractive.

95.

Coworkers’ harassment of Ms. Austin was done in such an open and

notorious manner that Defendant knew or should have known that Ms. Austin was being

subjected to a hostile work environment.

96.

Supervisors and managers regularly referred to Ms. Austin with male

pronouns and/or by her former male name when communicating with each other, even

after Austin began to present as female at work.

97.

On June 29, 2011, an outside vendor who came to do training for Ms.

Austin and her coworkers made fun of Ms. Austin’s female appearance during the staff

training, and Ms. Austin’s coworkers laughed at her publicly.

98.

On July 7, 2011, Ms. Austin emailed Ms. Chavez and complained about

some of the harassing comments.

99.

In the email, Ms. Austin asked Ms. Chavez to warn her harassers that they

should stop deliberately misgendering her and making offensive comments about her

appearance.

100.

Upon information and belief, Defendant neither investigated

Austin’s complaints nor disciplined any person whom Ms. Austin reported as having

made harassing comments.

101.

Continuing until late July 2011, when her employment with

Defendant ended, Defendant continued to designate Ms. Austin as a male on many

14

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 15 of 41

internal records, including the program hosting her personnel records, where her

name was changed but not the designation of her sex.

102.

Defendant never notified Ms. Austin’s health insurance provider of Ms.

Austin’s sex-designation and name change, even though, according to the provider’s policy, it was Defendant’s responsibility under the policy to do so.

Health Insurance Policy 103. From October 2007 through July 2011 Defendant provided all full time
employees at the Phoenix, Arizona location with health insurance. 104. The health insurance plan provided to Ms. Austin and other similarly
situated employees had a clause that categorically excluded and/or had the effect of excluding certain health care benefits to all transgender persons regardless of medical necessity.
105. The exclusion described above was designed to exclude all medical transition treatment (including but not limited to pharmaceutical therapies and surgical interventions) for persons diagnosed with gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and/or transsexualism.
106. The exclusion described above had the effect of categorically excluding all medical transition treatment (including but not limited to pharmaceutical therapies and surgical interventions) for persons diagnosed with gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and/or transsexualism.
107. The exclusion described above had the effect of categorically excluding all medical transition treatment (including but not limited to pharmaceutical therapies and
15

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 16 of 41 surgical interventions) for persons who sought treatments that did not “match” the gender with which they were designated on their insurance enrollment paperwork. For example, an enrollee designated as “male” on their insurance enrollment paperwork would be automatically denied treatment for exogenous estrogen therapy prescribed at levels intended to maintain nontransgender female levels of estrogen in the body.
108. The exclusion described above precluded coverage for various medically necessary treatments she needed as part of her medical transition to female. These medically necessary treatments included, but were not limited to, coverage for exogenous hormones and routine blood tests needed to monitor her hormone levels as well as genital reconstruction surgery.
109. Upon information and belief, the health insurance Defendant provided otherwise covered medically necessary exogenous hormone treatments, routine blood tests needed to monitor blood levels as the result of such treatment, and medically necessary reconstruction surgeries including surgeries performed on the genitals of nontransgender male and nontransgender female enrollees.
110. As a result of the exclusion described above, Ms. Austin was forced to pay additional out-of-pocket costs for her hormone therapy and blood level tests.
111. Although her employer told her that she was required to obtain “the surgery,” implying genital reconstruction surgery, in order to have her name changed on corporate records and use a gender-appropriate bathroom, her employer made it impossible to receive coverage for this medically necessary procedure and she was unable to obtain it during her tenure at Deluxe.
16

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 17 of 41 112. Upon information and belief, if Ms. Austin were a nontransgender woman, she could have received full coverage for her hormone treatment and blood level tests under Defendant’s health insurance plan. 113. Upon information and belief, if Ms. Austin were a nontransgender woman, the health insurance plan described above would have covered medically necessary genital reconstruction surgery.
Employee Handbook and Severance Agreement 114. When Ms. Austin started work at Deluxe on October 8, 2007 she was
presented with an Employee Handbook. 115. The Employee Handbook contained a section titled “Severance Support
Plan” and another titled “Benefit Continuation.” 116. According to representations made therein, an employee of Ms. Austin’s
“job level” was entitled to “one week of Base Pay for each full year of service” and due a minimum of “4 weeks of Base Pay.”
117. According to the terms therein, an employee of Ms. Austin’s “job level” “will be paid weekly or semi-monthly (twice per month) according to the eligible employee’s current pay schedule” and to “18 months COBRA at employee rates, remaining at full COBRA rates.”
118. The pertinent sections of the Employee Handbook did not establish a limitation or requirement regarding the signing of any release to receive any of the benefits described therein.
17

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 18 of 41 119. Defendant periodically reissued the Employee Handbook to employees at the Phoenix, Arizona location. However, upon information and belief, no version of the reissued Employee Handbook materially altered the terms and conditions placed on the benefits set forth in the “Severance Support Plan” or “Benefit Continuation” sections of the Handbook. 120. On or about June 1, 2011 Defendant reissued the Employee Handbook. As with previous versions of the Handbook, an employee of Ms. Austin’s “job level” was entitled to “one week of Base Pay for each full year of service” and due a minimum of “4 weeks of Base Pay.” According to the terms therein, an employee of Austin’s “job level” “will be paid weekly or semi-monthly (twice per month) according to the eligible employee’s current pay schedule” and to “18 months COBRA at employee rates, remaining at full COBRA rates.” 121. Sometime in May 2011, Defendant disseminated an Employee Communication Handout (“Handout”) with information to employees being laid-off. 122. The Handout specified that “cash severance payments” would be contingent on a signed release. 123. However, the Handout made no representations as to other programs and benefits, including Defendant’s established policy of offering to cover three months of COBRA benefits at the employee rate. 124. Ms. Austin and other employees were told orally that COBRA would be "automatically extended" for 30 days.
18

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 19 of 41 125. The Employee Communication Handout requested that employees sign the enclosed paperwork, including a Severance Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “Severance Agreement”), within 45 days. 126. The Severance Agreement contained language that purported to limit or substantially impair employee’s rights to pursue administrative and/or judicial relief for discrimination. 127. For example, the Severance Agreement obligated signers to “waive all my claims against Deluxe, except discrimination claims filed with a federal agency,” which would have precluded this litigation and would have proscribed Ms. Austin’s statutory right to intervene. 128. The Severance Agreement also obligated signers to “not authorize any other party, governmental or otherwise, to seek individual remedies based on My Claims and I waive any rights to damages or other remedies based on My Claims. I agree that Deluxe does not owe Me anything in addition to what I will be receiving.” 129. In exchange for signing the Severance Agreement, signers were promised payment of “severance benefits.” However, the Severance Agreement did not set forth the amount or terms of those benefits. The only language touching on severance benefits stated that, “any severance payments may be discontinued if I breach the terms of this Release . . . if any of my actions prior to or after my release date violate Company policy or reflect negatively on the Company.” 130. The Severance Agreement did not purport to offer additional consideration, beyond that contemplated in the Employee Handbook, in exchange for receipt of severance benefits.
19

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 20 of 41 131. On July 28, 2011, Defendant was advised that Ms. Austin had filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. 132. On the morning of July 29, 2011— Ms. Austin’s last day of employment at Deluxe— Ms. Hernandez demanded that Ms. Austin leave an employee-appreciation farewell breakfast and come to her office. 133. At the meeting with Ms. Hernandez, Ms. Hernandez presented Ms. Austin with the Severance Agreement and demanded that Austin sign the release. 134. Ms. Hernandez told Ms. Austin that if she did not immediately sign the release, that Austin would not receive severance benefits. 135. Ms. Hernandez also told Ms. Austin that, if she did not immediately sign the release, Ms. Austin would be “immediately terminated” and that such termination would render Ms. Austin “ineligible” for benefits. 136. Upon being presented with the severance agreement, Ms. Austin advised Hernandez that she was represented by counsel and asked Ms. Hernandez to speak to her attorney. 137. Ms. Hernandez declined to do so. 138. Ms. Austin then informed Ms. Hernandez that she would not sign the Severance Agreement. 139. Ms. Hernandez then dismissed Austin from her office. 140. On or about August 1, 2011 Ms. Austin’s attorney wrote to Ms. Hernandez notifying her of dual filing of Ms. Austin’s charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as well as the fact that Ms. Austin had yet to receive severance benefits due to her.
20

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 21 of 41 141. Ms. Hernandez did not return counsel’s letter or otherwise respond. 142. Ms. Austin was unable to extend her health insurance benefits at the employee subsidized rate for three months, as promised in the Employee Handbook. 143. Ms. Austin also never received payment for four weeks of base pay, as promised in the Employee Handbook.

COUNT 1 Title VII Disparate Treatment Discrimination Because of Sex

144.

Plaintiff/Intervenor repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1–143 as if fully set forth herein.

145.

Defendants engaged in adverse employment actions against Ms. Austin

because of her sex and sex stereotyping, including gender, gender expression, and gender

identity.

146.

Defendant subjected Ms. Austin to disparate terms and conditions because

of sex, as set forth in detail above, including but not limited to rest room restrictions,

insurance policy exclusions and refusal to make changes to name and gender in

Defendant’s records and computer systems.

147. Defendant’s actions occurred because plaintiff was female, yet Defendant

regarded her as male.

148. For example, despite uncontroverted evidence that Ms. Austin’s gender

identity was female and that Ms. Austin had begun living and working full-time as

female as part of her gender transition, Defendant refused to allow Ms. Austin to use the

women’s restroom and required her to use the men’s multi-stall restroom instead.

21

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 22 of 41

149.

The effect of the practices complained of in the foregoing paragraphs has

been to discriminate against Ms. Austin with respect to the terms and conditions of her

employment and/or to limit, segregate, and classify Ms. Austin in a way that deprives or

tends to deprive her of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect

her status as an employee because of sex.

150.

The restroom restrictions subjected certain persons, based on their gender

identity, including Ms. Austin, to disadvantageous terms based on sex, as detailed herein,

and constituted unlawful sex discrimination in violation of Title VII.

151.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful sex

discrimination, Ms. Austin incurred damages, including but not limited to, humiliation,

loss of enjoyment, damage to her professional reputation, and other pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses.

COUNT 2 Title VII Disparate Impact Discrimination Because of Sex 152. Plaintiff/Intervenor repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1–143 as if fully set forth herein. 153. Defendant maintained policies and practices that had a disparate impact on persons based on sex and sex stereotyping, gender, gender expression, and/or gender identity, and these policies had a disparate impact on Ms. Austin, as set forth in detail above, including but not limited to restroom policies, insurance policies and policies regarding changes to name and gender in Defendant’s records and computer systems. 154. For example, with regard to restrooms:
22

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 23 of 41 a. Deluxe maintained a policy that only allowed persons with genitals that stereotypically matched their gender identity to use sex-segregated multistall restrooms that comport with their gender identity. b. In order to carry out this policy, Deluxe required some but not all employees to produce evidence of their genital configuration. c. While nontransgender persons were permitted to access the sex-segregated facility which matched the gender on their government issued ID, transgender persons were required to produce a medical attestation asserting that the transgender person’s genitals stereotypically matched their gender identity. d. This policy had a disparate impact on transgender persons because they were forced to supply direct evidence of their genital configuration whereas nontransgender persons need only supply proxy evidence such as a government issued ID. e. Deluxe maintained a policy that only allowed persons whom were perceived to have genitals that matched their gender identity to use sexsegregated multi-stall restrooms that comport with their gender identity. f. In order to carry out this policy, Deluxe required all employees to produce proxy evidence of their genital configuration such as government issued ID with a gender marker. g. However, under this policy transgender persons were required to produce government issued ID as well as a medical attestation asserting that the transgender person’s genitals stereotypically matched their gender identity.
23

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 24 of 41 h. This policy had a disparate impact on transgender persons because they were forced to supply direct evidence of their genital configuration whereas nontransgender persons need only supply proxy evidence such as a government issued ID. i. Deluxe maintained a policy that only allowed persons who had genitals which actually matched their gender identity access to sex-segregated multi-stall restrooms that comport with their gender identity. j. This policy had a disparate impact on transgender persons because transgender persons are more likely than other groups to have a medical condition resulting in gender identity-genital incongruity and thus are more likely than other groups to be excluded from restrooms which comport with their gender identity. k. Deluxe maintained a policy wherein corporate headquarters delegated duties to local managers to make case-by-case decisions regarding restroom access for transgender employees. l. This policy had a disparate impact upon transgender persons because the degree of discretion delegated to local managers left the implicit bias of local managers unchecked. m. As a result, the delegation permitted local managers to craft policies that unfairly targeted transgender employees for exclusion from sex-segregated restrooms.
24

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 25 of 41

155. The restroom policy had a disparate impact on certain female persons based on their sex, sex stereotyping, gender, gender identity, and/or gender expression, including Ms. Austin.

156.

The creation and maintenance of the restroom policy and practice, and the

other policies and practices with regard to insurance and changes of name and gender on

corporate records and computer systems, were adverse employment actions.

157. Defendant’s actions occurred because plaintiff was female, yet Defendant

regarded her as male.

158. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful sex

discrimination, Ms. Austin incurred damages, including but not limited to, humiliation,

loss of enjoyment, damage to her professional reputation, and other pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses.

COUNT 3 Title VII Hostile Work Environment Based on Sex

159.

Plaintiff/Intervenor repeats and realleges each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1–143 as if fully set forth herein.

160.

After Ms. Austin disclosed her intent to transition to female on or around

October or early November 2010, Defendant’s managers and employees instituted a

campaign of harassment and bullying on the basis of sex and sex stereotyping, including

gender, gender expression, and gender identity, and adopted an attitude of adversarial and

hostile demeanor. This harassment continued through Ms. Austin’s separation from

Defendant in late July 2011.

25

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 26 of 41

161.

Ms. Austin was targeted for harassment by managers and employees

because of her sex, including gender, gender expression, and gender identity.

162.

The discriminatory acts involved the same type of employment actions,

occurred relatively frequently, were perpetuated and/or directed by the same core group

of managers and employees, were egregious, numerous and concentrated, and formed

part of the same hostile work environment, as detailed herein.

163.

The work environment was permeated with discriminatory intimidation,

ridicule, and insult, sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of Ms. Austin’s

employment and to create an abusive working environment, as detailed herein.

164. Defendant’s agents and Ms. Austin’s coworkers, made statements that

demeaned Ms. Austin’s sex, gender, gender identity and expression, as detailed herein. 165. For example, Ms. Austin was referred to by her former name and with male
pronouns, referred as a “boy,” called her “Tarzan,” called “Cheetah,” (a reference to a chimpanzee in the Tarzan television series) and teased about her hairiness, appearance,

and clothes.

166. Ms. Austin also endured repeated invasive personal questions about the

configuration of her genitals from management.

167.

Defendants’ managers denied the legitimacy of Ms. Austin’s feminine

gender expression and female gender identity, and encouraged and/or failed to stop others

under their direction to do the same.

168. This conduct includes, but is not limited to: Defendant’s refusal to permit

Ms. Austin to use a restroom which comports with her gender identity; Defendant’s

agents repeatedly asking Ms. Austin invasive, personal questions about her genital

26

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 27 of 41

configuration and repeated insistence that Deluxe was entitled to inquire as to the state of Ms. Austin’s genitals; Deluxe’s declination to timely amend Ms. Austin’s employment and other records to reflect her name and gender change; Defendant’s agents

misgendering Ms. Austin privately and in front of Ms. Austin’s coworkers; and Defendant’s maintaining a health benefits plan with a discriminatory exclusion on transition care.
169. Ms. Ridley, Ms. Chavez, and Ms. Hernandez had the power to impose or

participate in the discipline of Ms. Austin.

170.

Ms. Ridley, Ms. Chavez, and Ms. Hernandez were acting as the

Defendant’s agent in taking the actions regarding Ms. Austin, as detailed herein.

171. Ms. Ridley, Ms. Chavez, and Ms. Hernandez were acting in the scope of their employment in taking the actions regarding Ms. Austin, as detailed herein.
172. Defendant’s managers and/or agents, including upon information and belief Ms. Ridley, Ms. Chavez, and Ms. Hernandez, repeatedly attempted to craft and enforce

formal and informal policies with the intended effect of forcing Ms. Austin to suppress

her feminine gender expression and female gender identity. 173. This conduct includes, but is not limited to: Defendant’s agents crafting an
informal policy which banned Ms. Austin from using a women’s restroom in a common area not controlled by Deluxe; Defendant’s agents enforcing a formal Deluxe policy

which required transgender workers to demonstrate they had undergone genital

reconstruction surgery in order to use a restroom which comports with their gender

identity; and Defendant’s agents formulating policies that did not result in the changing

27

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 28 of 41

of Ms. Austin’s name and gender in Defendant’s records and computer systems, and/or

failure to permit or require such changes to be made

174.

The requirement that Ms. Austin not use female restrooms, and use only a

specific multi-stall men’s restroom exposed her to disadvantageous terms, as detailed

herein.

175.

The Defendant provided and maintained a health insurance plan for its

employees, including Ms. Austin, that had an explicit exclusion for transgender health

care, as detailed herein.

176. The health insurance policy explicitly excluded all transition-related care

for transgender persons.

177. As a result of this exclusion, the plan denied care to transgender persons, solely on the basis of sex and regardless of medical necessity.
178. Under the terms of this discriminatory exclusion, Ms. Austin was precluded from coverage for medically necessary care, she was forced to bear out-of-pocket costs,

and was subjected to humiliation by being foreclosed coverage for medically necessary

care accessible to non-transgender enrollees, which contributed to the hostile work environment.
179. This hostile environment unreasonably interfered with Ms. Austin’s ability to perform her job duties, by the disruption of her relationship to Defendant and its

management, by the unreasonable criticism and scrutiny of Ms. Austin’s gender which

flowed directly from Defendant’s policies that treated Ms. Austin differently than other

female employees, by Ms. Austin’s inability to use restrooms appropriate to her gender,

by Ms. Austin’s need to spend many hours on otherwise unnecessary grievance processes

28

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 29 of 41 and other means of seeking relief, by the need to secure funds to cover out-of-pocket medical expenses for medically necessary care which should have been covered by her health plan, by the need to delay and/or forego medically necessary care because she could not afford to pay for this care out-of-pocket, and by other factors.
180. The effects of the hostile environment alleged herein were felt by Ms. Austin daily. For instance, several times a day every work-day Ms. Austin felt humiliation and despair as a result of being unable to use restrooms appropriate to her gender while at work.
181. Additionally, at least once a day, when Ms. Austin took her prescribed exogenous hormone pill, Austin was reminded that the insurance exclusion Defendant maintained debased her medically necessary treatment.
182. Many events contributing to this hostile work environment occurred within the 300 day period prior to Ms. Austin’s first charge dated June 29, 2011, including but not limited to the daily humiliation caused by the restroom restrictions and misgendering, the maintenance of the discriminatory insurance policy exclusion, dress restrictions, and other disadvantageous terms, as detailed herein.
183. Ms. Austin perceived the working environment to be abusive or hostile. 184. A reasonable person in Ms. Austin’s circumstances would consider the working environment to be abusive or hostile. 185. The actions of Defendant’s agents and managers in creating the hostile work environment resulted in tangible job consequences to Ms. Austin, including but not limited to her restriction in regard to using restrooms which comport with her gender and her inability to obtain health care coverage for medically necessary treatments.
29

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 30 of 41 186. Defendant’s actions occurred because plaintiff was female, yet Defendant regarded her as male. 187. The Defendant was on notice of the hostile work environment, including actual notice by means of complaints made by Ms. Austin to Defendant as detailed herein, and vicariously and constructively by means of the acts perpetrated by Austin’s direct supervisors and managers, as detailed herein. 188. The Defendant knew or should have known of the hostile work environment because of Ms. Austin’s complaints and the acts perpetrated by Austin’s managers and supervisors, as detailed herein. 189. The Defendant made no efforts to stop the hostile environment detailed herein. 190. In the alternative, the Defendant did not undertake prompt and reasonable efforts to sufficient to stop the hostile environment detailed herein. 191. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful discrimination, Ms. Austin incurred damages including, but not limited to humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, damage to her professional reputation, and pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses.
COUNT 4 Title VII Retaliation 192. Plaintiff/Intervenor repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1–143 as if fully set forth herein. 193. Upon starting work with Defendant in 2008, Ms. Austin was presented with Defendant’s Employee Handbook. The Employee Handbook contained express promises
30

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 31 of 41 of severance benefits, including at least three months of health insurance under a COBRA plan at the employee rate and, at minimum, four weeks of gross pay.
194. Ms. Austin complained of sex discrimination to her manager, Rebecca Chavez, on July 7, 2011, and Defendant, including Defendant’s manager Hernandez, were notified of Ms. Austin’s complaint to the EEOC on July 28, 2011.
195. On or about July 29, 2011, Defendant’s manager Hernandez presented Ms. Austin with the Severance Agreement and demanded that Ms. Austin sign it. The Severance Agreement conditioned receipt of post-termination benefits on agreement to the releases therein.
196. The refusal to award Ms. Austin severance benefits under the terms and conditions delineated in the Employee Handbook on and after July 29, 2011 was in retaliation for Ms. Austin’s complaint of July 7, 2011 and/or Ms. Austin’s previous complaints of discrimination which she reasonably believed were in violation Title VII.
197. The refusal to award Ms. Austin severance benefits under the terms and conditions delineated in the Employee Handbook on and after July 29, 2011 was in retaliation for Ms. Austin’s participation in a Title VII proceeding by filing a complaint with the EEOC on July 28, 2011.
198. But for Defendant’s unlawful retaliation, Ms. Austin would have been awarded her contractually mandated severance benefits, and thereby incurred damages including, but not limited to, lost income, loss of enjoyment of life, damage to her professional reputation, and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses.
31

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 32 of 41 COUNT 5
Americans with Disabilities Act Disparate Treatment Discrimination Because of Disability
199. Plaintiff/Intervenor repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1–143 as if fully set forth herein.
200. Defendant perceived that Ms. Austin was an individual with a disability, based on Ms. Austin’s statements to Defendants as set forth above in detail, and based on the questions asked of Ms. Austin by Defendants’ agents regarding surgery.
201. Ms. Austin was qualified to perform her job. 202. Plaintiff was subjected to discrimination, including adverse and/or tangible employment actions such as being denied access to a gender appropriate restroom facility, based on her perceived disability. 203. For example, after Defendant learned of Ms. Austin’s gender identity disorder diagnosis, Ms. Austin was advised that in order for her to use the women’s restroom at work she would have to provide Defendant with a medical attestation asserting that her genitals matched her gender identity. 204. Plaintiff was treated differently because of her perceived disability than less- or non-disabled individuals. For example, Defendant did not require employees without gender identity disorder to provide Defendant with a medical attestation asserting their genitals matched their gender identity in order to use a restroom that comported with their gender identity. 205. The effect of the discrimination complained of above has been to deprive Ms. Austin of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status
32

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 33 of 41 as an employee because of her disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended.
206. By creating, condoning, and perpetuating discrimination because of Ms. Austin’s disability Defendant has acted intentionally, maliciously, and/or recklessly.
207. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful disability discrimination, Ms. Austin incurred damages, including but not limited to, humiliation, loss of enjoyment, damage to her professional reputation, and other pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses.
COUNT 6 Americans with Disabilities Act Disparate Impact Discrimination Because of Disability 208. Plaintiff/Intervenor repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1–143 as if fully set forth herein. 209. Defendant perceived that Ms. Austin was an individual with a disability, based on Ms. Austin’s statements to Defendants as set forth above in detail, and based on the questions asked of Ms. Austin by Defendants’ agents regarding surgery. 210. Ms. Austin was qualified to perform her job. 211. Plaintiff was subjected to discrimination, including adverse employment actions such as being denied access to a gender appropriate restroom facility, based on her perceived disability. 212. Defendant maintained policies and practices that had a disparate impact on persons based on actual disability and/or perceived disability, and these policies had a disparate impact on Ms. Austin.
33

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 34 of 41 a. Deluxe maintained a policy that only allowed persons with genitals that stereotypically matched their gender identity to use sex-segregated multistall restrooms that comport with their gender identity. b. In order to carry out this policy, Deluxe required some but not all employees to produce evidence of their genital configuration. c. While persons without gender identity disorder were permitted to access the sex-segregated facility which matched the gender on their government issued ID, persons with gender identity disorder were required to produce a medical attestation asserting that the transgender person’s genitals stereotypically matched their gender identity. d. This policy had a disparate impact on persons with gender identity disorder because they were forced to supply direct evidence of their genital configuration whereas persons without gender identity disorder need only supply proxy evidence such as a government issued ID. e. Deluxe maintained a policy that only allowed persons whom were perceived to have genitals that matched their gender identity to use sexsegregated multi-stall restrooms that comport with their gender identity. f. In order to carry out this policy, Deluxe required all employees to produce proxy evidence of their genital configuration such as government issued ID with a gender marker. g. However, under this policy persons with gender identity disorder were required to produce government issued ID as well as a medical attestation
34

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 35 of 41 asserting that the person’s genitals stereotypically matched their gender identity.
h. This policy had a disparate impact on persons with gender identity disorder because they were forced to supply direct evidence of their genital configuration whereas persons without gender identity disorder need only supply proxy evidence such as a government issued ID.
i. Deluxe maintained a policy that only allowed persons who had genitals which actually matched their gender identity access to sex-segregated multi-stall restrooms that comport with their gender identity.
j. This policy had a disparate impact on persons with gender identity disorder because such persons are more likely than other groups to have a medical condition resulting in gender identity-genital incongruity and thus are more likely than other groups to be excluded from restrooms which comport with their gender identity.
k. Deluxe maintained a policy wherein corporate headquarters delegated duties to local managers to make case-by-case decisions regarding restroom access for employees with gender identity disorder.
l. This policy had a disparate impact upon persons with gender identity disorder because the degree of discretion delegated to local managers left the implicit bias of local managers unchecked.
m. As a result, the delegation permitted local managers to craft policies that unfairly targeted employees with gender identity disorder for exclusion from sex-segregated restrooms which matched their gender identity.
35

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 36 of 41 213. For example, after Defendant learned of Ms. Austin’s gender identity disorder diagnosis, Austin was advised that in order for her to use the women’s restroom at work she would have to provide Defendant with a medical attestation asserting that her genitals matched her gender identity. 214. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful disability discrimination, Ms. Austin incurred damages, including but not limited to, humiliation, loss of enjoyment, damage to her professional reputation, and other pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses.
COUNT 7 Americans with Disabilities Act Wrongful Inquiries as to Disability 215. Plaintiff/Intervenor repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1–143 as if fully set forth herein. 216. Ms. Austin was qualified to perform her job. 217. As alleged herein, Defendants agents repeatedly asked Ms. Austin whether she had undergone genital reconstruction surgery and requested Austin to present proof of having undergone such surgery. 218. This post-employment medical inquiry was unlawful because it was not job-related or consistent with business necessity. 219. Defendant’s agents’ questions was a medical inquiry that attempted to establish whether Ms. Austin had phenotypically nontransgender male or female genitalia.
36

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 37 of 41 220. The sole reason why Defendant’s agents asked Ms. Austin about her genital configuration was to assess Ms. Austin’s perceived disability or level or perceived disability, specifically whether Ms. Austin was a female with phenotypically nontransgender female genitals. 221. Defendants routinely accommodated nontransgender persons with phenotypically male and female genitalia by offering them access to sex separated spaces, including but not limited to sex segregated multi-stall restrooms. 222. Ms. Austin was subjected to discrimination, including tangible employment actions, based on the medical inquiry, as detailed herein. 223. The effect of the discrimination complained of above has been to deprive Ms. Austin of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee because of her disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 2008, as amended. 224. By creating, condoning, and perpetuating discrimination because of prohibited medical inquiry, Defendant has acted intentionally, maliciously, and/or recklessly. 225. As a direct and proximate result of the acts complained of herein, Ms. Austin has suffered and will continue to suffer humiliation, loss of reputation, loss of enjoyment of life, and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses. 226. By reason of the discrimination suffered by Ms. Austin, she is entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended.
37

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 38 of 41 COUNT 8
Americans with Disabilities Act Retaliation
227. Plaintiff/Intervenor repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1–143 as if fully set forth herein.
228. Ms. Austin was qualified to perform her job. 229. Upon starting work with Defendant in 2007, Austin was presented with Defendant’s Employee Handbook. The Employee Handbook contained express promises of severance benefits, including at least three months of health insurance under a COBRA plan at the employee rate and, at minimum, four weeks of gross pay. 230. Ms. Austin complained of disability discrimination to her manager, Rebecca Chavez, on July 7, 2011, and Defendant, including Defendant’s manager Hernandez, was notified of Ms. Austin’s complaint to the EEOC on July 28, 2011. 231. On or about July 29, 2011, Defendant’s manager Hernandez presented Ms. Austin with the Severance Agreement and demanded that Austin sign it. The Severance Agreement conditioned receipt of post-termination benefits on agreement to the releases therein. 232. The refusal to award Ms. Austin severance benefits under the terms and conditions delineated in the Employee Handbook on and after July 29, 2011 was in retaliation for Ms. Austin’s complaint of July 7, 2011 and/or Austin’s previous complaints of discrimination that she reasonably believed was in violation of the ADA. 233. The refusal to award Ms. Austin severance benefits under the terms and conditions delineated in the Employee Handbook on and after July 29, 2011 was in
38

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 39 of 41 retaliation for Ms. Austin’s participation in an ADA proceeding by filing a complaint with the EEOC on July 28, 2011.
234. But for Defendant’s unlawful retaliation, Ms. Austin would have been awarded her contractually mandated severance benefits, and thereby incurred damages including, but not limited to, lost income, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, damage to her professional reputation, and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff/Intervenor Ms. Britney Austin respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in the unlawful conduct of discriminating against employees who have undergone, or are undergoing, a gender transition. B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for employees who have undergone, or are undergoing, a gender transition and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of Defendant’s unlawful employment practices. D. Order Defendant to make Ms. Austin whole by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in the foregoing paragraphs, including emotional pain, suffering,
39

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 40 of 41

inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant to pay Ms. Austin punitive damages for its malicious or reckless conduct described in the foregoing paragraphs, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Award such additional relief as justice may require, together with the Ms.

Austin’s costs, disbursements, and attorney’s fees in this action.

Dated: October 22, 2015

/s/ Jill R. Gaulding_________________ Jill R. Gaulding (MN Bar No. 388751) Gender Justice 550 Rice Street St. Paul, MN 55103 651-789-2090 Fax: 651-789-2093 Jill.gaulding@genderjustice.us

/s/ Lisa C. Stratton__________________ Lisa C. Stratton (MN Bar No. 236858) Gender Justice 550 Rice Street St. Paul, MN 55103 651-789-2090 Fax: 651-789-2093 Lisa.stratton@genderjustice.us

/s/ Jillian T. Weiss____________________ Jillian T. Weiss (NY Bar No. 2125011) Pending Admission Pro Hac Vice Law Office of Jillian T. Weiss, P.C. P.O. Box 642 Tuxedo Park, NY 10987 845-709-3237 Fax: 845-915-3283 jtweiss@jtweisslaw.com

40

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 26 Filed 10/22/15 Page 41 of 41 /s/ Ezra Young_____________________ Ezra Young (NY Bar No. 5283114) Pending Admission Pro Hac Vice Law Office of Jillian T. Weiss, P.C. P.O. Box 642 Tuxedo Park, NY 10987 949-291-3185 Fax: 917-398-1849 eyoung@jtweisslaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF/INTERVENOR
41

 
 CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 37 Filed 01/20/16 Page 1 of 24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, and, BRITNEY AUSTIN,
Plaintiff/Intervenor, v. DELUXE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant.

Case No. 0:15-cv-2646 (ADM/SER) CONSENT DECREE

I. RECITALS 1. This matter was instituted by Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“Commission” or “EEOC”), an agency of the United States government, alleging that Defendant Deluxe Financial Services, Inc. (“Deluxe”) violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by subjecting Plaintiff/Intervenor Britney Austin (“Ms. Austin”) to a hostile work environment and disparate treatment because of her sex, including because Ms. Austin is a woman who is transgender; because of Ms. Austin’s transition from male to female during her employment with Deluxe; because Ms. Austin did not conform to Defendant’s sex or gender-based preferences, expectations, or stereotypes of women; and/or because of Defendant’s sex or gender-based expectations
1

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 37 Filed 01/20/16 Page 2 of 24
or stereotypes related to individuals assigned the male sex at birth. In addition, Ms. Britney Austin alleges disparate treatment, disparate impact, and hostile work environment based on sex under Title VII, unlawful retaliation under Title VII, and disparate treatment, impact, unlawful medical inquiries, and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
2. Defendant Deluxe denies that it violated Title VII or the ADA and further denies that it treated Ms. Austin unlawfully. Deluxe states it is fully committed to fostering an inclusive, respectful workplace.
3. The Parties to this Decree are the Plaintiff EEOC, Plaintiff/Intervenor Britney Austin, and the Defendant Deluxe Financial Services, Inc. (collectively referred to as the “Parties”).
4. The Parties, desiring to settle this action by an appropriate Consent Decree (“Decree”), agree to the jurisdiction of this Court over the Parties and the subject matter of this action, and agree to the power of this Court to enter a Consent Decree enforceable against Defendant.
5. As to the issues resolved, this Decree is final and binding upon the Parties and their successors and assigns.
6. In the interest of resolving this matter, to avoid further cost of litigation, and as a result of having engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations, the Parties have agreed that this action should be resolved by entry of this Decree. For the purpose of amicably resolving disputed claims, the Parties jointly request this Court to adjudge as follows:
2

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 37 Filed 01/20/16 Page 3 of 24
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: II. JURISDICTION
7. The Parties stipulate to the jurisdiction of the Court over the Parties and subject matter of this action and have waived the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law.
III. TERM AND SCOPE 8. Term: The duration of this Decree shall be three years from the date of signing by the Court. 9. Scope: The terms of this Decree shall apply to all of Defendant’s facilities and operations. The terms of the Decree will also apply to any additional facilities which Defendant opens during the three year term of the Decree.
IV. ISSUES RESOLVED 10. This Decree resolves the claims alleged in the above-captioned lawsuit, and constitutes a complete resolution of all of the EEOC’s and Ms. Austin’s claims of unlawful employment practices under Title VII and the ADA filed in this action, and in the underlying Charge of Discrimination No. Charge No. 540-2011-02711, filed by Ms. Austin. 11. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to preclude EEOC from bringing suit to enforce this Decree. Neither does this Decree preclude EEOC from filing lawsuits based on charges not resolved in this Decree. Any individual charges of discrimination filed with EEOC after the effective date of this Decree will be processed by EEOC in accordance with its standard procedures.
3

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 37 Filed 01/20/16 Page 4 of 24
12. Defendant and its officers, agents, employees, successors, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them will not interfere with the relief herein ordered, but shall cooperate in the implementation of this Decree.
V. MONETARY RELIEF 13. Defendants will not condition the receipt of individual relief upon Ms. Austin’s agreement to: (a) maintain as confidential the terms of this Decree or the facts of the case; (b) waive her statutory right to file a charge with any federal or state antidiscrimination agency; or (c) promise not to reapply for a position at any of Defendant’s facilities. 14. Within five (5) calendar days following the Court’s approval of this Decree, Deluxe shall pay a total of One Hundred Fifteen Thousand dollars ($115,000.00) in the form of three checks as follows:
a. By check made payable to “Britney Austin” in the amount of Two thousand two hundred fifty-four and 40/100 dollars ($2,254.40) representing backpay, including the value of lost benefits of employment and interest, less only the employee’s share of required federal, state and local tax withholdings. Defendant shall timely issue an I.R.S. Form W-2 for Britney Austin for this amount; and
b. By check made payable to “Britney Austin” in the amount of Seventy-two thousand seven hundred eighty-three and 49/100 dollars ($72,783.49) representing other damages, including but not limited to, damages for compensatory damages. Defendant shall designate the compensatory
4

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 37 Filed 01/20/16 Page 5 of 24
damage payment as “other income” (Box 3) on an I.R.S. Form 1099MISC. c. By check made payable to the “Law Offices of Jillian T. Weiss, P.C.,” in the amount of Thirty-nine thousand nine hundred sixty-two and 11/100 dollars ($39,962.11), representing payment for attorneys’ fees and expenses. Deluxe shall issue an IRS Form 1099-Misc. (Box 3) to Austin in connection with this payment, and an IRS Form 1099-Misc. (Box 14) to the Law Offices of Jillian T. Weiss, P.C., in connection with this payment. 15. The payment(s) set forth in Paragraph 14 above, shall be delivered to: Britney Austin c/o Jillian T. Weiss, Esq., Law Office of Jillian T. Weiss, P.C., P.O. Box 642, Tuxedo Park, New York 10987. 16. Copies of the payment(s) set forth in Paragraphs 14 and 15 above and related documents (including copies of I.R.S. Form W-2 and I.R.S. Form 1099) shall be sent contemporaneously to Iris Halpern, Senior Trial Attorney, EEOC, Denver Field Office, 303 E. 17th Avenue, Suite 410, Denver, CO, 80203. 17. If Deluxe fails to timely meet its payment obligations as described in Paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 above, then Deluxe shall pay interest on the defaulted payments at a rate calculated pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §6621(b) until effective payments are mailed, and bear any additional costs incurred by Austin and/or the EEOC caused by the noncompliance or delay. And, in the event Deluxe fails to meet its payment obligations
5

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 37 Filed 01/20/16 Page 6 of 24
under Paragraph 14 above, then Deluxe agrees that Judgment may be entered in favor of Ms. Austin in the amount of $115,000.00.
VI. OTHER INDIVIDUAL RELIEF 18. Expungement of Personnel Files. Defendant shall expunge from Ms. Austin’s personnel file (a) any poor evaluations, discipline, or discharge documents after September 1, 2010 and destroy these; (b) any and all references to any charge of discrimination filed against Defendant; (c) any and all references to the allegations of discrimination filed against Defendant that formed the basis of this action; and (d) any and all references to Ms. Austin’s participation in this action. 19. Reference: Defendant agrees that whenever a prospective employer requests a reference relating to Britney Austin, Defendant shall provide the dates of Ms. Austin’s employment. No mention of the charge of discrimination this lawsuit, or Ms. Austin’s prior legal name shall be made as part of any reference. In addition, Deluxe will provide a neutral reference in the form attached as Exhibit A, which will make clear that Ms. Austin is eligible for rehire. 20. Assure Personnel Records Are Correct. Defendant shall ensure that all of Defendant’s records reflect that Britney Austin was laid-off as part of an office-wide reduction in force when the Phoenix, Arizona office ceased operations. 21. Letter of Apology. Within ten (10) business days after entry of this Decree, Defendant shall provide a letter of apology to Britney Austin on company letterhead in the form attached as Exhibit B.
6

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 37 Filed 01/20/16 Page 7 of 24

A. Injunctive Relief

VII. EQUITABLE RELIEF

22. Defendant, its officers, agents, successors, and other persons in active

concert or participation with it, is permanently enjoined from engaging in any

employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex, including sex-stereotyping,

gender identity, and transgender status.

23. Defendant, its officers, agents, successors, and other persons in active

concert or participation with it, is permanently enjoined from engaging in reprisal or

retaliation of any kind against any person because of such person’s opposition to any

practice made unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, or

the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended. Defendant shall not retaliate against a

person because such person refuses to engage in or participate in discriminatory

practices; brings an internal complaint of discrimination with the Defendant; files or

causes to be filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission or any other agency

charged with the investigation of employment discrimination complaints, or whose

statements serve as the basis of a charge; or because such person testifies or participates

in the investigation or prosecution of an alleged violation of Title VII and ADA.

24. Defendant, its officers, agents, successors, and other persons in active

concert or participation with it, is permanently enjoined from engaging in any

employment practice which discriminates under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

7

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 37 Filed 01/20/16 Page 8 of 24
B. EEO Policy and Practice Review 25. Within sixty (60) days of the entry of this Decree, Defendant shall, in
consultation with an outside consultant experienced in the area of employment discrimination law (“Consultant”), review its existing EEO policies and practices to conform to the law and revise, if necessary. The written EEO policies must include at a minimum:
a. A strong and clear commitment to preventing unlawful sex discrimination, including, but not limited to, prohibiting discrimination based on disability (including gender dysphoria), sex-stereotyping, gender identity, and transgender status;
b. A strong and clear commitment to preventing unlawful harassment including, but not limited to, harassment based on sex, sex-stereotyping, gender identity, and transgender status (including the intentional misgendering of transgender employees);
c. A strong and clear commitment to preventing retaliation; d. A statement that discrimination based on sex, disability, and retaliation is
prohibited and will not be tolerated; e. An explanation that prohibited behavior will not be tolerated from its
employees, customers, agents, contractors, sub-contractors, clients and any other persons present at any of the Deluxe’s facilities and locations; f. A clear and strong encouragement of persons who believe they have been discriminated or retaliated against to report such concerns;
8

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 37 Filed 01/20/16 Page 9 of 24
g. An explanation that employee concerns about discrimination may be raised with any manager, any HR representative, any Deluxe executive or through an employee hotline (including phone number 1-800-231-1751);
h. An explanation that employees will not be required to complain of discrimination directly to the individual that is engaged in the discriminatory behavior;
i. A clear explanation of the steps an employee must take to report discrimination or retaliation, which must include the options of either an oral or written complaint;
j. An assurance that Defendant will investigate allegations of any activity that might be construed as unlawful discrimination and that such investigation will be prompt, fair, and reasonable, and conducted by a neutral investigator specifically trained in receiving, processing, and investigating allegations of discrimination;
k. An assurance that appropriate corrective action will be taken by Defendant to eradicate any unlawful conduct within its workforce;
l. A description of the consequences, up to and including termination, that will be imposed upon violators of Defendant’s anti-discrimination policies;
m. An assurance of non-retaliation for persons who report unlawful discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation, and for witnesses who
9

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 37 Filed 01/20/16 Page 10 of 24
provide testimony or assistance in the investigation(s) of such unlawful discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation. n. A requirement that supervisors and managers report any complaints about harassment, discrimination or retaliation to Deluxe Employee Relations. 26. Defendant will ensure not to discriminate based on sex and/or disability against anyone for requesting changes to their biographical information (including name and sex-designation) in Defendant’s internal records, computers or communication systems and will not require medical documentation or medical records, or conduct any other inquiry into the requesting individual’s medical history, in relation to any such requests. . 27. Defendant will ensure that employee requests to change sex-designation or name information in Defendant’s internal records, computer and communication systems are fully and promptly complied with. 28. Defendant and/or its related companies currently have transgender employees who are allowed use of restrooms commensurate with their gender identity and who, to the best of Defendant’s knowledge, do not claim to have been treated unlawfully. Defendant will ensure that access for these employees to restrooms commensurate with their gender identity will remain unhindered. 29. Within sixty (60) days of the entry of this Decree and in consultation with the Consultant, Defendant will review and modify its written guidelines for supervisors and managers to make clear that transgender employees are permitted to use restrooms commensurate with their gender identity. Defendant will prohibit any inquiry into an
10

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 37 Filed 01/20/16 Page 11 of 24
employee’s medical history, including, but not limited to, requests for information about, or requiring medical records or documentation of, sex reassignment surgery or other medical treatment before an employee may use a restroom commensurate with his or her gender identity.
30. As of January 1, 2016, Defendant’s national health benefits plan does not and will not include partial or categorical exclusions for otherwise medically necessary care solely on the basis of sex (including transgender status) and gender dysphoria. For example, if the health benefits plan covers exogenous hormone therapy for nontransgender enrollees who demonstrate medical necessity for treatment, the plan cannot exclude exogenous hormone therapy for transgender enrollees or persons diagnosed with gender dysphoria where medical necessity for treatment is also demonstrated. This plan was available to all Deluxe’s United States-based employees during open enrollment for 2016 and will be available for all open enrollment periods during the term of this Decree. In addition, Defendant will notify its national plan third party administrator contracted to provide benefits to covered beneficiaries of these non-discrimination requirements. Defendant will also take steps to ensure that employees can meaningfully report health benefits related discrimination on the basis of sex (including transgender status) and gender dysphoria directly to Defendant in the same manner other complaints of sex and disability discrimination are reported.
31. Within seventy five (75) days after completion of the policy reviews and changes required under this Decree, the written EEO policies shall be made part of the
11

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 37 Filed 01/20/16 Page 12 of 24
employee handbook and posted on Deluxe’s “Inside Deluxe” intranet. Notice of these changes shall be conspicuously highlighted on the “Inside Deluxe” intranet homepage.
32. Defendants shall review and revise any policies or procedures they have for receiving and responding to complaints of sex or disability discrimination, including complaints about unlawful treatment that raise a concern of discrimination without using the exact phrases disability discrimination or sex discrimination. To the extent that no policies or procedures exist, they must be created. Defendants shall assure that all supervisors, managers, human resources personnel, as well as any persons responsible for receiving and addressing employee complaints, do the following:
a. Document in writing, without bias, any complaint of discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation, even if the complaint is oral or the complainant does not want to provide a written statement, and the complainant does not use these technical terms.
b. Document in writing, without bias, any interview by the person(s) investigating the complaint.
c. Document in writing, without bias, all steps taken to investigate a complaint of discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation.
d. Have in place a system of preservation, for all original records of complaints and subsequent investigations that ensures preservation of all documents for no less than 5 years.
12

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 37 Filed 01/20/16 Page 13 of 24
C. Training 33. At least annually, Defendant shall provide EEO training for all its
personnel. 34. Employees: Under this provision, all United States-based Deluxe
employees, including employees, supervisors, managers, and Human Resources personnel, will be trained annually at a minimum in the following areas: (a) the Defendant’s policy and procedures for reporting alleged discrimination; (b) understanding the kind of conduct which may constitute unlawful sex and disability discrimination, including discrimination based on sex-stereotyping, gender-identity, transgender status, and gender dysphoria; (c) the penalties of engaging in discriminatory behavior; and (d) Defendant’s non-retaliation policy. All training under this Paragraph shall be at Defendant’s selection and expense. This training shall be incorporated into Defendant’s existing mandatory training program, which includes penalties for employees who fail to complete the training each year.
35. Supervisors and Managers: In addition to the annual training required in paragraph 34, all of Defendant’s United States-based supervisors and managers will also receive additional annual training in the following areas: (a) supervisor and manager responsibilities under Defendant’s EEO policies and practices; (b) Defendant’s prohibition against retaliation for complaints or reports of harassment, including harassment based upon sex-stereotyping, gender-identity, transgender status, and gender dysphoria; (c) the role and responsibilities of supervisors and managers when an employee complains about or reports harassment or suspected harassment. All training
13

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 37 Filed 01/20/16 Page 14 of 24
under this Paragraph shall be at Defendant’s selection and expense. This training shall be made mandatory.
36. Human Resource Employees: In addition to the annual training required in paragraphs 34 and 35, during calendar year 2016, Defendant will require all individuals in the United States who work in a human resource capacity and who provide human resources support to receive additional training regarding Title VII, the ADA, and other federal anti-discrimination laws as described in this paragraph.
a. The training must directly address sex discrimination, including sexstereotyping, gender-identity discrimination, and discrimination based on transgender status.
b. The training must directly address disability discrimination, including discrimination against individuals who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
c. The training must include instruction in the proper methods of identifying, receiving, communicating, investigating (where applicable), and ameliorating discrimination, including the proper procedures for documenting and preserving evidence of discrimination, archiving the corporation’s investigation of complaints, as well as detailing the consequences and result of the investigation where discrimination is found.
14

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 37 Filed 01/20/16 Page 15 of 24
37. Defendant will require employees who are newly hired or promoted into a human resource position to receive this training within thirty (30) days of being hired or promoted into a human resource position.
38. Training on Investigative Techniques: All employees with direct responsibility for responding to or investigating complaints of discrimination, shall be provided annual training on accepted professional standards for identifying possible discrimination or retaliation, receiving and investigating complaints of discrimination, including such matters as witness interview techniques, other evidence-gathering techniques, maintaining investigative notes and records, legal analysis of the evidence, and methods for eliminating and ameliorating violations of anti-discrimination law.
39. Defendant agrees that the training will take place during 2016. Defendant agrees to document all personnel who complete trainings under this paragraph. D. Posting of Notice
40. Within ten (10) calendar days from the Court’s execution of this Decree, Deluxe shall post an eight and one-half (8.5) inches by eleven (11) inches laminated copy of the Notice attached as Exhibit C to this Decree at all of Deluxe’s facilities in a conspicuous location or locations, easily accessible to and commonly frequented by Deluxe’s employees (i.e. employee bulletin board or lunch room). The Notice shall remain posted for the duration of this Decree. Deluxe shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the posting is not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Within fifteen (15) calendar days from the Court’s execution of this Decree, Deluxe shall certify
15

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 37 Filed 01/20/16 Page 16 of 24
to the EEOC in writing that the Notice has been properly posted as described in this paragraph. E. EEO Compliance as a Component of Management Evaluation
41. Defendant shall, beginning in 2016, and at least continuously for the duration of this Decree, modify its management evaluation and compensation system to include EEO compliance and, compliance with policies and laws prohibiting retaliation as factors which shall be used to evaluate all managerial employees, including all managers and supervisors.
VIII. RECORD KEEPING AND REPORTING PROVISIONS 42. For the duration of this Consent Decree, Defendant shall maintain all records concerning implementation of this Consent Decree, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
a. Complaints of discrimination based on sex stereotyping, gender identity or transgender status received by Deluxe Employee Relations and/or the Deluxe Employee Hotline and records documenting investigation of such complaints, including witness statements, documents compiled, conclusions and findings, and any corrective and remedial actions taken;
b. All documents related to the employee training described above, including but not limited to training materials;
c. Copies of all written policies and/or guidelines that result from complying with this Decree, including, but not limited, Defendant’s revised EEO polices and guidelines; and,
16

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 37 Filed 01/20/16 Page 17 of 24
d. Documents related to compliance with this Decree. 43. Reporting Requirements: Defendant shall provide annual reports following the entry of this Decree. The first such report shall be due six months following the entry of this Decree and the final report shall be submitted to the Commission six weeks prior to the date on which the Consent Decree is to expire. 44. Each report shall provide the following information:
a. Reports of Discrimination 1. For purposes of this Paragraph the term “report of discrimination” will include any written or verbal complaint received by Deluxe Employee Relations and/or Deluxe Employee Hotline that might allege discrimination, or the witnessing of discrimination, based on sexstereotyping, gender identity discrimination, or transgender status. 2. The report will include: • The name, address and telephone number of each person making a complaint of such discrimination to Defendant or any federal, state, or local government agency; • The name, address and telephone number of each person identified as a potential witness to the incident of discrimination; • A brief summary of each complaint, including the date of the complaint, the name of the individual(s) who allegedly engaged in the discriminatory conduct, the Defendant’s investigation and response to the complaint, the name of the person who investigated
17

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 37 Filed 01/20/16 Page 18 of 24
or responded to the complaint, and what, if any resolution was reached; and, • Copies of all non-privileged documents memorializing or referring to the complaint, investigation, and/or resolution thereof. b. Posting of Notice. Defendant shall recertify to the Commission that the Notice required under this Consent Decree was posted in accordance with the requirements of this Decree. c. EEO Policies and Guidelines. Defendant’s first report under this provision shall include copies of Defendant’s revised EEO policy and guidelines. If changes are made to the EEO policy and guidelines, these changes must be included in the next report. d. Letter of Reference and Letter of Apology. Defendant’s first report under this provision shall include copies of the Letter of Reference and Letter of Apology sent to Britney Austin as required by this Decree. IX. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF DECREE 45. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this cause for purposes of compliance with this Decree and entry of such further orders or modifications as may be necessary or appropriate to effectuate equal employment opportunities for employees.
X. COMPLIANCE 46. In the event that the Commission believes that Defendant has failed to comply with any provision(s) of this Consent Decree, it shall:
a. Notify Defendant in writing of the alleged non-compliance; and,
18

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 37 Filed 01/20/16 Page 19 of 24
b. Afford Defendant forty-five (45) business days after service of such notification to remedy the non-compliance.
c. If Defendant has not remedied the alleged non-compliance within fortyfive (45) business days, the EEOC may petition the Court to enforce the terms of this Consent Decree at any time during which this Court maintains jurisdiction over this action.
d. In the event the Court finds Defendant violated this Consent Decree, the Court may order appropriate relief to remedy the non-compliance, including attorneys’ fees and appropriate injunctive relief. X. EEOC AUTHORITY
47. With respect to matters or charges outside the scope of this Decree, this Decree shall in no way limit the powers of the Commission to seek to eliminate employment practices or acts made unlawful by any of the statutes over which the EEOC has enforcement authority, and do not arise out of the claims asserted in this lawsuit.
XI. COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES 48. Defendant shall be responsible for and shall pay Plaintiff Intervenor’s attorney fees, as specified above.
XII. NOTICE 49. Unless otherwise indicated, any notice, report, or communication required under the provisions of this Decree shall be sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, as follows:
19

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 37 Filed 01/20/16 Page 20 of 24

For Plaintiff:
Iris Halpern Senior Trial Attorney EEOC Denver Field Office 303 East 17th Avenue Suite 410 Denver, Co. 80203 (303) 866-1374

For Defendant:
Mary Budge Senior Counsel Deluxe Corporation 3680 Victoria Street North Shoreview, MN 55126 (651) 787-1318

XIII. SIGNATURES 50. The parties agree to the entry of this Decree subject to final approval by the Court.
SO ORDERED this 20th day of January, 2016. BY THE COURT:
s/Ann D. Montgomery Ann D. Montgomery United States District Judge

20

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 37 Filed 01/20/16 Page 21 of 24

BY CONSENT AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

DELUXE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.

By: s/ Mary Jo O’Neill Mary Jo O'Neill Regional Attorney
Date: 1/15/2016

By: s/ Anthony Scarfone Anthony C. Scarfone Director/Manager
Date: 1/15/2016

s/ Iris Halpern Iris Halpern (NY #4681607) Senior Trial Attorney Michael Imdieke (Colo. #43940) US EEOC, Denver Field Office 303 East 17th Avenue, Ste. 410 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-1374 | Fax: (303) 866-1085 Iris.Halpern@eeoc.gov Michael. Imdieke@eeoc.gov
Laurie Vasichek (#171438) Minneapolis Area Office 330 South Second Avenue, Suite 720 Minneapolis, MN 55401-2224

s/ David Wilk David M. Wilk (#0222860) Angela Beranek Brandt (#0293143) 30 East Seventh Street, Ste. 2800 Saint Paul, MN 22101-4922 (651) 312-6500 | Fax: (651) 312-6618 dwilk@larsonking.com abrandt@larsonking.com

PLAINTIFF INTERVENOR COUNSEL
s/ Jillian T. Weiss Jillian T. Weiss (NY Bar No. 2125011) Ezra Young (NY Bar No. 5283114) Law Office of Jillian T. Weiss, P.C. P.O. Box 642 Tuxedo Park, NY 10987 845-709-3237 Fax: 845-915-3283 jtweiss@jtweisslaw.com eyoung@jtweisslaw.com
21

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 37 Filed 01/20/16 Page 22 of 24 EXHIBIT A (Letter of Reference)
[On Company Letterhead] To Whom It May Concern: Britney Austin worked for Deluxe Financial Services from October 8, 2007 to July 29, 2011. Ms. Austin worked at Deluxe’s call center in Phoenix, Arizona until the call center was closed. Ms. Austin is eligible for rehire with our company. Sincerely, Deluxe Financial Services, LLC
22

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 37 Filed 01/20/16 Page 23 of 24
EXHIBIT B (Letter of Apology)
[On Company Letterhead] RE: EEOC v. Deluxe Financial Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 0:15-cv-02646 (D. Minn.)
Dear Ms. Austin: On behalf of Deluxe Financial Services, I wish to express my sincere regret at how you were treated in the last year of your employment with Deluxe. We want to ensure you that we have made changes to our internal policies, including how we treat transgender employees’ requests to change biographical information or use a restroom commensurate with their gender identity. The company has changed its policies to ensure that transgender employees may use a restroom commensurate with their gender identity, that the company will promptly correct that employee’s sex designation and name in our internal records and systems, and that we will take hostile comments based on sexstereotyping seriously, investigate them, and take prompt corrective and remedial action.
Sincerely,
_____________________ Julie Loosbrock Senior Vice President Human Resources Deluxe Financial Services
23

CASE 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER Document 37 Filed 01/20/16 Page 24 of 24

EXHIBIT C
[On company letterhead]
NOTICE
The following notice is being circulated pursuant to the terms of a Consent Decree reached between the Parties in EEOC v. Deluxe Financial Services, Inc., filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Civil Action No. 0:15-cv02646.
Federal law, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate based upon sex including treating differently or harassing an employee because of stereotypes about how a person of his or her sex should look or act, or because of his or her gender identity or transgender status. Discrimination against transgender status includes the intentional misuse of gender pronouns when referring to an employee, and refusing to let a transgender employee use a restroom commensurate with his or her gender identity. The Americans with Disabilities Act also prohibits discrimination against individuals with gender dysphoria. Federal laws generally protect against discrimination because of race, color, sex (including sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination), religion, disability, and age.
If you believe you have been subjected to discrimination or retaliation because of your disability, sex, or because you are transgender, employees are encouraged to contact [Insert name of appropriate authority(s) and if applicable contact numbers].
Any employee who believes that he/she has suffered discrimination on the basis of age, race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, genetic information, or disability, has the right to contact the EEOC directly at [phone number; address of local office], or the Minnesota Department of Human Rights at [ phone number/ local address]. It is unlawful for any employer to retaliate against an employee because the employee complains about a discriminatory practice, sought legal advice with respect to possible discriminatory treatment, or because the employee filed a charge of discrimination with any municipal, state, or federal equal employment opportunity agency, or because the employee has participated in an investigation of a charge of discrimination. In compliance with federal law, no official at Deluxe Financial Services will retaliate against an employee who makes an internal complaint of discrimination or who contacts the EEOC or its state counterpart.

By: __________________________________
Julie Loosbrock Senior Vice President Human Resources

Date: ____________________

24

 
 CLOSED,CV,PROTO
U.S. District Court U.S. District of Minnesota (DMN) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 0:15−cv−02646−ADM−SER

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Deluxe Financial Services, Inc. Assigned to: Judge Ann D. Montgomery Referred to: Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/04/2015 Date Terminated: 01/20/2016 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Iris Halpern Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 303 E 17th Ave., Suite 400 Denver, CO 80203 303−866−1374 Email: Iris.Halpern@EEOC.gov LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael H. Imdieke U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 303 East 17th Ave., Suite 410 Denver, CO 80203 303−866−1320 Email: michael.imdieke@eeoc.gov PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie A Vasichek Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 330 S 2nd Ave Ste 720 Minneapolis, MN 55401−2224 612−335−4061 Fax: 612−335−4044 Email: laurie.vasichek@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Britney Austin

represented by Ezra Young Law Office of Jillian T. Weiss, P.C. P.O. Box 642 Tuxedo Park, NY 10987 949−291−3185 Fax: 917−398−1849 Email: eyoung@jtweisslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jill R Gaulding Gender Justice Minnesota Women's Building 550 Rice Street, Suite 105 St. Paul, MN 55103

V. Defendant Deluxe Financial Services, Inc.
Date Filed # Docket Text

Ramsey 651−789−2090 Fax: 651−789−2093 Email: jill.gaulding@genderjustice.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jillian T. Weiss Law Office of Jillian T. Weiss, P.C. P.O. Box 642 Tuxedo Park, NY 10987 845−709−3237 Fax: 845−915−3283 Email: jweiss@jtweisslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa C Stratton Gender Justice Minnesota Women's Building 550 Rice St., Suite 105 St. Paul, MN 55103 651−789−2090 Fax: 651−789−2093 Email: lisa.stratton@genderjustice.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christy L Hall Gender Justice Minnesota Women's Building 550 Rice Street, Suite 105 St. Paul, MN 55103 651−789−2090 Email: christy.hall@genderjustice.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Angela Beranek Brandt Larson King, LLP 30 E 7th St Ste 2800 St Paul, MN 55101−4922 651−312−6544 Fax: 651−312−6618 Email: abrandt@larsonking.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David M Wilk Larson King, LLP 30 E 7th St Ste 2800 St Paul, MN 55101−4922 651−312−6500 Fax: 651−312−6618 Email: dwilk@larsonking.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

06/04/2015 06/04/2015 06/04/2015
06/04/2015 06/10/2015 06/10/2015 07/29/2015 07/29/2015 08/27/2015 08/27/2015 09/02/2015 10/06/2015 10/09/2015 10/09/2015 10/13/2015

1 COMPLAINT against Deluxe Financial Services, Inc.. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Filer requests summons issued. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Vasichek, Laurie) (Entered: 06/04/2015)
2 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: CLERK'S NOTICE OF INITIAL CASE ASSIGNMENT. Case assigned to Judge Ann D. Montgomery per Ind. Employment List and referred to Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau. Please use case number 15−cv−2646 ADM/SER. (JDF) (Entered: 06/04/2015)
3 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: Notice re: Non−Admitted Attorney
We have received documents listing Iris Halpern as counsel of record. If he or she wishes to be listed as an attorney of record in this case, he or she must be admitted to the bar of the U.S. District Court of Minnesota in accordance with Local Rule 83.5 (a), (b) and (c) or temporarily admitted pro hac vice in accordance with Local Rule 83.5 (d) or (e).
For more admissions information and forms, please see the Attorney Forms Section of the courts website at href=http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/FORMS/court_forms.shtml#attorneyforms. (JDF) (Entered: 06/04/2015)
4 Summons Issued as to Deluxe Financial Services, Inc. (JDF) (Entered: 06/04/2015)
5 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for U.S. Government Attorney Iris Halpern by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (JGK) (Entered: 06/10/2015)
6 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: ORDER granting 5 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of U.S. Government Attorney Iris Halpern for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Approved by Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau on 6/10/2015. (JLW) (Entered: 06/10/2015)
7 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR/INCORRECT EVENT/TO BE REFILED − NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Waiver of Service of Summons (Halpern, Iris) Modified on 7/29/2015 (las). (Entered: 07/29/2015)
8 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Deluxe Financial Services, Inc. waiver sent on 6/29/2015, answer due 8/28/2015. (Halpern, Iris) (Entered: 07/29/2015)
9 ANSWER to Complaint by Deluxe Financial Services, Inc.. (Wilk, David) (Entered: 08/27/2015)
10 RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Deluxe Corporation is a wholly−owned subsidiary of Defendant Deluxe Financial Services, Inc.. (Wilk, David) (Entered: 08/27/2015)
11 ORDER/NOTICE OF PRETRIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: Pretrial Conference set for 10/13/2015 09:00 AM in Judge's Chambers, Suite 334 (STP) before Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau. Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau on 9/2/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form)(lmb) (Entered: 09/02/2015)
12 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Conference by both parties. (Halpern, Iris) Modified text on 10/6/2015 (kt). (Entered: 10/06/2015)
13 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Request by Austin's Counsel to Appear Telephonically at Rule 16 Scheduling Conference (Halpern, Iris) (Entered: 10/09/2015)
14 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: ORDER Jillian T. Weiss' request to appear via telephone for the 10/13/2015 Pretrial Scheduling Conference is GRANTED. She is instructed to call chambers at 651−848−1620 to be connected to the conference. Entered by Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau on 10/9/2015. (MME) (Entered: 10/09/2015)
15 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau: Pretrial Scheduling Conference held on 10/13/2015. Pretrial Scheduling Order will be issued after an early settlement conference is held. (lmb) (Entered: 10/13/2015)

10/14/2015
10/19/2015 10/19/2015
10/19/2015 10/19/2015 10/19/2015 10/19/2015 10/19/2015 10/20/2015 10/22/2015 10/22/2015 10/23/2015 10/26/2015 11/12/2015 11/12/2015 11/18/2015 12/02/2015 12/03/2015

16 ORDER/NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Settlement Conference set for 12/2/2015 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau. Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau on 10/14/2015. (lmb) (Entered: 10/14/2015)
17 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for U.S. Government Attorney Michael H. Imdieke by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (JLW) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
18 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: ORDER granting 17 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of U.S. Government Attorney Michael H. Imdieke for U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Approved by Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau on 10/19/2015. (JLW) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
19 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Jillian Weiss. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number AMNDC−4611274 by Britney Austin. (Hall, Christy) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
20 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Ezra Young. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number AMNDC−4611278 by Britney Austin. (Hall, Christy) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
21 MOTION to Intervene (Unopposed) by Britney Austin. (Hall, Christy) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
22 MEMORANDUM in Support re 21 MOTION to Intervene (Unopposed) filed by Britney Austin. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Hall, Christy) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
23 EXHIBIT INDEX re 22 Memorandum in Support of Motion by Britney Austin filed by Britney Austin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A (Complaint in Intervention))(Hall, Christy) Modified text on 10/20/2015 (kt). (Entered: 10/19/2015)
24 ORDER granting 21 Motion to Intervene Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau on 10/20/2015. (las) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
25 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: ORDER granting 19 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Jillian T. Weiss for Britney Austin. Approved by Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau on 10/22/2015. (JLW) (Entered: 10/22/2015)
26 First Intervenor COMPLAINT . Filed by Britney Austin. (Weiss, Jillian) (Entered: 10/22/2015)
27 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: ORDER granting 20 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Ezra Young for Britney Austin. Approved by Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau on 10/23/15. (AKL) (Entered: 10/23/2015)
28 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. Filed by Deluxe Financial Services, Inc.. Jointly Signed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Brandt, Angela) (Entered: 10/26/2015)
29 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint and Demand for Trial by Jury by Deluxe Financial Services, Inc.. (Wilk, David) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
30 STIPULATION Stipulated Protective Order and Clawback Agreement by Deluxe Financial Services, Inc.. Jointly Signed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Britney Austin. (Wilk, David) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
31 PROTECTIVE ORDER AND CLAWBACK AGREEMENT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau on 11/18/2015. (lmb) (Entered: 11/18/2015)
32 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau: Settlement Conference held on 12/2/2015. Settlement conference held and continued. (KNK) (Entered: 12/03/2015)
33 ORDER: settlement conference was held in this matter on December 3, 2015 and continued to January 12, 2016. Because the parties are continuing to discuss settlement, the deadlines in this matter will be stayed until further notice. The parties are instructed to respond to all discovery served to date. No further discovery shall be propounded or revived, however, until further order of this Court. Signed by

12/04/2015 12/28/2015 01/08/2016
01/20/2016

Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau on 12/3/2015. (KNK) (Entered: 12/03/2015)
34 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: NOTICE of Setting Hearing: Continued Settlement Conference set for 1/12/2016 09:30 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau. (MME) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
35 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: NOTICE of TIME CHANGE of Hearing: 34 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: NOTICE of Setting Hearing: Continued Settlement Conference set for 1/12/2016 09:30 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau has been MOVED TO 10:00 AM. THIS IS A TIME CHANGE ONLY.(MME) (Entered: 12/28/2015)
36 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: NOTICE of CANCELLATION of Hearing: 34 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: NOTICE of Setting Hearing: Continued Settlement Conference set for 1/12/2016 09:30 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau. (MME) is CANCELLED. The parties are ORDERED to report to Judge Rau the status of their continued settlement discussions by 5:00 p.m. on 1/12/2016. (MME) (Entered: 01/08/2016)
37 CONSENT DECREE. Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 1/20/2016. (JME) (Entered: 01/20/2016)