Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

​A pride flag, a bathroom ban, a job change: LGBTQ+ federal workers challenge Trump in court

Multiple current and former federal employees have sued, saying the Trump administration’s executive orders on gender and DEI have made it impossible for them to do their jobs.

News

The back of a person's head, they are holding a small rainbow colored flag.

Over the past year, the administration has faced a number of high-profile lawsuits over the ban on LGBTQ+ pride expression and refusal to let transgender workers use bathrooms that align with their genders.

Calla Kessler/The Washington Post/Getty Images

Sarah O’Neill loved her job as a data scientist at the National Security Agency (NSA).

“The government before last year was what I would consider to be a model employer,” O’Neill said.


She started the job in 2019, two years after she started her transition to living as a woman.

“That wasn’t an issue at all,” she said. “Everybody was supportive.”

Everything changed in January 2025. That’s when President Donald Trump took office for a second term and signed an executive order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”

The order stated that the federal government would recognize only “male” and “female” genders and that they were unchangeable from birth, denying the existence of transgender people like O’Neill.

O’Neill was informed that she was no longer allowed to use a women’s restroom, and should use one aligned with her biological birth sex.

As a government employee, O’Neill was used to following rules. But this one seemed almost impossible to follow. She found a few single-stall restrooms at work and used those, but O’Neill is a woman. Using a men’s room was not appropriate.

Across the Trump administration, LGBTQ+ federal workers describe being forced to choose between their jobs and their ability to fulfill their most basic human needs.

Shannon Leary, a partner at Gilbert Employment Law, has spent the past 19 years representing federal workers in discrimination lawsuits against the federal government. Such discrimination chips away at a person’s ability to do their job, she said.

“That impacts a person on so many different levels, both personally and professionally,” she said.

There has been a steady stream of those cases across all presidential administrations, Leary said. But something has changed with the advent of the second Trump administration.

“I personally have observed an increase in potential clients reaching out,” Leary said.

It’s unknown how many LGBTQ+ federal workers are suing the Trump administration for alleged discrimination, experts said. That’s because some of the suits are public, while others have been made as confidential complaints. But over the past year, the administration has faced a number of high-profile lawsuits over the ban on LGBTQ+ pride expression and refusal to let transgender workers use bathrooms that align with their genders.

Here are the suits advocates are watching most closely in the courts:

Sarah O’Neill, NSA

O’Neill, the data scientist, is suing her agency, saying the NSA violated Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by denying her existence as a transgender woman and creating a hostile work environment. Agency actions included “cancelling its policy recognizing her identity and right to a workplace free of unlawful harassment, prohibiting her from identifying her pronouns as female in written communications, purging references to transgender people from its materials, and barring her from using the women’s restroom at work,” her complaint alleged.

The agency did not respond to a request to comment on the lawsuit.

LeAnne Withrow, Illinois National Guard

LeAnne Withrow, a transgender woman who serves as the lead military and family readiness specialist for the Illinois National Guard, also enjoyed an accepting workplace until January 2025. Then, following Trump’s executive order, she was told she could no longer use a women’s room, she said.

Withrow has mostly made it work by using a single-stall bathroom close to her office.

“But this past week, for example, I had a two-hour meeting in a building across campus, where I have to badge in, and I’m two floors up,” she said, putting her far from the bathrooms she knew were safe to use. “It’s kind of humiliating in a way. … It feels very much like separate, but also not equal.”

Withrow filed a federal class-action lawsuit in November against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Withrow alleges that Trump’s order violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VII, which prohibits discrimination against transgender workers on the basis of their sex.

OPM did not respond to a request to comment on the lawsuit.

David Maltinsky, FBI

Veteran FBI employee David Maltinsky was undergoing special agent training in Quantico, Virginia, when he received a letter from Director Kash Patel informing him he had been fired for displaying political messages at work, he said.

Maltinsky’s firing came after Trump signed an executive order ending all government diversity, equity and inclusion policies. Months prior, Maltinsky displayed a Pride flag that he had been given by the FBI Los Angeles Field Office. Maltinsky said he had asked multiple supervisors about keeping the flag displayed and been told he was not in violation of a policy.

“My supervisor and I talked, and he agreed, the flag is not violating anything that he sees,” he said. Maltinsky also asked the head attorney for the Los Angeles field office.

“And he also agreed, and he said, this does not violate any FBI policy, rule or regulation.”

When Maltinsky was fired, he filed suit against Patel. A spokesperson for the FBI said in a statement that the agency does not comment on pending litigation.

Danielle Mittereder, TSA

Transportation Security Officer Danielle Mittereder sued the Department of Homeland Security in November after supervisors made her stop doing airport pat-downs because she is transgender. The removal came after Trump’s January 20 executive order declaring two biological sexes. Mittereder alleges that she had excelled in her job and never received complaints until supervisors enacted the order, which also barred her from using bathrooms that aligned with her gender at work.

DHS did not respond to a request to comment.

HRC Foundation, federal health care

The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the educational arm of the nation’s largest LGBTQ+ rights advocacy organization, is in the midst of preparing a class-action lawsuit against OPM for blocking insurance coverage for gender-affirming care ifor federal workers. The foundation says the policy forces employees to choose between their jobs and their health care.

“The Trump administration is weaponizing medical care to push transgender public servants and their families out of their jobs and back into the closet,” Human Rights Campaign Foundation President Kelley Robinson said in a statement. “This policy is textbook discrimination and we will continue to advance this litigation until our federal employees and their families get the respect, care and dignity they deserve.”

OPM did not respond to a request to comment on the suit.


Kate Sosin reports on LGBTQ+ issues for The 19th.

A Pride Flag, a Bathroom Ban, a Job Change: LGBTQ+ Federal Workers Challenge Trump in Court was originally published by The 19th and is republished with permission.


Read More

Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams do not violate the Equal Protection Clause — the seventh Supreme Court ruling curbing the rights of trans people in just the past 14 months. Since May 2025, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban trans people from serving in the military, upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, given anti-LGBTQ+ parents a veto over LGBTQ+-inclusive content in their children’s classrooms, endorsed Trump’s policy requiring trans people to list their sex assigned at birth on their passports, reinstated an injunction against policies barring schools from outing trans students to their parents against students’ wishes, and determined that Colorado’s ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that almost no law survives.

However, there may be some cause for optimism. In an article published in The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, I conducted a comprehensive survey of state court cases that impacted the rights and lives of trans people between 2022 and 2024. The survey showed state courts have an essential role to play in protecting trans people in an increasingly hostile political environment. Amongst some ominous signs for trans rights, there were important signals of hope in the survey.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

The rule of law, American democracy, constitutional rights, and judicial independence.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

In Texas, People Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill People

It has been said that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Apparently, that’s not the case in very red Collin County, Texas, where a self-described recovering alcoholic fatally shot his daughter in the chest, only to be let off the hook by a sympathetic grand jury. As a retired justice of the New York State Supreme Court, the case intrigued me and I tried to understand why the prosecutor, upon failing to obtain an indictment, did not try again.

In January 2025, the victim and her boyfriend traveled from England to visit her father at his home in Collin County where the shooting occurred. Although evidence presented to a grand jury cannot be disclosed, it is reasonably assumed that the grand jury was provided with the statement made by the father to the police at the scene immediately following the shooting. In that statement, the father related how he had taken his daughter, at her request, to see his gun, and that when he brought her to his bedroom and removed the gun from a cabinet in which he kept it, “it went off.” He could not recall if his finger had been on the trigger.

Keep ReadingShow less
Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix

This month, the Supreme Court will rule on Trump v. Barbara, the case that could upend birthright citizenship as we have known it for over a century.

But the current debate over birthright citizenship overlooks the fact that legal citizenship — by birthright or naturalization — has never fully protected marginalized Americans. People of color, women, LGBTQ, and lower-income Americans have long been CINOs: Citizens in Name Only. Throughout our 250-year history, they have lacked full social citizenship - access to social/welfare entitlements, political citizenship – access to voting rights, and cultural citizenship – recognition as members of the American family. So, while a court ruling can determine who gets a U.S. birth certificate, it cannot guarantee societal inclusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

Black and white illustration of voters

State Court Report

How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

With its April ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court delivered yet another blow to the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2, which governs race in redistricting. The decision was sad and utterly predictable, but still nothing short of astonishing. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court’s conservative supermajority, stealthily setting aside 40 years of legal precedent under Section 2 largely on the belief that racism is a thing of the past and extreme partisan gerrymandering is, in effect, a fundamental right of state lawmakers. Callais had a tortured path to the Court, a feature of the case that has undoubtedly been eclipsed by the lawless nature of the ruling itself, all of which reveals that the Supreme Court represents the gravest threat to multiracial democracy in the United States. (I argued as much in a law review article, predicting the outcome and analyzing the ways a Court gone rogue might get to that ruling.)

What’s more? In recent years, the Court has played fast and loose with a “principle” purportedly meant to limit chaos around elections, known as Purcell. But instead of limiting chaos, the Court’s Purcell jurisprudence will hasten and aggrandize the already-problematic impact of the Callais ruling. As the nation’s redistricting wars inevitably continue — in this election season, the 2028 presidential campaign, and even the next decade — state courts can help stave off democratic erosion by resisting the urge to invoke Purcell.

Keep ReadingShow less