Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—4th Cir.: Johns Hopkins lab employee’s failure to explain why COVID vaccine was risky doomed ADA claim
    • DISCRIMINATION—RACE—W.D. La.: International Paper employee who failed certification test cannot show bias
    • DISCRIMINATION—SEX—11th Cir.: Dissimilar treatment of transgender fire captain didn’t support male firefighter’s bias claim
    • DOL NEWS—Secretary of Labor speaks to plan to establish ‘emergency agency’ to process temporary work visa applications
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—California District Court Partially Enjoins Application of DEI and ‘Gender Ideology’ Executive Orders Against Coalition of LGBTQIA+ Nonprofit Organizations
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—Supreme Court Rules DOGE Can Access Social Security Data and Avoid FOIA—for Now
    • FEDERAL REGULATIONS—DHS interim final rule simplifies process for imposition of civil monetary penalties on undocumented immigrants
    • IMMIGRATION NEWS—15 Maryland federal judges named in unusual DHS suit over standing order in deportation cases
    • PROCEDURE–Or. Sup. Ct.: Employer in whistleblower case cannot avoid retrial of issues on which it prevailed
    • PROCEDURE—M.D. Fla.: Court grants health care providers’ motion to dismiss false claims action
    • VITAL BRIEFING—Paid family and medical leave tax credit for employers will likely be expanded, extended
    • WAGE HOUR—CLASS ACTIONS—Wis. Sup. Ct.: In reversing certification, appeals court erred in considering merits of guard’s claim for non-shift wages
    • WAGE-OUR—CLASS ACTIONS—D. Mass.: Restaurant employee’s class and collective action claims survive employer’s motion to dismiss
    • WHISTLEBLOWERS—D.D.C.: Former employee, patient have no fraud claim against Texas medical center
    • WHITE HOUSE NEWS—‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ will benefit wages, federal deficit, says White House
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEX—11th Cir.: Dissimilar treatment of transgender fire captain didn’t support male firefighter’s bias claim, (Jun 26, 2025)

    Law Firms Mentioned:Law Offices of Marie A. Mattox
    Organizations Mentioned:Marie A. Mattox, PA

    By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

    Because the two had materially different positions, job duties, and injuries, she was not a valid comparator.

    A former Navy firefighter who was denied his request to transfer to a permanent light-duty position after he suffered permanent traumatic inj ...

    By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

    Because the two had materially different positions, job duties, and injuries, she was not a valid comparator.

    A former Navy firefighter who was denied his request to transfer to a permanent light-duty position after he suffered permanent traumatic injuries while on paternity leave and was eventually terminated failed to convince the Eleventh Circuit to reinstate his Title VII gender-discrimination claim. In an unpublished decision affirming summary judgment to his employer, the appeals court held that a transgender firefighter who had been granted temporary light-duty work after an accident was not a proper comparator since the two had materially different positions, job duties, and injuries, and his supervisor’s stray remarks criticizing the use of paternity leave by men were wholly unrelated to the Navy’s decision to deny his light-duty request (Marshall v. Secretary of the Navy, No. 24-12910 (11th Cir. June 23, 2025, unpublished)).

    Paternity leave remarks. The firefighter worked for the Navy since April 2019. In May 2021, he took three months’ paternity leave. Before beginning his leave, his supervisor made several comments stating that men either do not deserve or do not qualify for paternity leave.

    Permanent injuries. While on leave, the firefighter was in a serious car accident and suffered a traumatic brain injury, a permanent back injury, and injuries to his shoulder and neck. After his leave ended in August, he submitted a request for a reasonable accommodation in which he acknowledged that his injuries limited his ability to work as a firefighter and asked to be placed in a “career field in IT” or another light-duty position. His request included a doctor’s assessment that he could not “return to his current position without significant risk of harm to himself or others,” and that “no accommodations would remove the increased risk of injury or harm.”

    Unsuccessful job search. The Navy told him that no accommodation would permit him to perform the essential functions of his job as a firefighter and conducted an expanded job search to find positions for which he was qualified. Unable to find a suitable position to accommodate his disability, the Navy ultimately denied his request and terminated his employment in April 2022.

    Purported comparator. Around the same time, a transgender female firefighter and EMT who also served as a fire captain and had been employed by the Navy since 2008 also suffered an injury. After filing a successful workers’ compensation claim, she was permitted to work in a temporary light-duty position in which she continued to perform the paperwork portion of her existing job as a captain. With a doctor’s clearance, she returned to full duty as a firefighter, EMT, and fire captain several months after the accident.

    Lawsuit. The firefighter sued the Secretary of the Navy in his official capacity alleging a myriad of claims, almost all of which were dismissed at the pleading stage except for his Title VII gender discrimination claim. The court later dismissed that claim on summary judgment and he appealed that decision.

    Dissimilar jobs, injuries. The Eleventh Circuit squarely rejected the firefighter’s contention that he could make out a prima facie case of gender discrimination since he was treated less favorably than the transgender firefighter. First, she was not a valid comparator since they worked materially different jobs. Whereas he worked solely as a firefighter, she also served as a fire captain, which entailed additional “administrative duties and paperwork,” and her light-duty assignment included the pre-existing “paperwork portion” of that position. Because he did not similarly perform administrative or clerical work, his request for transfer to a career field in IT or a non-related field was “less an ask for lighter duties than a request for permanent reassignment to a new position,” explained the appeals court.

    The severity of their respective injuries also differed. The firefighter suffered permanent injuries that made him—in his own doctor’s words—unable “to return to his current position without significant risk of harm to himself or others.” On the other hand, she suffered temporary injuries that allowed her to continue her “regular administrative duties,” and several months later she resumed her “full duties” as a firefighter and EMT.

    Stray remarks don’t suggest bias. The Eleventh Circuit also rejected the firefighter’s contention that his supervisor’s comments about it being “unfair” for men to take parental leave, his removal from a work shift allegedly implemented in preparation for his child’s birth, and his placement on unpaid parental leave showed “a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence” that created a triable issue as to whether the Navy discriminated against him based on his gender.

    First, his supervisor’s “isolated comments expressing disapproval of men receiving parental leave is divorced from the Navy’s decision to deny his light-duty request after he suffered traumatic injuries,” explained the appeals court.

    Moreover, the readjustment of his schedule following the birth of his child did not suggest gender bias, and any discrepancy related to his removal from paid paternity leave occurred after his accident and he was later paid back for the time he was on unpaid leave. Finally, his own medical questionnaire recognized that following his accident, “no accommodations” would allow him to carry out the essential functions of firefighting, he failed to dispute that the Navy denied his request because he could no longer meet the demands of his job, and there were no vacant positions for which he was qualified.

    The case is No. 24-12910.

    Judge: Per curiam.

    Attorneys: Marie A. Mattox (Law Offices of Marie A. Mattox) for Jonathan Marshall. Adam M. Hapner, U.S. Attorney's Office, for Secretary of the Navy.

    Cases: SexDiscrimination Discrimination PublicEmployees AlabamaNews GeorgiaNews FloridaNews

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use