Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEX—D. Kan.: Transgender corrections employee, warned against presenting as female, cannot advance claims, (Sep 2, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

Although she was told she could not wear a wig or makeup at work, she continued to do so without suffering any disciplinary consequences.

A former worker for the Kansas Department of Corrections could not advance her Title VII claims alleging sex discrimination and retaliation, ruled a federal district court. The employee had announced that she was transitioning from male to female and began arriving to work wearing a wig and makeup. She was told that she could not dress in such a manner and could not use the women’s bathroom until receiving a legal name change, although she was allowed to use the all-gender bathrooms. She was also told her new name would not be recognized until she had legally changed her name. Despite these warnings, she continued to present as female until she left her position without suffering any identifiable consequences (Lamb v. Kansas Department of Corrections, No. 2:24-CV-2030-JAR (D. Kan. Sept. 1, 2026)).

The employee in this case began working for the Kansas Department of Corrections as a unit team supervisor, managing a caseload of offenders and other corrections counselors, in March 2008.

Gender change. On October 7, 2021, the employee informed the employer that she was transgender and was transitioning to female. She was told that the employer’s name-change policy recognized an official name change only after receiving a court order or notification from the state. This policy applied to all employees, regardless of their reason for the name change.

The next day, the employee arrived at work wearing a wig and makeup. Later that day, she had a phone-call meeting with the assistant director of HR who told the employee she could not present as female until after she was “legally” a woman. During this call, the employee believed that the assistant director insinuated that being male was a bona fide occupational requirement for her employment.

Email. Following this conversation, the employee emailed several employees on October 9 stating that she had spoken with an attorney. The email stated that she was giving formal notice that she did not intend to comply with the assistant director’s instructions and that she would continue to present as female. The email also informed recipients that she would be referring to herself using a new name, would be using she/her pronouns, and requested others to do the same. It concluded with a warning that she was willing to seek legal remedies in the event she was met with any retaliation in the form of an adverse employment action.

After receiving the email, the employer’s tone changed. The employee arrived to work presenting as female on October 11, intending to confront the director of HR directly while demonstrating that she intended to follow through on her email. The HR director told the employee she could not provide an official answer to the employee with regard to the email until she received an official response from the employer but conceded that the employee could continue to present as female.

Bathroom. During this discussion, the HR director told the employee she could not use the women’s bathroom until she legally transitioned. Although she was not threatened with any discipline if she were to use the women’s bathroom, the employee believed that this was implied. She was allowed to use the all-gender restrooms until she obtained a legal name change.

Employment continued. After this meeting, the employee continued to present as female, and included her new name and preferred pronouns in her email signature block despite not yet having received a legal name change, which was eventually granted several months later.

In June 2022, the employee secured a new position out of state. She gave her notice of resignation effective that August. Subsequently, she filed this lawsuit alleging Title VII claims for sex discrimination and retaliation. The employer moved for summary judgment.

Statements and insinuations. First, the court addressed the sex discrimination claim. Here, the employee pointed to three incidents as evidence of sex-based discrimination: (1) the assistant HR director telling the employee she could not present as female in the workplace; (2) insinuating that being male was a bona fide occupational qualification; and (3) the HR director telling the employee not to use the women’s restrooms while implying that discipline would follow.

Assuming the HR employees made these statements and insinuations, this alone did not rise to an actionable adverse employment action, said the court. There was no evidence that the statements went beyond unfulfilled threats of discipline. The employee never argued that either had decision-making authority and could act upon their belief, or that the threats operated as an official warning.

Even if the HR employees could have acted upon their own authority, there was no evidence that they attempted to interfere with the employee’s transition through discipline or actions that would affect the terms or conditions of her employment, observed the court.

Although the employee was directed to refrain from presenting as female, she continued to do so for the duration of her employment without consequence. Further, even though the assistant HR director insinuated that being male was a bona fide occupational qualification, the employee continued to work in her position for the duration of her tenure. Finally, even though the HR director implied that the employee would face discipline if she used the women’s restrooms, she was able to use the all-gender restrooms until she received a legal name change, at which point she began using the women’s restrooms, and never faced discipline for doing so.

Begrudging acquiescence. In response, the employee argued that “there is no evidence that Defendant changed its position, merely that it begrudgingly acquiesced and did not discipline Plaintiff for ‘breaking the rules.’” However, explained the court, admitting that the employer acquiesced to the employee’s emailed demands and never disciplined the employee for breaking the rules—even if begrudgingly—was precisely the reason why her claim failed. Presumably, getting the employer to acquiesce was the reason for sending the email in the first place, said the court.

Having failed to demonstrate that the HR employees’ statements to her culminated in any action that adversely affected the terms or conditions of employment, the employee could not show that she had suffered sex discrimination under Title VII through these three discrete acts.

Hostile work environment. Although neither the pretrial order nor the employee’s summary judgment response clearly alleged that she was asserting a hostile work environment claim, she nevertheless alleged that she was forced to endure months of coworkers referring to her by her “dead name” and listening to coworkers refer to her as male, and to continue using credentials that matched her old gender identity. She argued that, as a result, she experienced humiliation, degradation, embarrassment, and distress. She also asserted that inmates hazed and cat-called her without consequence.

Despite these allegations, the employee pointed to only one specific example of a coworker failing to recognize her proper gender identity. The remainder of her allegations were conclusory and failed to identify the names of coworkers, specific instances, or corroborating evidence detailing the alleged events. At this stage, conclusory allegations would not suffice, explained the court.

Moreover, although the employee had to use credentials that no longer matched her gender identity, she was allowed to present as female prior to obtaining any legal name change and included her preferred name and pronouns in her emails. And, despite being told that she had to present as her old gender identity until her name was legally changed, she simply disobeyed that directive, without challenge or consequence.

To the extent that the employee appeared to allege a separate hostile work environment claim based on these allegations, the court found that no rational jury could conclude that the environment was so severe or pervasive as to alter the terms or conditions of employment. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted against the sex discrimination claim.

Retaliation. Next, the court considered the employee’s claim for retaliation. According to the employee, her email message was a protected activity that provided the employer with a reason to retaliate against her, and that the employer retaliated “by insisting Plaintiff produce a ‘legal’ name change before they would allow her to use her preferred name, and insist[ing] she obtain legal status as a woman before she would be allowed to transition to female and present as such in the workplace.” The court was not moved.

As previously explained, the court noted that the employee failed to point to evidence that she was not allowed to transition to female or to present as such at work, and the minimal evidence she did provide arguably demonstrated the opposite conclusion.

Even if the employee could establish a prima facie case for retaliation, the employer presented a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for requiring a legal name change. The employer explained that an employee’s gender in official records matters in the prison context. For example, the employer contended that federal law, including the Prison Rape Elimination Act, would require a female to announce her presence in male living quarters while a male would not be required to do so. Because of the legal consequences of name changes in the prison context, the employer argued that any employee seeking a name change, including for divorces, must follow the policy of seeking a legal name change.

The employee did not respond to this argument or otherwise attempt to show there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether this proffered reason was pretextual. Thus, summary judgment was also granted against the retaliation claim.

The case is No. 2:24-CV-2030-JAR.

Judge: Robinson, J.

Attorneys: Mary M. Johnson (Missouri Kansas Queer Law) for Shelly Lamb aka Shelly Jo Lamb-Connolly. Bradley Joseph Schlozman (Hinkle Law Firm) for Kansas Department of Corrections.

Companies: Kansas Department of Corrections

Cases: SexDiscrimination Discrimination PublicEmployees Retaliation KansasNews