- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Allen & Overy to fight for transgender rights in Alabama
Allen & Overy to fight for transgender rights in Alabama The firm joins hands with the National Women's Law Center to launch a legal fight to secure the end of gender discrimination in access to driving licences The US arm of the London-based global law firm Allen & Overy (A&O) has filed a justice brief to secure the end of gender discrimination against the...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Allen & Overy to fight for transgender rights in Alabama
The firm joins hands with the National Women's Law Center to launch a legal fight to secure the end of gender discrimination in access to driving licences
The US arm of the London-based global law firm Allen & Overy (A&O) has filed a justice brief to secure the end of gender discrimination against the transgender community.
The firm's US litigation team has joined hands with the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) in support of the transgender community's fight for access to driving licences with accurate gender markers in the US state of Alabama.
Some 32 additional organizations are also part of the justice brief filed in the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The focal point of their argument is that Alabama's policy puts transgender people at heightened risk of discrimination and violence, and violates protections against sex discrimination under the Constitution.
The justice brief was filed in support of three transgender women, namely Darcy Corbitt, Destiny Clark, and an unnamed third person, who sued the state in 2018 alleging harassment and discrimination after being denied accurate licences.
In Corbitt v Taylor case, the three plaintiffs — represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund (TLDEF) — had argued that the existing state policy, which requires gender-affirming surgery to obtain accurate licences, discriminates based on sex and is unjustifiable by any legitimate governmental interest.
The lawsuit argued that forcing transgender people to use a driver's licence that does not match their gender identity or forcing them to go without identity documents is non-confirmatory to medical protocols, leaving many people being unable to secure jobs, drive, attend school and doctor's appointments, or vote.
According to the judgment, Alabama argued that a surgery requirement served 'important government interests' in maintaining 'consistency between the sex designation' on state birth certificates and driver's licences.
The US District Court for Middle Alabama found in January this year that the policy order violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment as it discriminates based on sex.
Consequently, the State of Alabama appealed against the District Court's judgement in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
The new amicus brief explains the lower court's view of the policy was 'correct and consistent' with 'decades of Supreme Court Precedent', and that the court 'properly found that the state's justifications for the policy were insufficient to meet that standard'.
The Allen & Overy team that contributed to the brief was led by partner Andrew Rhys Davies, alongside Changhee Han and Jack Butz in New York, and John Roberti, Claire Rajan, and Melinda Bothe in Washington DC.
According to Andrew Rhys Davies, Allen & Overy dead opposed to transphobia on both legislative and individual levels. Davies explained that this is why the firm decided to take this step to protect the rights of the transgender community from targeted discrimination.
"While this decisive action we've taken alongside the NWLC cannot eliminate the discrimination this community faces daily, we are pleased to play a role in supporting the 32 organizations dedicated to advocacy and driving meaningful change for the transgender community," Davies added.