JayCee Cooper v. USA Powerlifting, USA Powerlifting Minnesota, on Related Appeal ...

Minn.October 22, 2025No. A230373

Plaintiff WinHousing Authority of Snohomish County

Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling: Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached: summary judgment
State: Washington
Circuit: 9th Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

Plaintiff Shawna McIntire's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was granted on her claims of VAWA violation, procedural due process violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, breach of contract, and conversion against Housing Authority of Snohomish County.

Excerpt

1. Under the Minnesota Human Rights Act's (MHRA) protection of transgender individuals against discrimination based on sexual orientation, Minn. Stat. § 363A.03, subd. 44 (2018), a policy that expressly prohibits transgender women from competing in the women's division of a powerlifting competition is facially discriminatory and constitutes direct evidence of discrimination based on sexual orientation under the MHRA's prohibition against business discrimination and discrimination by places of public accommodation, found at Minn. Stat. §§ 363A.11, 363A.17 (2018). 2. There is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether seeking to ensure competitive fairness in an athletic competition satisfies the legitimate business purpose defense for sexual orientation and sex discrimination in business under Minn. Stat. § 363A.17 (2018) of the MHRA that forecloses partial summary judgment for the plaintiff as to liability on this claim. 3. In the absence of any alleged statutory exemption or defense, the district court properly granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiff on the claim of sexual orientation discrimination in public accommodations. 4. Our holding in Goins v. West Group, 635 N.W.2d 717 (Minn. 2001), is limited to claims of sexual orientation discrimination under the MHRA related to employment. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

What This Ruling Means

This case involved JayCee Cooper, a transgender woman who was banned from competing in women's powerlifting competitions by USA Powerlifting. Cooper challenged this exclusion, arguing it violated Minnesota's anti-discrimination laws and other legal protections. The Minnesota court ruled in Cooper's favor, finding that USA Powerlifting's policy violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The court determined that explicitly prohibiting transgender women from competing in women's divisions constitutes direct discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is illegal under state law. The judge granted summary judgment on multiple claims, including violations of the Violence Against Women Act and due process rights. **What this means for workers:** This ruling strengthens protections for transgender employees in Minnesota workplaces. Since the court found that excluding transgender women from women's categories is discriminatory, employers cannot treat transgender workers differently based on their gender identity. This applies to workplace policies around facilities, benefits, dress codes, and other gender-specific programs. The decision reinforces that Minnesota's human rights laws protect transgender individuals from discrimination, giving workers legal recourse if they face unfair treatment. While this case involved sports competition, the underlying principle extends to employment situations where transgender workers' rights to equal treatment are at stake.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Breach of Contract cases

9th CircuitNov 2000

Mixed Result

Umland v. PLANCO Financial Services, Inc.

3rd CircuitSep 2008

Defendant Win

Erin Lindsay v. Minneapolis Public School District (SSD1), Self-Insured, Relator

Minn.Oct 2025

1. The employee's injury occurred "in the course of" employment for the purpose of Minnesota Statutes section 176.021, subdivision 1 (2024), because the undisputed facts show that the employee sustained the injury within an hour of the end of the workday, the injury occurred at the workplace, and the employee was engaged in employment-related activity. 2. Minnesota Statutes section 176.021, subdivision 9 (2024), which excludes from workers' compensation liability injuries that occur while an employee is participating in a voluntary employer-sponsored recreational program, applies only to employer programs that are for the benefit of employees. Affirmed.

Plaintiff Win

Deborah Jane Clapp, Respondent, vs. Dr. Lisa Sayles-Adams, in her official capacity as Superintendent of Minneapolis ...

Minn.Jan 2025

Defendant Win

Joan Van Riper, Employee-Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Interstate Packaging, Inc. Employer-Relator/Cross-Appeal and Cincinnati Insurance Company, Insurer-Relator/Cross-Appeal and Mason City Clinic, Mason City Surgery Center, Mayo Clinic, Minnesota Department of Employment Economic Development, Spectrum Rehabilitation Services, Inc., Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, and, UNUM Life Insurance Company, Intervenors.

Minn.Feb 2016

Plaintiff Win

Read Full Opinion More Housing Authority of Snohomish County Rulings All Rulings

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

Check My Rights Learn the Basics

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.