Transgendered lawyer denied armed forces job

Sex status was only difference between lawyer and other successful candidates, says human rights tribunal

Applicant successful but no job after two years

Born a man, Micheline Montreuil began living as a woman in the 1980s and became known as a lawyer, teacher, writer, radio host and politician in Quebec City. She also became involved in various fights for her rights as a transgendered person.

In 2002, Montreuil applied and successfully interviewed for a position as a grievance officer with the Canadian Forces Board. The board placed her on an eligibility list for when positions became open. However, after two years, she still didn’t have a position, though other candidates with equal qualifications were hired.

The board claimed it didn’t have enough French files to warrant hiring Montreuil, a French-only candidate. However, Montreuil suspected there was more to it and filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission that she was discriminated against because of her transgendered status.


The Canadian Forces Grievance Board has been ordered to pay a Quebec lawyer more than $39,000 for discrimination based on her transgender status she faced in applying for a job with the board.

Micheline Montreuil, 56, was a lawyer in Quebec City who was trained in industrial relations, administration and ethics. She also taught courses at two colleges and two universities. Montreuil was born a male but over time began dressing in female clothes and finally decided in the 1980s to live as a woman. She legally changed her name to Micheline and underwent hormone therapy to give herself female characteristics. She described her status as transgendered, or between “a normal man or woman.”

In May 2002, Montreuil applied for the position of grievance officer with the Canadian Forces Board, which had been created two months earlier to examine military grievances filed by members of the Canadian Forces. Grievance officers investigated and reviewed the board’s findings and served as specialists with board members and a competition open to the public was launched in April in which 10 positions were advertised. The job posting required applicants to have a university degree in human resources, law or industrial or labour relations. It also said the majority of positions were bilingual but “some are unilingual English or French.”

Montreuil, whose first language was French, took the Public Service Commission of Canada English language exam twice and her proficiency level for oral interaction was sufficient but her written comprehension and expression fell below the requirements for the bilingual positions. However, she passed her application exam and was told on Oct. 31, 2002, she would be interviewed by the board.

Montreuil had her interview on Nov. 15, 2002, and it seemed to go well. She was evaluated according to knowledge, ability, competencies and personal attributes and scored well. The board indicated she place third of four candidates interviewed.

Qualified for position

On Dec. 30, Montreuil received a letter saying she had qualified and would be placed on an eligibility list used to fill positions when they became vacant. The board told her she would remain on the list until the end of March 2003.

Montreuil contacted the board several times over the next few months and was told the board was waiting for a budget increase. However, she wasn’t offered a job. In October 2003, the board planned to clear a backlog of grievances and hired three unilingual English grievance officers. Montreuil called again and asked if it would be hiring more, but the board said no. She was told the board didn’t need unilingual French officers at the time as the French grievances were easily covered by the bilingual officers. It hired unilingual English officers because they had a sufficient number of English grievances. The board said it extended the eligibility list to March 2004 and would call if there was an increase in French grievances and a unilingual French officer was needed. Montreuil felt she wasn’t being hired because of her transgender status, which was the only characteristic differentiating her from the unilingual English candidates. She felt language was an excuse covering up the fact she was being discriminated against. On Aug. 24, 2004, she filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for discrimination based on sex in the board’s refusal to hire her.

Board knew she wouldn’t be hired

The tribunal found that Montreuil’s application was never outright rejected, but it didn’t intend to hire her. She was told she would be hired if French grievances increased “considerably,” but the board knew there were not enough French files to warrant hiring a unilingual French officer. Even if there was some increase, it could hire bilingual officers to cover it. With that qualifier, it could leave her on the eligibility list without actually hiring her. It had also advertised on the job posting that unilingual French positions were available, which wouldn’t make sense if there wasn’t enough of a caseload for them.

“By placing Ms. Montreuil on an eligibility list for which there was never any need, the board in effect rejected her application because it was imposing a condition that was impossible to fulfill,” the tribunal said. Considering the other three candidates who interviewed at the same time as Montreuil were all hired and the only difference other than the fact they were unilingual English was her transgendered status, the tribunal found there was a prima facie case of discrimination.

The tribunal looked at the board’s statistics for 2004 to 2005, which showed French grievances accounted for between 15.6 per cent and 35 per cent of the total files. Since the board didn’t see the need for a unilingual French officer in the year there were 35 per cent French files, the tribunal concluded the board “will never need a unilingual French grievance officer.”

Since the board hired unilingual English officers even though bilingual officers could handle the English files as well, the tribunal found the only characteristic that differentiated Montreuil, the only unilingual French candidate, from the English candidates who were hired was that she was transgendered. This led to discrimination, whether intentional or not, on the basis of Montreuil’s sex.

“It is possible that the discriminatory reasons were not the only reasons for the decision not to hire Ms. Montreuil,” the tribunal said. “That is not enough when discriminatory considerations are also factors in the decision not to hire.”

Since the position for which Montreuil applied was for a term of at least 12 months, the tribunal awarded compensation for the loss of 12 months’ salary for a grievance officer minus her actual income for one year from her estimated start date. The tribunal denied Montreuil’s claim for damages for pain and suffering, finding there was no evidence to support it. It did find, however, she was entitled to $5,000 because the board acted recklessly, though not willfully.

“Given the nature of the board’s mandate, we are entitled to expect that it be more sensitive to the consequences of its practices,” the tribunal said.

The board was ordered to pay a total of $44,174 to Montreuil for discriminating against her on the basis of her sex when it failed to hire her.

For more information see:

Micheline Montreuil v. Canadian Forces Grievance Board, 2007 CHRT 53 (Can. Human Rights Trib.).
Applicant denied job after sex change

Micheline Montreuil isn’t the only transgendered person to lose a job offer after a prospective employer found out about her condition. A former U.S. army commander had a job offer rescinded after her prospective employer learned she was undergoing a sex change.

Diane Schroer, 52, applied and was interviewed for a job at the Library of Congress’s Congressional Research Service in 2004. When she interviewed, she was living as a man named David. Impressed by Schroer’s resumé that included seven years in the U.S. army’s special forces command followed by a position as director of an organization that tracked international terrorists, the Library of Congress offered her the job.

After the offer was made, Schroer went to lunch with her would-be supervisor. At the meeting, she told the supervisor she was undergoing operations to become a woman. She showed pictures of herself dressed as a woman to ease any concerns about what she would wear to work.

At the end of the lunch, the supervisor told Schroer she had “given me a lot to think about” and the next day called her to say she wasn’t “a good fit.”

Schroer filed a sex discrimination case under the U.S. Civil Rights Act in 2005, demanding the job be offered to her again plus damages.

The Library of Congress said the job offer was rescinded because it needed to fill the position quickly and Schroer’s transgender status would result in more time to make a background check for security clearance. It also said Schroer’s contacts with military intelligence and her credibility with Congress might suffer because of her transition to a female.

The case is being heard in U.S. District court and it may have to determine whether the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on gender identity.

To read the full story, login below.

Not a subscriber?

Start your subscription today!