In December 2025, a transgender facilities employee filed a lawsuit against the Chicago Cubs alleging months of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation tied to her gender identity and sexual orientation. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, describes persistent misgendering, slurs, and harassment by coworkers, along with management’s failure to address repeated internal reports.
At first glance, the case may surprise some readers. Illinois is widely regarded as a politically blue state with explicit protections for LGBTQ workers, including gender identity protections in employment law. Yet the allegations outlined in the lawsuit illustrate a recurring reality for transgender workers across the country. Legal protections do not always translate into safety, dignity, or accountability in day-to-day workplace environments.
The Cubs lawsuit is not occurring in isolation. It unfolds amid broader legal and administrative shifts that continue to shape transgender workplace rights nationwide. Together with federal litigation and recent developments at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the case underscores a difficult truth. Even in states with strong legal frameworks, workplace discrimination against transgender people remains deeply entrenched.
Inside the Cubs Lawsuit
The lawsuit centers on allegations that a transgender woman working as a facilities employee was repeatedly subjected to harassment by coworkers. According to the complaint, coworkers frequently misgendered her, used derogatory slurs, and made hostile remarks related to her gender identity and sexual orientation. The plaintiff alleges that these actions were not isolated incidents but part of an ongoing pattern that began early in her employment.
Court filings state that the employee reported the behavior multiple times to supervisors and human resources, beginning with a written complaint in May 2025. Despite these reports, the lawsuit claims that no meaningful corrective action was taken. Instead, the plaintiff alleges she faced heightened scrutiny and disciplinary action that was not applied consistently to other employees.
The complaint also alleges that details of her internal complaints were shared with coworkers without her consent, which further worsened the hostile environment. According to the lawsuit, reporting harassment ultimately resulted in retaliation rather than protection, creating conditions that the plaintiff says made continued employment untenable.
The lawsuit invokes Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Title VII prohibits workplace discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. The plaintiff is seeking back pay, front pay, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and a jury trial.
Why Blue States Are Not Immune
Illinois law explicitly prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, and Chicago often presents itself as a hub of LGBTQ inclusion. However, the Cubs lawsuit highlights a persistent disconnect between statutory protections and lived workplace realities.
Advocates have long noted that anti-discrimination laws establish standards but do not automatically enforce themselves. When employers lack effective oversight, transparent reporting mechanisms, or leadership willing to intervene decisively, discrimination can persist even in environments that appear legally progressive.
This disconnect is not unique to Illinois. Across the United States, transgender workers report hostile work environments in states with strong civil rights laws. Misgendering, denial of restroom access, retaliation after filing complaints, and exclusion from workplace culture remain common experiences.
The Federal Backdrop and the EEOC
The Cubs case unfolds amid broader uncertainty at the federal level. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which is responsible for enforcing Title VII, plays a critical role in determining how workplace discrimination claims are investigated and pursued.
After the Bostock decision in 2020, many expected robust federal enforcement of protections for transgender workers. In practice, enforcement has been uneven. In recent years, the EEOC paused or declined to pursue some transgender discrimination complaints, creating confusion and frustration among workers and advocates.
In late 2025, the EEOC announced it would resume reviews of some transgender discrimination cases that had previously been stalled or dismissed. This shift, covered by TransVitae, was viewed as a partial reset and a signal that federal enforcement may become more consistent moving forward.
While the announcement does not guarantee outcomes for individual cases, it underscores the importance of federal agencies in shaping how workplace protections function in practice. For transgender workers in blue states and red states alike, federal enforcement remains a crucial backstop when local remedies fail.
Policy Discrimination Versus Interpersonal Harassment
The Cubs lawsuit primarily focuses on interpersonal harassment and retaliation within a private workplace. Other recent cases highlighted by TransVitae involve institutional or policy-based discrimination, particularly within federal agencies.
In the case examined in “The Case That Could Decide Transgender Workplace Rights,” a transgender federal employee challenged policy changes that rescinded recognition of transgender identities in the workplace. The complaint alleges restrictions on pronoun use, denial of appropriate restroom access, and removal of internal guidance supporting transgender employees.
While the mechanisms differ, the effects are similar. Whether discrimination takes the form of coworker harassment or top-down policy decisions, the result is unequal treatment, diminished dignity, and barriers to full participation in the workplace.
Together, these cases illustrate that discrimination does not always appear as explicit hostility. It can also be embedded in administrative rules, informal practices, or failures to intervene when harm occurs.
The Everyday Reality for Transgender Workers
High-profile lawsuits provide visibility, but they represent only a fraction of the discrimination transgender workers experience. Surveys consistently show higher rates of unemployment, underemployment, and workplace mistreatment among transgender people compared to the general population.
Many transgender workers delay or avoid reporting discrimination out of fear of retaliation. Others remain closeted at work to protect their jobs, even in states with legal protections. For those who do report, the process can be lengthy, isolating, and emotionally taxing.
Even well-intentioned employers may fall short when policies are vague, training is insufficient, or accountability mechanisms are weak. Inclusion statements alone do not prevent harm when systems fail to respond effectively to complaints.
Why Enforcement Matters as Much as Law
Cases like the Cubs lawsuit matter not only because of their outcomes but also because of what they reveal about enforcement gaps. Laws such as Title VII and state civil rights statutes establish clear prohibitions against discrimination. Without consistent enforcement, however, those protections can remain largely symbolic.
The EEOC’s decision to resume reviewing transgender discrimination complaints suggests a recognition that enforcement has lagged. Whether this shift results in meaningful change will depend on how aggressively cases are pursued and how clearly federal agencies interpret their obligations under existing law.
For employers, these cases should serve as a warning. Legal compliance is not limited to policy manuals. It requires active monitoring, prompt investigation of complaints, protection against retaliation, and leadership commitment to inclusion.
Moving Forward
For transgender workers, understanding legal rights remains essential. Documenting incidents, seeking support from advocacy organizations, and consulting legal counsel can help individuals navigate hostile environments.
For employers, the path forward requires more than compliance checklists. Effective inclusion demands transparent reporting processes, meaningful training for management and human resources, and accountability when standards are violated.
Blue states may offer stronger legal frameworks, but they are not immune to discrimination. As the Cubs lawsuit and broader federal developments demonstrate, progress depends not only on laws but also on how those laws are enforced in practice.
The Bottom Line
Workplace discrimination against transgender people persists across the United States, including in states with explicit legal protections. The lawsuit against the Chicago Cubs, combined with broader federal enforcement challenges and emerging policy-based litigation, highlights the limitations of law without accountability.
Legal victories can strengthen protections and clarify standards, but lasting change requires consistent enforcement, cultural shifts within organizations, and a commitment to dignity for all workers. Until those elements align, transgender employees in blue states and beyond will continue to face barriers that laws alone cannot resolve.
