Tweet
MetroWeekly’s Chris Geidner has the scoop, which is a breakthrough for the transgender community’s prospects for employment protections:
An employer who discriminates against an employee or applicant on the basis of the person’s gender identity is violating the prohibition on sex discrimination contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to an opinion issued on April 20 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The opinion, experts say, could dramatically alter the legal landscape for transgender workers across the nation.
The opinion came in a decision delivered on Monday, April 23, to lawyers for Mia Macy, a transgender woman who claims she was denied employment with the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) after the agency learned of her transition. It also comes on the heels of a growing number of federal appellate and trial courts deciding that gender-identity discrimination constitutes sex discrimination, whether based on Title VII or the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
Masen Davis, head of the Transgender Law Center (TLC), says the decision is a ”big leap forward.” TLC advocates, who brought Macy’s case, note that after today’s ruling transgender people who feel they have faced employment discrimination can go into any of those 53 offices and the EEOC will consider their claims. What’s more, the EEOC could take action itself to sue the employer for discrimination.
In Macy’s case, after going through a background check for a job as a ballistics technician, originally applying as a man, when the prospective employer — the lab — was told that Mia was going to report to work, Macy was told that the position “was no longer available.”
17 Comments
You mean it took a court truling for a trans-[erson to get a job at a federal agency headed by the fierce advocate? How is that possible?
Funny that article didn’t even mention Schroer vs the Library of Congress which was virtually identical to this recent case. The federal District Court ruled in favor of Diane Schroer stating gender identity was considered part of what is traditionally called “sex” and therefore covered by Title VII:
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv-aids/schroer-v-library-congress-case-profile
This EEOC ruling basically extends the Schroer ruling, which was only in a federal District Court, nationwide. That’s HUGE. If true do trans people really need to worry about ENDA anymore?
Yes. According to a person in the know, ENDA will further clarify this for employers. The EEOC ruling is a huge win, but there will have to be several court cases, with the Supreme Court finally ruling. That can be a decade away. ENDA would make court cases less likely.
This is an EEOC ruling; it’s here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/90910497/EEOC-Ruling
Note that this isn’t a court ruling. Since part of the EEOC’s job is to interpret Title VII, courts tend to give it a lot of deference, although they could overturn it.
Barring a Supreme Court ruling in favor of this interpretation or a specific law written to protect trans employees, this is the single action that will have the most positive impact on trans workers in the U.S.A.
Finally, note that the EEOC is an independent federal law enforcement agency; it isn’t directly controlled by Obama. While he appointed 3 of its commissioners, this was a unanimous opinion.
Some trans people are also LGB; this doesn’t appear to cover sexual orientation.
While unlikely, this could be overturned either by a court or a later EEOC ruling. A law would be less likely to be overturned.
But yes, this is huge.
It’s nice to for the sane people in our society, limited in numbers thatthey be, to win one for a change. Being a man trapped in a woman’s body or vice-versa, must be hell. I was very impressed what a fine job Chaz Bono did in informing us of that. That took guts.
Now, let’ take that momentum……….
No. There are trans people working for the Obama Administration and in other federal jobs. What this means is that it’ll be hard to fire them or refuse to hire others on basis of their gender identity alone.
It’s makes me crazy that protections we all deserve just because we breathe should have to be such a fight but. . . small steps, and a breakthrough. Thanks for covering this beat.
Still, this is startlingly good news.
“Some trans people are also LGB; this doesn’t appear to cover sexual orientation.”
Indirectly, it makes LGB legislation more likely to pass by making this issue (from 2007) moot:
In a private meeting late Friday on Capitol Hill, congressional leaders told gay and transgender activists that they would move ahead with a version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that lacks trans protections….
The decision by House Democrats to move ahead with the sexual orientation-only ENDA comes two weeks after Pelosi delayed a vote on that measure to give gay and transgender rights groups more time to persuade House members to back a trans-inclusive ENDA.
http://www.gayrightswatch.com/labels/ENDA.html
w00t!
Meanwhile, our “fierce advocate” is too much of an abject COWARD to sign an executive order that only covers federal contractor employees. Watch his re-election team take this victory, claim credit for it and incorporate it into his campaign. He didn’t do squat about DADT and his campaign is flogging that one to death. Sorry ORahma, you missed the bus, (once again), and now we all know what a phobe you are.
Actually, this historic victory is 100% thanks to President Obama. Contrary to what Zimbel stated, all five members of the EEOC were appointed by President Obama. Obama correctly rejected the executive order approach as unnecessary grandstanding because he knew this case was working its way through the EEOC and that they could be counted on to make the right decision.
Oooh! More Eleventyseven dimensional chess®!
M’eh…Save it for somebody who can still kid themselves about Obama.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me…
I’ve been trans for 51 years, more than long enough to know a “fierce advocate” when I see one, thank you.
I’m not in the LGBT community, so I apologize if this is a dumb question, but instead of pursuing separate goals– don’t ask don’t tell, employment rights, marriage (inclusive of spousal tax benefits and green card) issues– on separate tracks, why hasn’t the focus been on a single goal of amending the Civil Rights Act to fix all of the above?
In a one sentence amendment, Congress could deem that, “notwithstanding any other provision of law” (overriding all other federal laws), discrimination based on sexual orientation is a type of sex discrimination. If the votes are there, add a second sentence defining gender identity as an element of sexual orientation. Keep it vague and let federal judges fill in the blanks (hopefully they won’t rule that Title IX requires colleges to field all-gay sports teams).
)
Thanks; I was using a dated source, combined with an inaccurate one. Barker and Ishimaru were originally nominated by George W. Bush, but both of them were subsequently re-nominated by Obama. The other three were all originally nominated by Obama.
From a much better source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/commission.cfm