Justice Dept. Says Law Doesn’t Bar Transgender Discrimination
WASHINGTON — Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday ordered the Justice Department to take the position in court cases that transgender people are not protected by a civil rights law that bans workplace discrimination based on sex. The move was the Trump administration’s latest contraction of the Obama-era approach to civil rights enforcement.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/politics/transgender-c...
Comments
This breaks my heart
As someone who was fired for being trans and being told by the labor board that it was perfectly legal. Also as someone who was kicked out of an apartment for being trans and being told that THAT was also legal. The hope I experienced when the interpretation changed to include trans people in labor discrimination laws has now been replaced by an enormous sadness that many more of my trans sisters and brothers will have to experience the pain and hardships I endured.
I am lucky that I now have a job where my boss knows my past and supports me fully. Sadly I am in the minority in that regard.
Just another sad day among many lately.
Surprise, surprise
/sarcasm
It's still amazing that are trans people who support trump.
Sad.
It does not affect me as much because, yes, passing matters and I never had to change my name so there is less history to out me. But we should never have to have to be 'perfect' to keep a job or be a determinant in being respected as a person.
Congress makes the laws, not the Justice Department
The last paragraph is very important! It appears the question may be headed to the Supreme Court for a definitive answer. Employers can't discriminate against transsexuals, or people with green eyes and red hair. I think under the law, any form of discrimination is illegal.
I HOPE.
Karen
Right, the justice dept interprets the law
and the final say goes to the Supreme Court. That's why the the right wants to stack the court with social conservatives. One more conservative justice could change things in a BIG way. It's not only LGBT+ that are under attack. Sessions has also issued guidelines that could allow religious groups, corporations, or individuals to discriminate against persons for religious reasons, apparel, sexual orientation, basically anything that offends their religious beliefs. It's very frightening to see such bigotry come back so quickly.
green eyes and red hair
Actually, eye and hair color are not protected characteristics under our anti-discrimination laws. If you decide to dye your hair blue, you could be fired.
"It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
"(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
"(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
Nothing about physical appearance other than race, color, or national origin. The issue here is what is covered by "sex."
Tired, worn out, terrified
This is very discouraging. Makes offing oneself seem more attractive.
Don't despair yet
Sessions has to fight and nullify a lot of existing case law at many levels of government that already recognizes the anti-discrimination precedents he seeks to abolish. There will be a lot of powerful organizations fighting him legally every step of the way. This will be a very expensive multi year struggle before much actually happens most likely.
Why is politics going backwards?
In the US Trump and his reactionary friends are trying to reinvent the C17th, what next being hanged for witchcraft?
In the UK the Tories are pandering to the far right and looking to take us back to Victorian times. Are they all mad, or is that just the people who vote for them?
Angharad
After reading the whole article...
This is not so much a blow against TGs as it is being made out to be. It appears to be more of them trying to come up with a legal definition of how the word "SEX" should be defined within the law in question. Maybe I'm a glass is half full type of person, but what I get out of this article is that we may finally see a ruling over the issue of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination.
The article also states that the Obama administration never made a ruling regarding the question, ... the Obama administration never took the position that the bar to “sex” discrimination should be interpreted as extending to sexual orientation...
The Supreme Court has not resolved the question of whether “sex” can mean sexual orientation or gender identity. But in a 1989 case, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the ban on “sex” discrimination does encompass discrimination against people who fail to conform to gender stereotypes. That case involved a woman who was deemed insufficiently feminine, not a transgender person.
We the willing, led by the unsure. Have been doing so much with so little for so long,
We are now qualified to do anything with nothing.
Per the article "sexual orientation" is not "gender identity"
Sessions guideline is in direct opposition to the Obama era guideline about transgender anti-discrimination:
Thursday, December 18, 2014
Attorney General Holder Directs Department to Include Gender Identity Under Sex Discrimination Employment Claims
Attorney General Holder announced today that the Department of Justice will take the position in litigation that the protection of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends to claims of discrimination based on an individual’s gender identity, including transgender status. Attorney General Holder informed all Department of Justice component heads and United States Attorneys in a memo that the department will no longer assert that Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based on sex excludes discrimination based on gender identity per se, including transgender discrimination, reversing a previous Department of Justice position. Title VII makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate in the employment of an individual “because of such individual’s…sex,” among other protected characteristics.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-holder-direc...
As far as what will be decided by the courts concerning "sex" as defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, who knows. But what I understand of Sessions argument is that he wants "sex" to be interpreted by the courts as anti-discrimination "man vs woman", period, full stop. No anti-discrimination for sexual orientation or gender identity.
I knew that was going to happen.
Sadly that is only the beginning he wants to roll back gay rights as well, and he is taking a hard line on all drug charges again. This guy wants the 1950's back and is systematically doing it one thing at a time. but I saw the lies in the during the election, I will not say more to avoid a political debate that will only make others angry. Obama did what needed to be done because congress refused to act then and they will refuse now because action to protect a minority like the LGBTQ community will anger there base. It may fall to the court to take action, but I can not predict the outcome. Morality has a 2 year, 4 year, and 6 year shelf life. and sadly those in the leadership through it out long ago.
Trumps soul objective seems to be to undo every popular action that Obama did for people. The FCC is back in the big communications companies pockets, the EPA is run by a guy who only tried to obstruct it, the Department of Energy is run by a guy with a degree in animal husbandry not physics. It is going to get a lot worse that is the only pattern garrantee I see for a long time.
"Cortana is watching you!"