No You Can’t fly in Canada…
Comment: The Canadian rule which bans transgender flightWell I guess my trip to the Canadian Rockies is out. And what about those who are going to Montreal for their surgery? Will they be allowed to fly into Canada?
By Jane Fae
31 January 2012
Canada is now officially a transgender no-fly zone.
This is the result of new rules, introduced last July, but only now coming to light, which state that an air carrier “shall not transport a passenger if … the passenger does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents”.
Its impact will be felt first by members of the Canadian transgender community, who may only change the ‘sex’ designation on a Canadian Passport, on provision of proof that surgery has taken place, or will take place within one year. This, it is argued by blogger, Christin Scarlett Milloy, means that non-operative transgender persons, gender nonconforming (genderqueer) persons, and the vast majority of pre-operative transsexual persons will find it literally impossible to obtain “proper” travel documentation.
However, there is likely to be some degree of impact on trans persons from any other country travelling through Canada on documents that fail to meet these new criteria.
The next article is about lawyers in Washington DC…
Civil rights lawyers juggle mission, family lifeI first met Lisa at the Albany Targeted State Trans Rights workshop in 2006, Lisa and Mara Keisling gave a day and a half day workshop. Since then our paths have crossed many times and she was very helpful when we were working to pass the gender inclusive anti-discrimination law, NGLTF supplied strategic support for us.
By Vickie Elmer
Published: January 29, 2012
Many 20- and 30-somethings seem “really interested in these types of positions [civil rights lawyers for non-profits],” said Lisa Mottet, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s transgender civil rights project director. Over 10 years, she has worked with 40 legal interns; about seven of them continue to work in the LGBT civil rights movement, she said.
With an interest in public policy, Mottet chose to go to Georgetown University’s Law School in part to be near the center of national policies. When she graduated, she received a fellowship from Equal Justice Works that places new attorneys in nonprofits. “That paid for my salary for two years” at the task force, she said. After that, the group offered her a job so that her work on behalf of transgender rights could continue.
While we are on the topic of lawyers and laws, there is a court challenge here in Connecticut about harassment in the workplace.
Connecticut Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Hostile Work Environment and CTFMLA CasesThis will be a very interesting case because it will mean that harassment doesn’t have to be directed at us personally, but harassment is also the environment such as derogatory posters on the wall of cubicles
Connecticut Employment Blog
By Daniel Schwartz
January 31st, 2012
But today, two notable cases are being argued in front of the court. Both could have an impact on employers in the state.
In Patino v. Birken Manufacturing, the court is being asked to consider whether a hostile work environment harassment claim can be brought under state law (Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 46a-81c if you’re keeping track at home).… The plaintiff, Luis Patino, was employed by the defendant, Birken Manufacturing Company (Birken), as a machinist. Beginning in 1991, some of Patino’s coworkers began calling him derogatory homosexual names. The derogatory words were not spoken to Patino directly but were made in his presence.
After trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Birken filed a motion to set aside the verdict, arguing that no cause of action exists for a hostile work environment claim under the plain and unambiguous language of § 46a-81c.
… Rather, the court opined that the answer to the question before it turned on the interpretation of the phrase “terms, conditions or privileges of employment” in § 46a-81c. The court observed that in Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), the United States Supreme Court, in the context of a sexual harassment claim under Title VII, broadly interpreted the phrase “terms, conditions or privileges of employment” to include protection from a hostile work environment.