The Right To Jobs And An Education (Part 2)

When I ran an electronic test department one of my responsibilities was to hire new technicians; I saw all types of people come in for an interview. My most memorable interview was when a young male came in for a Tech I position which paid a starting salary of $30,000 to $40,000.

He was dressed in shorts, tee and sandals. He kept looking at his watch and I asked him if he had someplace to go, he replied that his friends were out in the car and they were going to Misquamicut beach. I thanked him for coming in and that I had enough information. We did not hire him.

What do you think he did wrong?

Many trans people have a disadvantage the moment they walk through the door. I know many trans people who have an excellent resume and get many call-ins but no job offers, once they walk through HR's door their job prospects go out the window. I know of one trans person who has a post-doctorate an her professor at Harvard was a Noble laureate, she used to work for Fortune 50 companies, not the Fortune 500 companies but the cream of the crop, the top 50 companies and once she transitioned she had to go begging for a job.

Here in the U.S. we are seeing a radical change in protection for us. The courts are behind us for now but Congress is against us and wants to bury us.

Here is where we stand right now.

Workplace Equity: The State of the Law on Protections against Sex-Based Discrimination
The National Law Review
August 30, 2018

Across the country, federal statutes, many state and local laws, court rulings and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance forbid sex discrimination in employment. But these prohibitions are not uniform. There is significant disagreement on the definition of "sex" and whether this term is broad enough to provide protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity. As a result, employers should carefully navigate this legal landscape to ensure compliance with all applicable non-discrimination laws.
[…]
Beyond State Law: Federal Developments Regarding Sexual Orientation
States are not alone in considering whether sexual orientation and gender identity are protected under the law. The federal courts and agencies have also grappled with the issue but have split on the correct reading of the law.
[…]
This conflict was vividly illustrated when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was—in the words of Circuit Judge Rosemary Pooler—put in an "awkward" position this year in Zarda v. Altitude Express. In that case, the DOJ filed an amicus brief supporting the defendant employer and contending that sexual orientation discrimination is not prohibited under Title VII, while the EEOC supported the plaintiff and argued the opposite position.  The Second Circuit en banc agreed with the EEOC and ruled in favor of the skydiving-instructor plaintiff who was fired after a customer complained to management about his reference to being gay. With this decision, the Second Circuit joined the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on this issue. In 2017, the Seventh Circuit found in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, that Title VII includes protection against sexual orientation discrimination, while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital that no such protection exists—creating the beginnings of a circuit split.

Given the divergent opinions at the federal level and the variations in state and local laws, employers should be evaluating their policies to ensure compliance with all applicable anti-discrimination laws.
This coming Supreme Court term will see for the first time in a long time a conservative majority (5-4) and most of the judges believe in the “original” interpretation of the law and ignore the previous court rulings. Such as “sex” does not mean “sexual stereotyping” it just means what is between your legs.

The other prong of attack that the conservatives are using is religion.

She came out as transgender and got fired. Now her case might become a test for LGBT rights before the US Supreme Court.
CNN
By Emanuella Grinberg
August 29, 2018

In the summer of 2013, Aimee Stephens sent her employer a letter explaining she was about to change her life. She was a transgender woman, and she intended to start dressing as such at work.
[…]
She filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Labor's enforcement agency, and the government sued the funeral home. The department accused the funeral home of firing Stephens for being transgender and for her refusal to conform to sex-based stereotypes.

A district court agreed with the funeral home that the federal workplace discrimination law known as Title VII did not protect transgender people. But it found that the funeral home did discriminate against Stephens for her refusal to conform to its "preferences, expectations, or stereotypes" for women. The EEOC appealed.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Stephens and the EEOC in March. The funeral home's lawyers accused the court of exceeding its authority by expanding the definition of sex in a way that threatens to "shift" what it means to be a man or a woman.

These are the cases that I fear!

We could lose our Title VII protection and people will be allowed to discriminate against us just by saying "it is against their religion.

The Supreme Court is going into a conservative phase with the appointment of justice Kavanaugh who in appeals court cases has ruled on the “original” intent of the law. I foresee a 5-4 ruling against us.