Transgender Employment Discrimination
Disscussion of how transsexuals are not protected under title VII and provides an example of how this affects transsexuals. A woman, after returning from surgery, was discovered to be a transsexual by her employer and then fired. The case argued that sex was not a strict matter of oneās body or parts but also was influenced by psychological factors and oneās sexual identity. The first court to hear the case ruled that she was fired due to her transsexuality and found it to be unlawful under title VII. However, a second court later reversed the ruling and said that it was not protected because title VII does not include sexual identity and that Congress would not include personās sexual identities different from their gender assigned at birth.
Ā The courts also have historically combined transsexuals with sexual orientation in the past despite the two being completely separate parts of oneās identity. As such though transsexuals earn a āprotected classificationā it fails to acknowledge the difference the two groups have and the difference problems they face, namely, definition of sex by the courts. Some have tried to find a way to manipulate the law such as a fire woman who returned to work acting feminine and changing her appearance. She was discriminated against and suspended for disobeying policy. She sued on the ground of sexual stereotyping, that they expected her to act a particular way because of what sex they identified her as and punished her for going against their expectations. The court denied her claim saying that because his real claim was being discriminated against because he was transsexual, she was not protected. This case was later reversed by a separate circuit court that ruled that the woman had argued enough evidence to support a sex stereotype case and that the Supreme Court set the precedent in Price Waterhouse in which they concluded gender discrimination is equivalent to sexual discrimination and therefore gender identity is protected under title VII. Despite this, many courts still do not interpret title VII as such.
Ā There are still a number of problems though. One is that a trans person arguing for a discrimination must have solid evidence or be able to isolate specific statements made by coworkers or supervisors, the claim has no basis because technically the trans identity is not protected by name under title VII. For example, if an employer or coworker fires, discredits, passes over for a promotion or generally discriminated an individual who has just come out as trans, the trans person must be able to provide a statement or other behavior from these other individuals that would suggest that their sexual identity is the reason for this treatment. Failure to do so means lack of evidence to the court and therefore no case can be made.
Ā I agree with this article in that one of the biggest issues presented in the cases they mentioned was the definition of sex. Without a solid definition it makes it hard to make consistent rulings or to even grant trans individuals the protection they deserve under the law. I also appreciate that they included several cases in which progress was made in the law in regards to trans peoples which will hopefully become the norm as most of what was argued in the case was directly protected by law under title VII. There was not much I disagreed with in this article in terms of the perspective of the person writing the article but there were mention of events that I strongly disagree with. One major question is; If the Supreme Court set the president about sex, gender and identity, why are not all courts made to uphold these laws? And what as citizens can we do to make sure these laws are followed or remove those who would refuse to follow the laws they seek to enforce? Ā Ā