General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA federal court just ruled that it’s legal for a company to fire a trans employee for coming out
Last edited Wed Aug 24, 2016, 06:01 PM - Edit history (1)
Note: This isn't LBN because story is about 5 days old now, haven't seen it here yet[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:-1px -1px 3px #999999 inset;"]In a case that could have national consequences for employment discrimination against trans people, a federal court judge in Detroit ruled on Thursday that the owners of a funeral home were within their rights when they fired a trans woman for coming out.
Aimee Stephens, a trans woman, was a funeral director at RG & GR Funeral Homes Inc. Her bosses fired her when she told them she is a trans woman and planned to transition, Reuters reported. Stephens worked at the funeral home from 20072013 according to Crains Detroit, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed the lawsuit on her behalf in 2014.
U.S. District Judge Sean Cox ruled that the funeral home owners did not violate Stephens rights because federal law does not specifically protect transgender people from employment discrimination. He said firing Stephens was in line with the owners right to practice their faith.
Whoops, forgot the link:
http://fusion.net/story/338300/detroit-funeral-home-trans-discrimination/
I wish I could fault the Judge on this one, I really do, but this case illustrates one important thing, we need LGBTQI rights to be enshrined into the EEOC at the federal level as quickly as possible. We also need to overturn as many RFRA laws as possible, federal and state level. Vote Democratic from President all the way down ticket, and make sure those Democrats support LGBTQI rights across the board.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)elleng
(130,156 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)elleng
(130,156 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)Politicians seem reluctant to do the heavy lifting required to break new ground and address the issues that are current today. In many states there are still laws about where you can tie your horse, or laws that prohibit cursing around ladies, but protections against upskirt photos and identity theft aren't even on the books.
Gender issues aren't going away. That court made a CYA ruling. Could they have addressed the main issue. that someone who was fired for the sole reason of their gender?
rug
(82,333 posts)malthaussen
(17,066 posts)... but on the other, what keeps one from arguing, then, that no federal statute protects any specific individual not named? Surely, if a whole class of persons can be excluded because they are not specifically named in the statute, it should follow that any individual not specifically named should be excludable.
-- Mal
Initech
(99,915 posts)Fuck "religious freedom" bullshit. It has nothing to do with religion or freedom!