Discrimination in the Workplace - your thoughts . . .
 

My mother and I recently had a conversation about the rights of transgendered people in the workplace and whether they are entitled to the same rights under the anti-discrimination statutes as men, women, and other protected categories. Our conversation stemmed from the recent firing of a City Manager by the City Commission in a city very close to where I live. The City Manager (who presently is a man) revealed in a news conference that he has been participating in pre-operative hormonal therapy in preparation for his pending sex change. He had plans to return as a woman, I am supposing within the next couple of months. The City Commission terminated his contract and he was fired. The reason for the termination: his status as a transgendered person, and according to the Commission, their lack of trust in his judgment. I should note that the only reason he said anything is because one of the city workers found out about the pending operation and began spreading rumors.

My mom and I had a long debate on whether the firing was appropriate . . I wanted to get the thoughts of people who are my contemporaries. Any thoughts???

I would question the City Managers judgement prior to announcing that he is preparing for a sex change. If there was no lack of trust in judgement and this individual had an impeccable work record, then I believe that the termination was not appropriate. As for his status as a transgendered person, I'm sure there would be accomodations that the City would have had to make in order for him to continue his employment.

I don't think that anyone undergoes this kind of surgery without much consideration, so I think that pointing this decision as a demonstration of questionable judgement seems problematic to me.
It certainly sounds like discrimnation to me particularly if, as skeeliteful says, there had been no question of his judgement prior to this annoucement.

Great topic......

In a nutshell, I believe s/he was wrongfully terminated. I'm no lawyer, but it just seems wrong.

Those were my thoughts (my mother is ULTRA conservative and didn't see a problem with it - her argument - his change would interfere with the workplace and become an unneeded distraction). The problem is that as a transgendered person he/she is not protected under the anti-discrimination statutes (Title VII). Title VII protects persons from discrimination based on race, sex, gender, religion, and national origin. Techinically he/she doesn't fall under any of those categories, so he/she doesn't have any legal protection . . . The same can be said for those who are homosexual who are terminated because of their lifestyle . . . .they technically don't fall under any protected category.

While the persons who justified the termination said that his values and morals were questionable at this point, there is something morally and ethically wrong with terminating a person NOT because their work product is poor, but because you don't agree with a personal decision they have made. . . . . .

[QUOTE=litAKAtor;1408381]Those were my thoughts (my mother is ULTRA conservative and didn't see a problem with it - her argument - his change would interfere with the workplace and become an unneeded distraction). The problem is that as a transgendered person he/she is not protected under the anti-discrimination statutes (Title VII). Title VII protects persons from discrimination based on race, sex, gender, religion, and national origin. Techinically he/she doesn't fall under any of those categories, so he/she doesn't have any legal protection . . . The same can be said for those who are homosexual who are terminated because of their lifestyle . . . .they technically don't fall under any protected category.

While the persons who justified the termination said that his values and morals were questionable at this point, there is something morally and ethically wrong with terminating a person NOT because their work product is poor, but because you don't agree with a personal decision they have made. . . . . .[/QUOTE]

My thoughts exactly. If he is getting fired for his personal decision, 'an unneeded distraction' could a woman then be fired for her personal decision to get obscenely large breast implants? In both cases, the decision does not affect the actual work at hand, but only alters the person performing the task.

As long as he/she was getting the job done, I could care less whether he was a man or woman, or even a bit of both.

This is interesting. I did not know that. I agree with Infamous, if people start getting fired based on personal decisions that don't affect job performance, then where does the line get drawn?

I didn't know this either. Interesting.

I did find a case out of DC where a Federal Judge permitted a transgendered employee's claim to proceed stating that discrimination based on a person's transgendered status (which is not a protected category) was an extension of discrimination based on gender (which is a protected category). I don't know if very many courts will accept this extension of the law, but I thought it was an interesting perspective. I am thinking that eventually a case will be appealed to the Supreme Court and a decision will have to be made about whether transgendered people and even homosexual people are to be included in the anti discrimination statute . . .don't think it will be anytime soon - the Court, as it stands, is VERY conservative. . .. .

I aim to inform. :D

OK, now this makes sense to me and my non-law mind, because when I see 'transgendered' I automatically think it has something to do with gender. But I guess it's not the 'gender' that's being discriminated against, but the fact that the gender is changing? :confused: Either way, this is interesting stuff, lol.

Kind of. :D The basis for enacting the anti discrimination statute was to eliminate discrimination in employment based on characterstics that at the time were immutable - like race, gender, sex- national origin. Religion was added later. Because courts tend to interpret statutes based on Congressional intent - the belief is that when the statute was enacted, gender meant discrimination based on what you are biologically, not something you made a decision to change into. But like most laws, because our society is constantly changing, the laws tend to be interpreted to address societal changes . . .problem is that all judges don't think like this Judge in DC and tend to be pretty conservative and will go with Congress's intent when the statute was inacted . . . .

Sorry for turning this forum into a law class - but I was interested in seeing what others thought about this issue.

There's a Texas case on the subject that you might find interesting. That transgendered woman went to my law school.

Texas? Yes, please pm me with the cite - that would be VERY interesting to read! Thanks Soror!

Seen this before
 

A male employee at one of our sister colleges became a female employee about 10 years ago. It was big gossip news for awhile. If the district had acknowledged in any way that this was out of the norm, the perennial "any cause" advocates would have swarmed and then it would have been a distraction. As it was, well, it just was and it just is and now he is a she.