Questions linger over DART board's vote Tuesday night on transgender protections

DART board member Ray Noah, left, and agency general counsel Hyattye Simmons look on during last night's meeting. Noah is the board member who inserted the one-word amendment that would have gutted the proposal. And Simmons has been accused of engineering the plan.
DART board member Ray Noah, left, and agency general counsel Hyattye Simmons look on Tuesday night. Noah is the board member who proposed a one-word amendment last week that would have gutted the transgender protections. And Simmons may have been a co-conspirator.

We have phone calls and e-mails in to DART spokesman Morgan Lyons seeking clarification and confirmation about what exactly the agency’s Board of Directors approved last night with regard to transgender protections.

There are two conflicting interpretations of what happened during the meeting. We’ll explain after the jump.

—  John Wright

DART indicates that it would still oppose an employee's gender-marker change

As I noted yesterday, Dallas Area Rapid Transit is moving forward with a proposal to add transgender protections to its nondiscrimination policy. But does this mean the agency will no longer attempt to intervene if an employee seeks a gender-marker change? When I posed this very question to DART spokesman Morgan Lyons yesterday, he responded by acknowledging that the agency has learned lessons from the current controversy involving a transgender bus driver, including things related to uniforms and restroom use. But Lyons added that when it comes to the issue of gender-marker changes, DART is standing its ground.

“We’ve got a current legal opinion that provides direction in this case, and we haven’t seen anything to change that,” he said. “I wouldn’t anticipate anything different than what was done previously absent new direction.”

In other words, DART attorneys still believe that the 1999 case of Littleton v. Prange established a precedent that prohibits gender-marker changes, even though LGBT legal experts and many Dallas county judges disagree. Not only that, DART apparently still believes it’s the agency’s proper role to get involved in employees’ private legal affairs when the agency believes judges have erred. This sure seems like a slippery slope. For example, if an employee is going through a divorce, and DART doesn’t agree with a judge’s decision about child support or visitation, would the agency try to challenge it?

I also asked Lyons yesterday whether DART plans to consider adding domestic partner benefits. Lyons has said previously that he’s not aware of any current proposal to do so, and he didn’t have additional information when we spoke yesterday. Cece Cox and Rafael McDonnell from Resource Center Dallas, who met with DART officials Tuesday, said they also asked about DP benefits. Cox and McDonnell told me it’s DART’s position that domestic partner benefits are prohibited by Texas’ constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, which also states that, “This state or any political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.” Again, not everyone shares DART’s legal opinion about this, and the cities of Dallas, Austin and El Paso all provide domestic partner benefits to their employees. Now that I think about it, I’m surprised DART’s attorneys haven’t intervened and tried to challenge these cities’ DP benefits, because apparently they don’t have anything better to do.

In case you’re wondering, DART’s next board meeting is at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, and LGBT activists are again planning to attend.

—  John Wright

DART board could vote on adding transgender protections to nondiscrimination policy in May

Dallas Area Rapid Transit’s Board of Directors could vote as early as May on a proposal to add transgender protections to the agency’s employment nondiscrimination policy, spokesman Morgan Lyons said Thursday, March 18.

Lyons’ announcement followed a meeting Tuesday between DART officials and representatives from Resource Center Dallas, in response to a recent controversy involving a transgender bus driver.

DART attempted to intervene in a family court case to oppose the employee’s gender-marker change, prompting an outcry from LGBT activists, who’ve voiced their concerns at two consecutive board meetings.

Lyons said a proposal to add gender identity and expression to the agency’s nondiscrimination policy, which already includes sexual orientation, will be presented to the board’s Diversity and Economic Opportunity Committee in April.

“There’s a process we’ll have to go through,” Lyons said. “The first step for us in April will be to brief the committee and get them up to speed.”

DART staff will then return to the committee in May with a recommendation, Lyons said. If the committee approves the recommendation, the proposed policy change could go to the full board by the end of that month.

Lyons added that any corresponding expansion of diversity training for DART employees is pending.

“The policy review is really the first step,” he said.

On Tuesday, two top DART officials met with representatives from Resource Center Dallas to discuss amending the nondiscrimination policy, expanding diversity training and other issues.

On Wednesday, the RCD representatives said they were cautiously optimistic.

“We’re hopeful, and we’ll remain vigilant,” said Cece Cox, RCD’s associate executive director over GLBT programs. “Those two people in the meeting were supporters [of the policy change] but they’re not the only two deciders in the organization.”

The DART officials who attended the meeting were Kriss Ann Gamez, director of diversity and EEO; and Ben Gomez, executive vice president for administration.

Cox was joined by Rafael McDonnell, RCD’s strategic communications and programs manager; and Marla Compton, program coordinator for Gender Education, Advocacy and Resources (GEAR).

—  John Wright