McCrory sues DoJ to keep N.C.’s bathroom bill


North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory

As the deadline approaches for North Carolina to disclose its plan for coming into compliance with the Civil Rights Act — in other words, how the state plans to get rid of its odious bathroom bill — North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory has doubled down on discrimination by filing a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice.

McCrory wants the courts to clarify the federal law in regards to the Civil Rights Act, claiming that “The Obama administration is bypassing Congress by attempting to rewrite the law and set restroom policies for public and private employers across the country, not just North Carolina. This is now a national issue that applies to every state and it needs to be resolved at the federal level.”

Continuing to show either his ignorance of transgender issues or his utter disdain and contempt for transgender people, McCrory added, “They are now telling every government agency and every company that employs more than 15 people that men should be allowed to use a women’s locker room, restroom or shower facility.”

The U.S. Justice Department sent McCrory’s office a letter Wednesday, May 4, explaining that the state’s bathroom law — which not prohibits transgender people from using the appropriate public restroom facility but also rescinded a nondiscrimination ordinance passed by the Charlotte city government and prohibits any other local governmental entity from passing such ordinances — violates the Civil rights Act. DoJ also warned that unless the state remedies the problem, North Carolina will lose millions — billions, even — in federal funding for things like education.

In his lawsuit, McCrory pointed out that he directed state agencies to provide single-occupancy restrooms. In announcing the lawsuit, the governor, a Republican, said he filed the action “to ensure that North Carolina continues to receive federal funding until the courts resolve this issue.”

Chris Sgro, a Democrat from Greensboro, told Fox8 news that the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals “has already said federally that this case is not going to hold up in court,” which means that McCrory’s lawsuit will accomplish nothing other than “costing us $4½ billion in federal education money.”

“He’s already cost us $500 million in economic loss in the month alone,” Sgro added. “So the only answer here is repeal and that needs to happen sooner rather than later.”

Angela Mazaris, Wake Forest University’s LGBTQ Center director, accused McCrory of “playing political games” that will cost the state’s residents in the private sector and federal funds.

“If Gov. McCrory is concerned with public safety, he ought to educate himself about the needs and experiences of transgender North Carolinians, whose health and safety is threatened” by the state’s discriminatory bathroom law, Mazaris said. “The Department of Justice has clearly stated that transgender people have the right to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity, and our governor needs to do his job and protect the rights of our state’s most vulnerable citizens.”

—  Tammye Nash

Nebraska judge throws God’s lawsuit out of court

Screen shot 2015-05-06 at 10.05.40 AMA Nebraska federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit against “Homosexuals” on the grounds that the woman filing the suit was not God’s spokesman.

Sylvia Ann Driskell claimed to be the “Ambassador for Plaintiff’s God, and His, Son, Jesus Christ.”

Although she claimed in her suit that gays were violating God’s law, she filed under the Civil Rights Act, a U.S. law, that gays were violating her rights.

No word on Driskell’s reaction to finding out that she’s not God’s spokeswoman.



—  David Taffet

Saks backs down from claim on trans people and Title VII

Leyth Jamal

Leyth Jamal

The National Center for Lesbian Rights reported today (Monday, Jan. 26), that Saks Fifth Avenue has withdrawn a motion to dismiss a discrimination lawsuit filed by a former employee on the grounds that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect transgender workers. In addition, an NCLR spokesman noted, the U.S. Department of Justice has filed an historic statement in that same case declaring that Title VII does, indeed, protect trans people.

This is the first time the DOJ has stated without a doubt that Title VII prohibits any time of discrimination against transgender people, not just discrimination based on gender stereotypes.

Saks’ action and the statement from the DOJ are both connected to the lawsuit filed by Leyth Jamal, a trans woman, who claims that she faced extensive discrimination and was eventually fired from Saks in Houston because of her gender identity. NCLR and the Human Rights Campaign became involved in the case after Saks filed its brief saying trans worker are not covered under Title VII.

In a statement announcing that the company was withdrawing the motion to dismiss, Saks officials again denied having discriminated against Jamal:

“We have decided to withdraw our motion to dismiss because important concerns about transgender rights under the current law are overshadowing a clear case of employee misconduct. Our position is, and always has been, that it is unacceptable to discriminate against transgender individuals.  Saks does not, and will not, tolerate discrimination and legal strategy should not obscure that bedrock commitment.  We did not discriminate against this former Associate. And we want to see all individuals protected under the law.”

Saks said Jamal and another former associate were fired for using “inappropriate and offensive language on the selling floor” in front of a customer. The other person fired does not identify as LGBT, the Saks statement said.

Sarah Warbelow, legal director for HRC, said, “We are pleased that the case can now be resolved on the merits of the claims and not a sweeping negation of basic Title VII protections.” And NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter credited Saks with “correcting its position and recognizing that it has a legal obligation to treat transgender workers equally.”

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2012 ruled in Macy v Holder that discrimination based on an individual’s gender identity is sex discrimination and so constituents a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed complaints in federal courts in Florida and Michigan in 2014 against two separate companies accused of discriminating against trans employees (Aimee Stephens and Brandi Branson). And last December, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the DOJ will no longer assert that Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based on sex “does not encompass gender identity per se (including transgender discrimination).”


—  Tammye Nash

Fla. governor says it’s OK to discriminate based on sexual orientation, age, handicap, religion

Rick Scott

New Florida Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican and teabagger, has issued a non-discrimination order for state employees that not only fails to include sexual orientation and gender identity, but also leaves out some categories that are already protected under state law.

The South Florida Gay News reports that Scott’s nondiscrimination order includes only “race, gender, creed, color and national origin.” The Florida Civil Rights Act – which is state law and trumps Scott’s order — includes “race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status.”

Gay-rights advocates had lobbied Scott to include sexual orientation and gender identity in his nondiscrimination order. Needless to say, they are disappointed:

“Governor Scott’s limited view of diversity is very discouraging,” said Rand Hoch, president of the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council. “Governor Scott did not even include all of the classifications listed in the Florida Civil Rights Act — let alone sexual orientation and gender identity.”

More on Scott from the Wonk Room:

Scott positioned himself as a social conservative during his election campaign, although he rarely addressed equality issues on the stump. He reiterating his support for the state’s now defunct anti-gay adoption law, saying he opposed to “single sex adoption” and insisting that “Children should be raised in a home with a married man and a woman.” His campaign website also says that marriage should be between one man and one woman. During his well publicized brawl with primary challenger and former Attorney General Bill McCollum, Scott attacked McCollum for endorsing the “pro-homosexual rights candidate Rudy Giuliani for president in 2008.″

—  John Wright

Kentucky Senate responds to Rand Paul by passing resolution affirming civil rights

Rand Paul
Rand Paul

The Kentucky State Senate has responded to Republican U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul’s suggestion that the federal government shouldn’t have the power to enforce the Civil Rights Act against private businesses.

In response to Paul’s comments, the state Senate passed a resolution calling any form of discrimination inconsistent with American values.

The resolution, SR31, is designed to “Affirm protections of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States requiring equal protection of the law, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Kentucky Civil Rights Act of 1966, which protect the citizens of the Commonwealth from discrimination.”

Since he made those infamous comments about the Civil Rights Act on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show, Paul’s campaign has been suffering, and last week he replaced his campaign manager, according to USA Today.

After his appearance on Maddow, he cancelled an appearance on “Meet the Press” and issued an announcement that, if elected, he would not seek to repeal the Civil Rights Act.продвижение сайта в топ яндекса

—  David Taffet