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The National Center for Lesbian Rights reported today (Monday, Jan. 26), that Saks Fifth Avenue has withdrawn a motion to dismiss a discrimination lawsuit filed by a former employee on the grounds that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect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