Federal Appeals Court rules in our favor...we're protected!

[Guest Shari]

Hi everyone,

Did you see this article today on CNN.com?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/12/us/sex-change-case/index.html?hpt=us_c2

A Transwoman was fired for transitioning. The federal court ruled it violated the equal protection language in the constitution. This is a big step.

Shari

[JenniferB]

Good article Shari, thanks.

That's not the first ruling in favor of a transsexual who was discriminated against. What makes it special is that the ruling was from Atlanta or the deep south. Usually that area of the country is very unaccepting of the LGBT community. This ruling signifies we are becoming more accepted everywhere.

Jenny

[Guest John Chiv]

Jenny,

When I read where it was that also made me take note. And as pointed out in the article, one of the woman's supporter was a conservative judge. Yes, they can appeal it but as Shari pointed out it is a big step.

John

[Guest Krisina]

Very good news for anyone living in the US. It might get appealed but having said that it happened in the south and a conservative judge sided with the ruling.

It will be nice when in Canada there is specific wording to protect Canadian transgender individuals.

Krisina

[Guest Ann Onymous]

As a reminder, unless it is appealed and the SCotUS ultimately rules, then the Opinion remains binding ONLY in the Circuit in which the Opinion rendered. It would only be considered persuasive elsewhere in the Country.

There also remains the potential of a request for an en banc hearing which would then bring the matter back to the Circuit where it would be heard by the full panel instead of just the panel of three...

[Guest Karen K]

As Ann pointed out this is binding only in Georgia, and Georgia is no where near Texas. But I applaud this decission for our sisters and brothers in that state.

Laura Jane

[Guest Ann Onymous]

As Ann pointed out this is binding only in Georgia, and Georgia is no where near Texas. But I applaud this decission for our sisters and brothers in that state.

Actually, I believe the 11th Circuit encompasses Floriduh and Alabummer as well...

And, there are some other issues in the Opinion that may not translate quite as smoothly into the private sector. Some of the Court's holding surrounds the fact that this was an action BY a government agent...and as our own litigation against a State agency has shown time and again (hey, we enjoy getting to collect fees from the State for kicking their donkey repeatedly), actions by an agent of the government are viewed differently under the law in many instances than those taken by a private sector employee.

Oh, and the Court never reached the issue of medically-based discrimination, which had been the subject of a cross-claim filed by Glenn. As such, there is much that is still unsettled and may therefore become ripe for other litigation down the road in the right fact-base...

[Drea]

As always good insights into legal matters Ann.

From what I read this looks like a pretty straitforward case in many ways but at issue is the applicability of the law. That could be the reporting though but it does seem to involve someone who who clearly has gone through medical interventions and basis of discrimination seems clear. It is not like some cases where either the person didn't seek medical professionals before springing it on the employer or at the employer had engaged in some questionable activities or wouldn't follow reasonable requests. Things that I tend to think create bad impressions.

[Guest Shari]

I am always impressed by the thoughtful and meaningful discussions here. Thank you all for your insights.

One of the things I have always liked about the legal system is that it is based on conflict and strength of argument. If I ever need help, I hope some of you are in my corner to analyze and advise.

Every win, helps. The people who stand up and fight for what is right are my heroes.

Shari

[Guest Juniper Blue]

Great article Shari ... it is reason to feel hopeful that true equality will one day be attained.

[Guest Leah1026]

As a reminder, unless it is appealed and the SCotUS ultimately rules, then the Opinion remains binding ONLY in the Circuit in which the Opinion rendered. It would only be considered persuasive elsewhere in the Country.

There also remains the potential of a request for an en banc hearing which would then bring the matter back to the Circuit where it would be heard by the full panel instead of just the panel of three...

Given the current make-up of the Supreme Court we could easily lose an appeal. The conservatives on the court are pro-business (Citizens United anyone?) and against enforcing individual liberties. Unless Obama is reelected and appoints a couple more justices the court will most likely continue it's rightward tilt for many years to come. Another fact about the Supreme Court people don't remember: They only hear cases they want to hear (which is a small fraction of cases filed). So any case involving a trans person may never be heard because they don't deem it important enough.

So it is important to keep fighting the battle for civil rights on the state level. Right now 16 states include gender identity in their anti-discrimination laws. If that doesn't sound like much remember 15 years ago there were NONE. We are approaching a tipping point in this battle. Once we get to about 25 states or so the rest will come easier. And with that state recognition, more education and time... federal (Congress) recognition will finally be realized.

Keep the faith people.

[Guest OutOfSorts180]

Right now 16 states include gender identity in their anti-discrimination laws. I

Hi Leah:

Is there a listing anywhere of states which comprise the 16? And which states have any current on-going "actions" (for lack of a better word) that could lead them to also include gender identity in their anti-discrimination laws?

[Guest Leah1026]

Right now 16 states include gender identity in their anti-discrimination laws. I

Hi Leah:

Is there a listing anywhere of states which comprise the 16? And which states have any current on-going "actions" (for lack of a better word) that could lead them to also include gender identity in their anti-discrimination laws?

Massachusetts (excepting public accommodations)

Maine

Vermont

Colorado

New Mexico

Nevada

California

Hawaii

Oregon

Washington

Connecticut

Minnesota

Illinois

Rhode Island

New Jersey

Iowa

http://www.transgenderlaw.org/ndlaws/index.htm

Massachusetts, Nevada and Connecticut were added in the last year.

[Guest NatashaJade]

The 9th Circuit has a similar ruling. The 9th covers WA, OR, CA, HI, AK, MT, ID, AZ & NV.

xoxo

[Guest Donna Jean]

.

Every little step adds up to the whole journey!

Dee Jay

[Guest OutOfSorts180]

Thanks Leah for the list of states.

I followed the link you provided and since I'm from Texas, I found that for Texas, there is a house bill that was introduced back in 2009, but evidently, not much action since then. Although as I understand it, that doesn't mean it's a dead bill.

Here's hoping that Texas and the other states get on board!