Thursday, May 19, 2005

one more thing about title vii



read this post if you are a transgendered individual. this is not legal advice; it's for educational purposes only. :)

let's just say that, oh... you were working in a firm or a company... and you are a male displaying gender atypical chracteristics. this could mean you started wearing female clothes, or you started wearing earrings. or you were just effeminate. let's just say that the company starts moving you around to the back room, or they fire you or they demote you...

if you characterize yourself as a male with "gender atypical characteristics" then you have a cause of action under title vii as defined by hopkins v. price waterhouse, a supreme court case decided in 1989.

note: if you characterize yourself as a "transsexual" then you will most likely not be allowed a title vii claim (under ulane v. eastern airlines). the plaintiff here, ulane, was post-operative and characterized herself as a "transsexual" not as a member of either gender.

so, let's review:

"i was not offered a promotion, because i was a [pick one: butch female who didn't wear makeup and wore combat boots to work/femme male who wore earrings and grew his hair long]" --> these are the facts in price waterhouse v. hopkins. you can sue under title vii for sex discrimination for having "gender atypical characteristics."

"i was fired, because i am a transsexual." --> no title vii action.

the 9th circuit [which comprises CALIFORNIA] relied on hopkins to decide schwenk v. hartfordin 2000, where an inmate didn't conform to gender norms and was harrassed -- he was a transsexual; however, the 9th circuit decided the case in his favor: "discrimination because one fails to act in the way expected of a man or a woman is forbidden under title vii." basically, he was considered to be a male who behaved not very "male-like" -- not a transgendered individual. it's all how you characterize yourself.

remember kiddies... the law CARES what exact words you use to define yourself, even if both things might arguably be the same... or at least fall in the same ball park. the law doesn't really know what a "transgendered" person is at the moment, so you have to fit yourself nicely into a category to kick legal butt.

[an aside: only one state has recognized a M2F transsexual as a "female," and that is new jersey. things to note... in that case, mt v. jt, the non tranny tried to get the marriage voided so he wouldn't have to pay child support and alimony, and the court thought this was a sleazy way to avoid support, so they decided not to void the marriage. there was a tranny case in ny too, but they didn't end up deciding that the F2M was a male; they just told the F2M to fucking pay child support, because he held himself up to be the second parent. my point is... "avoiding child support" cases is pretty much the only time you can get yourself called your post-operative sex, only because you're trying to avoid a duty. states like kids' rights, and when you try to be a sleazeball, they don't like it. in any case, if you're pre-operative, you're going to be your pre-operative sex, no matter how much you hold yourself out to be "what you feel inside." so, if you're pre-operative, and you were treated badly at work, it's probably not difficult to get yourself categorized as a "male with gender atypical characteristics" and sue.]

and so... the key words here are... "gender atypical characteristics."

this was the main hypothetical on my last exam, just to let everyone know.

just a public service announcement. *walks away whistling innocently*

No comments: