How may roads must a man walk .......

 It's galling the way Urban Treatment Center is staying by it's position that EL Jais' termination was justified. As the courtroom looms, they are so confident  that the charges will be dismissed.  I've become so upset , I've taken to performing Internet searches that return  undecipherable law documents to give me comfort. After all my reading, you know what I think? Urban treatment needs to wipe that smug smile off their face.

Urban Treatments argument goes that only men can watch other men pee ; Therefore a necessary qualification for  the position of  urine monitor is that one is a male. The U.S labor code, and New Jersey's, allows for some positions  to have specific requirements for sex if it's necessary for the business to run. So, Urban Treatments practice of male  only  monitors for males is theoretically fine; The court hearing El jais case is going to have to determine whether a male only qualification for monitoring males urine is necessary to the operation of Urban Treatments Business.But does Urban Treatment have the authority to define what constitutes a male?

They seem to think so, judging by the careful questioning they gave El Jai. Judging by their questions on his  surgeries , Urban Treatment Center has the most common Phallic centered definition of male. But the answer is no , they have no authority to say what constitutes a man. That authority lies with the State.

   By every Federal and legal document El Jai is a man . Birth certificate , drivers license social security all the documents that define our persons, all of them attest El Jai is a male. In fact, it was those very documents that  Urban Treatment used as identifying papers to hire El Jai. So if the State says El Jai is a male, and they have the authority to do so.....Then El Jai must be male.

Starting to feel that smile crack a little Urban Treatment  Center?

El Jai Devoureux

 El Jai  was hired by The Urban Treatment center to act as a urine monitor for  the male clients. On his second day of work he was called in by his manager and told that an associate of his had spoken to the manager and revealed that  El Jai had been assigned  female at birth. The manager than asked El Jai if he was a man. El Jai answered yes. His manager questioned him further and asked if  he had SRS. EL Jai refused to answer. That day El Jai was fired .El Jai  in response has sued his former employers, charging them with three counts of discrimination. El Jai has asked in his suit that he be re-instated.

The reason for firing El Jai the Employer gave when faced with these charges? That this position was a position that required a male. I paraphrase "There was no discriminatory intent". The last bit was legalese for we did nothing wrong in firing El Jai.. Nor have they budged on this position..

In the next few post more of the EL Jai case will be discussed.




  



 

..

In Montana Victory; But Tennesse Falls.

Like I said in a previous post I am a Californian transgender woman ,and as I am learning as I develop this blog ,very fortunate. The Law here in California maybe vague; But the workplace protections are there. What about the states where gender identity and expression aren't protected? Was there a movement toward protection for transgenders in the workplace?. So I chose at random from the thirty eight states that don't have workplace protection for transgenders and my finger landed on Montana..


Hopeful and terrible discoveries rapidly followed. Hopeful discovery : Missoula , Montana had gone ahead of the state and passed it's own non-discrimination ordinance which  prohibited  discrimination based on gender identity and expression. Terrible discovery : The states' response was to propose legislation that would prohibit the passage of any ordinance  that would give protections to any class that wasn't already in Montana's "Human  Rights Act". Ironically, but not surprising,The "Human Rights Act " does not include gender identity and expression.

While researching the developments in Montana, I came across  a striking parallel . Tennessee like Montana  does not prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and expression. The city of  Nashville had passed an ordinance that included protections for gender identity and expression . The response of the state of Tennessee? Propose legislation that would prohibit cities from having tougher discrimination laws than the state. See the similarity?

My initial response was rage;The sheer animus galled me. Two States were willing to strong arm their cities so that a minority could continue to be legally discriminated against. Then my reason re-asserted  itself and it all became clear: We transgenders are  the catalysis for the new chapter of  the civil right struggle. What was happening in Montana  and Tennessee was  the opposing forces of progress and prejudice ducking  it out.

So what was the outcome? Did prejudice prevail or did justice flower?It was a draw. In Montana the bill went to the Assembly and passed . Lack of support in the Senate resulted in the bill being sent back to committee;There it died. The Bill in Tennessee passed the Assembly and Senate with little opposition and is now law.

What s my conclusion? Yes, the movement for work place protections for transgenders is alive in those States where there aren't  any protections currently; But so is the counter-movement of bigotry.

So Trans-Brothers and Sisters, the struggle continues....



.

Gender Confusion in The Golden State- AB 887 to the rescue

I'm frightened ....a little. First,  Some statistics on transgender employment : % 67 of trangenders reported , in a survey given in California, that they experienced some form of  workplace discrimination. Thats a very large percentage.It's the kind of percentage that keeps you up at night; Especially if you are contemplating your entrance into the work force.
 
 I'm only frightened a little though; Here in the Golden State , I cannot be discriminated against because of the gender I perceive my self as (gender identity),  nor for presenting myself as that gender.(gender expression). "Well", you may say "If you are so protected in California, why is the amount of workplace discrimination so high? The answer will surprise you as much as it surprised me.

I became a wild eyed , obsessed woman  when I began to contemplate this paradox. Why were so many transgenders experiencing such high rates of  workplace discrimination in a state that is one of the few to have  non-discrimination laws that prohibits discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression ? Again and again I asked myself this question as I searched the Almighty Google . Then I found this  and the answer became clear.

California's non-discrimination laws are too vague!. There isn't any clarity on the protected classes of gender expression and gender identity, nor is the language explicit enough in describing the inclusion of gender identity and gender expression in the class  of gender. So how is an employer going to properly police the workplace or conform their policies to law without a coherent understanding of the law?

 So now the state of California is considering AB 887 to remedy this confusion. If passed this law would enumerate in all non-discrimination laws in California the protected classes of gender expression and identity.The bill would also explicitly declare that gender expression and identity are included in the class of gender. With this clarification , employers will be able to conform to workplace non-discrimination laws with ease and that scary , large percentage would go away.

 I am still frightened a little but I  have hope for the passage of AB 887. I have hope for a time when California's  extensive protections for Gender will finally have potency.