Transexual gets ?35,000 compensation for workplace discrimination

Recommended Videos

Zaik

New member
Jul 20, 2009
2,077
0
0
HG131 said:
Zaik said:
What a shame.

You can't really say they didn't try to accommodate him. Kind of getting tired of this nonsense.
Yes, how dare she fight for her


The day straight people can wear whatever the hell they want to work, no matter where they work, you can probably call it a right. Until then, it's a privilege(that straight people don't get either) and thinking you're a woman that was accidentally born with a penis doesn't change that.
 

Serenegoose

Faerie girl in hiding
Mar 17, 2009
2,016
0
0
Oh, won't someone please think of the poor corporation!

Diddums.

Good for her. Someone tried to pull bullshit on her and it cost them. As it ought to be.
 

Zaik

New member
Jul 20, 2009
2,077
0
0
HG131 said:
Zaik said:
HG131 said:
Zaik said:
What a shame.

You can't really say they didn't try to accommodate him. Kind of getting tired of this nonsense.
Yes, how dare she fight for her rights.
The day straight people can wear whatever the hell they want to work, no matter where they work, you can probably call it a right. Until then, it's a privilege(that straight people don't get either) and thinking you're a woman that was accidentally born with a penis doesn't change that.
No, it's not. She's not wearing "whatever the hell" she wants, she's wearing the clothing that a person of her gender wears, and they should must respect that.
Judging from what the story suggests, it's still a guy, whether you like it or not. Dress code is dress code. It doesn't change just because you think you're something you aren't.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's a duck. It's not all of the sudden a goose just because it wants to be one.
 

Serenegoose

Faerie girl in hiding
Mar 17, 2009
2,016
0
0
Zaik said:
HG131 said:
Zaik said:
HG131 said:
Zaik said:
What a shame.

You can't really say they didn't try to accommodate him. Kind of getting tired of this nonsense.
Yes, how dare she fight for her rights.
The day straight people can wear whatever the hell they want to work, no matter where they work, you can probably call it a right. Until then, it's a privilege(that straight people don't get either) and thinking you're a woman that was accidentally born with a penis doesn't change that.
No, it's not. She's not wearing "whatever the hell" she wants, she's wearing the clothing that a person of her gender wears, and they should must respect that.
Judging from what the story suggests, it's still a guy, whether you like it or not. Dress code is dress code. It doesn't change just because you think you're something you aren't.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's a duck. It's not all of the sudden a goose just because it wants to be one.
It always really amuses me when I see people bawww like this and I remember. She won. Bigots like you lost. You always lose, in the end. You lost during the suffrage movement, you lost in the black civil rights movement, and you're losing now. So no. She's still a woman. Whether you like it or not. And all you can do is impotently rage about it on the internet.
 

Zaik

New member
Jul 20, 2009
2,077
0
0
Serenegoose said:
Zaik said:
HG131 said:
Zaik said:
HG131 said:
Zaik said:
What a shame.

You can't really say they didn't try to accommodate him. Kind of getting tired of this nonsense.
Yes, how dare she fight for her rights.
The day straight people can wear whatever the hell they want to work, no matter where they work, you can probably call it a right. Until then, it's a privilege(that straight people don't get either) and thinking you're a woman that was accidentally born with a penis doesn't change that.
No, it's not. She's not wearing "whatever the hell" she wants, she's wearing the clothing that a person of her gender wears, and they should must respect that.
Judging from what the story suggests, it's still a guy, whether you like it or not. Dress code is dress code. It doesn't change just because you think you're something you aren't.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's a duck. It's not all of the sudden a goose just because it wants to be one.
It always really amuses me when I see people bawww like this and I remember. She won. Bigots like you lost. You always lose, in the end. You lost during the suffrage movement, you lost in the black civil rights movement, and you're losing now. So no. She's still a woman. Whether you like it or not. And all you can do is impotently rage about it on the internet.
Hardly a baw. Get over yourself. I said it was a shame the government will allow people to just say "fuck the rules, i'm x" and get away with it.

He's still a guy, and if he still looks like a guy and i ever meet him, I'll call him that. If he doesn't, then I won't. Because he won't be a guy anymore.

Is it so hard to believe that someone who doesn't agree with you might possibly NOT be out for your blood? Maybe, just maybe, I'm not a gay bashing queer h8r, I just think gay people should be held to the exact standard straight people are held to, nothing more or less. I bolded it so your eyes would be drawn to it, since you can't see anything anyone says beyond "no".

HG131 said:
Zaik said:
HG131 said:
Zaik said:
HG131 said:
Zaik said:
What a shame.

You can't really say they didn't try to accommodate him. Kind of getting tired of this nonsense.
Yes, how dare she fight for her rights.
The day straight people can wear whatever the hell they want to work, no matter where they work, you can probably call it a right. Until then, it's a privilege(that straight people don't get either) and thinking you're a woman that was accidentally born with a penis doesn't change that.
No, it's not. She's not wearing "whatever the hell" she wants, she's wearing the clothing that a person of her gender wears, and they should must respect that.
Judging from what the story suggests, it's still a guy, whether you like it or not. Dress code is dress code. It doesn't change just because you think you're something you aren't.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's a duck. It's not all of the sudden a goose just because it wants to be one.
She's female. She doesn't think she's something she's not, she is female.
From the sound of things, not yet. Read above.

I have no issue calling him a her once he looks like a she. If his appearance in femine clothing is so disconcerting it would cost his business sales, then it's not a she. You can try to re-invent words all day, but in the end things will be what they are, not what they want to be.
 

cynicalsaint1

Salvation a la Mode
Apr 1, 2010
545
0
21
nekoali said:
I'm happy to. I try to spread accurate information and hope to allow for better understand of the transgender condition and LGBT issues when I can. Lack of information, or worse false or incomplete information is the worst problem that we face.
Out of curiousity what do you think the company should have done?

Reading the article, to me at least, it sounds like they tried to be accommodating, things didn't work out, then she sued them. I get the whole "Its not her problem if you can't deal with her being transgendered" thing, but if she's employed by a company in a client facing role, and her being transgendered begins to affect client relations and business then it is the company's problem whether its her fault or not.

Now reading the article its hard to tell whether or not this was the case as there isn't enough information, but lets say hypothetically that this was the case. What should the company do? Continue to let her damage their business? Take some form of action and risk being sued for it? I mean it doesn't look like there's anyway for the company to deal with this and not end up screwed. I mean they could potentially be sued even if they tried putting her in another non-client facing position or something.

To me there just doesn't sound like there's a real clear-cut way for this to be dealt with. I mean the company can't even have a dialog about it with her, without it possibly being construed as discrimination.
 

DudeistBelieve

TellEmSteveDave.com
Sep 9, 2010
4,771
1
0
cynicalsaint1 said:
nekoali said:
I'm happy to. I try to spread accurate information and hope to allow for better understand of the transgender condition and LGBT issues when I can. Lack of information, or worse false or incomplete information is the worst problem that we face.
Out of curiousity what do you think the company should have done?

Reading the article, to me at least, it sounds like they tried to be accommodating, things didn't work out, then she sued them. I get the whole "Its not her problem if you can't deal with her being transgendered" thing, but if she's employed by a company in a client facing role, and her being transgendered begins to affect client relations and business then it is the company's problem whether its her fault or not.

Now reading the article its hard to tell whether or not this was the case as there isn't enough information, but lets say hypothetically that this was the case. What should the company do? Continue to let her damage their business? Take some form of action and risk being sued for it? I mean it doesn't look like there's anyway for the company to deal with this and not end up screwed. I mean they could potentially be sued even if they tried putting her in another non-client facing position or something.

To me there just doesn't sound like there's a real clear-cut way for this to be dealt with. I mean the company can't even have a dialog about it with her, without it possibly being construed as discrimination.
It seems actually both sides tried to be accomodating, but the employer was ignorant in the legal social ways they were suppose to handle the situation. And I do praise them for at least trying, mind you, but ignorance is not a legal defense for breaking the law. Which they did, because they did discriminate.

Also anyone that thinks that a transexual person wants this kind of situation to happen is a fucking moron. Clearly any rational human being would choose to be accepted by society instead of out being discriminated and humiliate, then made right with a couple bills in their pocket. Companies are actually in the better position, because they can either stand by their employee and possibly lose some ignorant customers OR they can flat out dismiss the employee and take a one time monetary hit and continue on as usual.
 

nekoali

New member
Aug 25, 2009
227
0
0
There is no denying that this is a tricky situation, and one that every transgender person and their employer face. However, gender identity is a protected right in the area that she lives in. That is how she won the case. Had the same thing happened where I lived, I would receive nothing, because Georgia has no protection for gender identity. Which means that I can be fired at any time working in this state for being transgender, and it is legal. Fortunately, the company I do work for is based out of California, and both they and our clients have been very accepting of my transition.

There is very little information about the case, so any thing I or anyone else has been saying is just conjecture and guesswork. Ms Harmon did ask to leave the company when she began to live full time, and they asked her to stay. In doing so, they should have been accepting her. They wanted her enough to keep her around, but they didn't want her to transition. They wanted the man that they knew. So they are denying her of her right to live her life as it should be. That is discrimination, as much as if you were to say, hire someone of the Jewish faith but demand that they never reveal or talk about their religion, even casually. Or saying that a gay person can work for you, but they can't talk about their partner or the fact that they are gay. With transgender people, it is not even that easy.... We literally wear our differences when we start to transition.

Honestly, no where in the article did I get that any of the company's clients complained. It was just the fear that they might that motivated the company to discriminate against Ms Harmon. Possibly the fear or bigotry of one of her managers, but we have no way of knowing that. In most cases though, it's someone in management who has a problem that causes these things.

For the sake of example though, suppose several clients did have a problem with Ms Harmon's transition. And they were clients of hers. Why couldn't the company just have someone they would be more comfortable with handle those clients. They wouldn't have to deal with, possibly even see or think about Ms Harmon then. The same thing happened to my room mate when she transitioned. One of her clients was uncomfortable with the change, so they assigned that client to another agent and my room mate took on other people who didn't care. And honestly... most people really don't care about what someone else does.

Even at the worst case scenario and every one of their clients was a transphobic bigot, was there nothing she could have done and still live and work there as a woman? I could argue that they tried to do that with having her work from home, but she seemed to regard that as a punishment, or they were trying to remove her from the office. Again, to little information is given to really know what goes on. As far as the excuse that having her there was causing an unpleasant atmosphere in the office... That is entirely management's doing. They are the ones who discriminated against Ms Harmon. She even agreed to go along with it for a time. But the fact that management felt badly about her transition likely spread to the rest of her office workers. She would have become someone to avoid if you want to keep in good graces with management. She could even become open season for anyone else in the office with hatred in their hearts, because management quietly disapproves of her transition.

In agreeing to keep Ms Harmon employed, they should have accepted her transition. I doubt that the fears of clients being uncomfortable was well founded, since most people wouldn't even care. And if someone did complain, there were many other options than discriminating against Ms Harmon. But that is what they chose to do. Discriminate against her. And in here area, that is illegal, as the courts ruled.

People really need to stop letting fear of the unknown or different stir up hatred and discrimination. We are all just human beings. Transgender people aren't any different from anyone else, aside from an unusual birth defect. We have the same feelings, same homes and dreams as anyone else.. plus the dream to live life openly and honestly, as we really are. Instead of having to hide behind a gender mask so other people won't be made uncomfortable... or become violent. Being transgender is not harmful to anyone... and it isn't something we choose. The harm comes to those who dislike, fear or hate us. And nearly all of the harm falls right on us.

We don't want special rights. Or to shove our differences in other people's faces. We just want to live our lives as we were intended to. And peacefully. Maybe someday that will happen. And for the generations of transgender children that will come after me... I hope that day comes sooner rather than later.
 

cynicalsaint1

Salvation a la Mode
Apr 1, 2010
545
0
21
SaneAmongInsane said:
It seems actually both sides tried to be accomodating, but the employer was ignorant in the legal social ways they were suppose to handle the situation. And I do praise them for at least trying, mind you, but ignorance is not a legal defense for breaking the law. Which they did, because they did discriminate.

Also anyone that thinks that a transexual person wants this kind of situation to happen is a fucking moron. Clearly any rational human being would choose to be accepted by society instead of out being discriminated and humiliate, then made right with a couple bills in their pocket. Companies are actually in the better position, because they can either stand by their employee and possibly lose some ignorant customers OR they can flat out dismiss the employee and take a one time monetary hit and continue on as usual.
I don't think I ever said anything about the transgender person wanting to be in the situation. Really my point is that is that the article made it sound like the company was caught in a Catch-22 here, in which case its bad for everyone - I mean if you were running a business and heard a story like this chances are you'd think twice about hiring a transgendered individual.

It seems to me that there's a fine line to walked here, and not a lot of reason to attempt to walk it. Ironic that it would have been better for both parties if she had simply quit.
 

nekoali

New member
Aug 25, 2009
227
0
0
cynicalsaint1 said:
SaneAmongInsane said:
It seems actually both sides tried to be accomodating, but the employer was ignorant in the legal social ways they were suppose to handle the situation. And I do praise them for at least trying, mind you, but ignorance is not a legal defense for breaking the law. Which they did, because they did discriminate.

Also anyone that thinks that a transexual person wants this kind of situation to happen is a fucking moron. Clearly any rational human being would choose to be accepted by society instead of out being discriminated and humiliate, then made right with a couple bills in their pocket. Companies are actually in the better position, because they can either stand by their employee and possibly lose some ignorant customers OR they can flat out dismiss the employee and take a one time monetary hit and continue on as usual.
I don't think I ever said anything about the transgender person wanting to be in the situation. Really my point is that is that the article made it sound like the company was caught in a Catch-22 here, in which case its bad for everyone - I mean if you were running a business and heard a story like this chances are you'd think twice about hiring a transgendered individual.

It seems to me that there's a fine line to walked here, and not a lot of reason to attempt to walk it. Ironic that it would have been better for both parties if she had simply quit.
Which is what she tried to do at the very beginning, when she told them she was going to transition. If they really felt that having her working there, as a woman, would have cause such a problem, they should have accepted the resignation and both parties would have gone their separate ways.