Sexual Discrimination of Transgendered Individuals
Sexual Discrimination of Transgendered Individuals
September 2, 2013
Introduction
In recent cases, there have been major victories settled against companies regarding transgender rights. In the first case, the details had been kept confidential as part of the settlement agreement, however, a transgender women filed a suit against her Maryland employer for verbal and physical harassment (McDonough, 2013). The woman had filed a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2012 stating that she had been subjected to physical and verbal harassment in the workplace for two years (Riley, 2013). The detailed verbal harassment identified by the plaintiff are derogatory terms used by coworkers to refer to her as “tranny,”, “drag queen”, and “faggot” (Riley, 2013). The EEOC’s investigation found that there was reasonable cause to believe the company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on a sex (Riley, 2013). The EEOCs investigation also revealed that despite the plaintiff’s complaints to management, management failed to take corrective action even though they were fully aware of the harassment the plaintiff was being subjected to (Riley, 2013).
The second sexual discrimination case, Macy v. Holder, was initiated after the plaintiff, Mia Macy, was denied a job with the bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) (McDonough, 2013). The company denied her this opportunity after she disclosed being transgender (Riley, 2013). Macy applied for the job in January 2011 and was told that she would receive a position at the laboratory (McDonough, 2013). After her March 2011 disclosure of her gender change, she was informed that the position was cut (McDonough, 2013). Later, she was told that someone else was awarded the job (McDonough, 2013).
A third case in which gender-identity discrimination was determined to be a violation of the prohibition on sex-based discrimination is Glenn v.
September 2, 2013
Introduction
In recent cases, there have been major victories settled against companies regarding transgender rights. In the first case, the details had been kept confidential as part of the settlement agreement, however, a transgender women filed a suit against her Maryland employer for verbal and physical harassment (McDonough, 2013). The woman had filed a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2012 stating that she had been subjected to physical and verbal harassment in the workplace for two years (Riley, 2013). The detailed verbal harassment identified by the plaintiff are derogatory terms used by coworkers to refer to her as “tranny,”, “drag queen”, and “faggot” (Riley, 2013). The EEOC’s investigation found that there was reasonable cause to believe the company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on a sex (Riley, 2013). The EEOCs investigation also revealed that despite the plaintiff’s complaints to management, management failed to take corrective action even though they were fully aware of the harassment the plaintiff was being subjected to (Riley, 2013).
The second sexual discrimination case, Macy v. Holder, was initiated after the plaintiff, Mia Macy, was denied a job with the bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) (McDonough, 2013). The company denied her this opportunity after she disclosed being transgender (Riley, 2013). Macy applied for the job in January 2011 and was told that she would receive a position at the laboratory (McDonough, 2013). After her March 2011 disclosure of her gender change, she was informed that the position was cut (McDonough, 2013). Later, she was told that someone else was awarded the job (McDonough, 2013).
A third case in which gender-identity discrimination was determined to be a violation of the prohibition on sex-based discrimination is Glenn v.
References: Deschenaux, J. (2012). Don 't Take It Personally!: Under some state and federal laws, HR professionasl can be held individually liable. HR Magazine, 57(7), 43. Retrieved August 19, 2013, from www.ebscohost.com Freeman, M Hall Jr., E., & Hollingsworth, J. (1991). Utilitarianism: An ethical framework for compensation decision making. Review of Business, 13(3), 17. Retrieved August 18, 2013, from www.ebscohost.com McDonough, K N/A. (N/A). Sexual harassment Liability Under Title VII. Retrieved August 29, 2013, from ISACS: http://www.isacs.org/uploads/file/Monographs/Business%20Operations/Sexual%20Harassment%20Liability%20Under%20Title%20VII.pdf N/A N/A. (n.d.). Sex-Based Discrimination. Retrieved August 29, 2013, from U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm Rappaport, R Snelling, P. (2004). Consequences count: against absolutism at the end of life. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 46(4), 350-357. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03001.x Velasquez, M