At Work

It’s nice to know the EEOC does not require you to change your beliefs. 😳

Isn’t it scary in itself that a federal government agency issues rules and finds it necessary to note that those rules do not require you to change your beliefs.

Here is the recently released fact sheet on transgender employees and what employers can and cannot do.  Did you know you weren’t a male or female when conceived, but were “assigned” your sex at birth. Penis? ✔️ No penis ✔️✔️. I’m glad the government figured this out for us.

While we seek to protect the “rights” of somewhere around 0.3% of the population, we have no trouble ignoring the rights of women and men who identify with the sex to which they “were assigned.” 😏

So where are we headed with this? Why not simply eliminate all restroom designation? No men’s room, no ladies room, just a Toilet. Anyone with or without an identity crisis can use any facility they want to. Eliminate all urinals so not to offend the misassigned male.

If we don’t care about the discomfort or anxiety (my wife uses afraid) of a women upon seeing a man who identifies as a female walking into the ladies room, why are we so obsessed over the discomfort of a physical male who identifies as a female using the men’s restroom? Nobody says (s)he has to use the urinal.

And what about those of us correctly assigned at birth? While standing at the urinal with my business in hand, how do I know if the “women” next to be is misassigned or simply curious? 🤔 I was going to use jealous, but that would be overly optimistic.

When and why does reasonable accommodation become discrimination?

Fact Sheet: Bathroom Access Rights for Transgender Employees Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964″Transgender” refers to people whose gender identity and/or expression is different from the sex assigned to them at birth (e.g. the sex listed on an original birth certificate). The term transgender woman typically is used to refer to someone who was assigned the male sex at birth but who identifies as a female. Likewise, the term transgender man typically is used to refer to someone who was assigned the female sex at birth but who identifies as male. A person does not need to undergo any medical procedure to be considered a transgender man or a transgender woman. 😷

In addition to other federal laws, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, and sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation). Title VII applies to all federal, state, and local government agencies in their capacity as employers, and to all private employers with 15 or more employees. 

In Macy v. Dep’t of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821, 2012 WL 1435995 (Apr. 12, 2012), the EEOC ruled that discrimination based on transgender status is sex discrimination in violation of Title VII, and in Lusardi v. Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120133395, 2015 WL 1607756 (Mar. 27, 2015), the EEOC held that:

denying an employee equal access to a common restroom corresponding to the employee’s gender identity is sex discrimination;

an employer cannot condition this right on the employee undergoing or providing proof of surgery or any other medical procedure; and,

an employer cannot avoid the requirement to provide equal access to a common restroom by restricting a transgender employee to a single-user restroom instead (though the employer can make a single-user restroom available to all employees who might choose to use it).

Contrary state law is not a defense under Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-7.

In G.G. ex rel. Grimm v. Gloucester Cty. Sch. Bd., — F.3d –, 2016 WL 1567467 (4th Cir. 2016), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reached a similar conclusion by deferring to the Department of Education’s position that the prohibition against sex discrimination under Title IX requires educational institutions to give transgender students restroom and locker access consistent with their gender identity.

Gender-based stereotypes, perceptions, or comfort level must not interfere with the ability of any employee to work free from discrimination, including harassment. As the Commission observed in Lusardi: “[S]upervisory or co-worker confusion or anxiety cannot justify discriminatory terms and conditions of employment. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sex whether motivated by hostility, by a desire to protect people of a certain gender, by gender stereotypes, or by the desire to accommodate other people’s prejudices or discomfort.” 

Like all non-discrimination provisions, these protections address conduct in the workplace, not personal beliefs. Thus, these protections do not require any employee to change beliefs. Rather, they seek to ensure appropriate workplace treatment so that all employees may perform their jobs free from discrimination.


Categories: At Work, Observations on life

Tagged as: ,

4 replies »

  1. “… Rather, they (these protections) seek to ensure appropriate workplace treatment so that all employees may perform their jobs free from discrimination. …” America got jobbed alright. Actually, I am very, very happy that my taxpayer dollars are being used in this matter, to hopefully, push it all the way to the US Supreme Court for a decision. Even with only eight justices, it will be quite a sight to see/hear oral argument about bathroom access.

    And, of course, this is just the kind of litigation that is so consistent with our current Justice Department’s capabilities and focus – somewhere close to a toilet; just right for a group who is currently concerned about sentences that are too long for rapists, murderers, and drug dealers; and where they have no interest or availability for prosecuting those who violate our laws and borders.


  2. Job well done in researching this sensitive issue but the facts remain there were virtually no complaints about this “problem” until this administration decided to bring the issue out of the bathroom so to speak. Title VII has been around since 1964. Recent cases (which is how we govern – using case law) have stated it is discriminatory to force someone to use a bathroom that does not meet their birth identity. I dare say that many legislators and congress woman would find it not only frightening but fearful if they encountered someone whose male genitalia are exposed or obvious through their undergarments in a woman’s locker room or changing room. Their children would be traumatized as well.

    I spoke with the husband of a grade school teacher (6th grade) and she tells her husband that she finds it difficult answering questions from these children and down right fearful to hear the discussions the children at this age are having in class and at lunch breaks. If she honestly answers a question, she may be subject to ridicule or discipline from the parent and or the administration.

    This issue was brought about as a diversionary tactic during this election season and really did not need all the hype and publicity. Things were quite content to be handled one case at a time. Now the world is laughing at us.


  3. I can already hear the complaints coming from the ladies room….”Damn-it, who left the seat up?”

    What a country we live in if this kind of stuff is what is news worthy. Chalk another one up for political correctness run amok.

    Liked by 1 person

What's your opinion on this post? Readers would like your point of view.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s