Telephonic Briefing on Schroer Court Victory

Please join Diane Schroer and members of her legal team from the ACLU including her lead lawyer, Sharon McGowan, in a discussion of their recent success in fighting transgender employment discrimination. Last week a federal court ruled that the Library of Congress violated Title VII prohibition against sex discrimination when they rescinded her job offer learning that she would transition.

Join us for a telephonic briefing on this case and what it means for transgender people across the country this Sunday, September 28, 2008 at 8pm Eastern time.

This call is free for everyone, but is limited to the first 200 people and you must register for your password at http://www.accuconference.com/customer/Registratration/index.aspx?pkRegQG=cff4305c-fdb7-44a0-80b3-09ef474e37c8

If you have a question for Diane or her legal team, please submit them in advance via email at questions@nctequality.org.

You can read the full court decsion and all of the legal filings at http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/transgender/2469res20050602.html and see Diane’s testimony from this summer’s Congressional Hearing on transgender workplace discrimination at http://www.youtube.com/user/NCTEquality.

Feel free to share this information invite friends and allies to join us.

2 Responses to Telephonic Briefing on Schroer Court Victory

  1. Anonymous says:

    I have read the decision of the federal judge in the Schroer v. Library of Congress and he, very explicitly, questions the need for a trans-inclusive ENDA. What the judge essentially ruled is that discrimination against transgenders (not sure if he used the term “transgenders” or “transsexuals”) is already covered under Title VII as sex discrimination, pure and simple.He drove home the ruling with the analogy with religion. Assume there is a person that converts from Christianity to Judaism. An employer claims that he does not discriminate against either Jews or Christians but only “converts”. No court – the judge says – would seriously consider such action nondiscriminatory on the base of religion. Likewise, discrimination against “sex converts” – even if the employer claims that he does not discriminate against men or women, only transsexuals – is discrimination because..of sex. The court ruling says much more than that (i.e. demolishes the argument based on alleged “legislative intent” and so on) but the most relevant inference is that, if we are already covered under Title VII, ENDA (for us only; not for the LGB)is quite redundant for the simple reason that ENDA is nothing more than an extension of Title VII.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Dear Admin: Thanks for the invitation. I have written a few times in the T-E blog (was deleted once). I do think the NCTE does excellent work considering the tremendous challenges you face. I fully support the strategic goal of the NCTE (advancing the cause of transgenders) but sometimes I disagree with the tactics.When I spoke above about “tremendous challenges” I was not buttering you guys up. In fact, possibly no other organization in the world has to set out from a more basic start point in its quest. While most political groups, parties, social networks, etc begin with defining a mission, NCTE should start by defining its base; whom does it represent? who are the people it works for?I believe that such delimition is absolutely necessary. Defining who our represented are does not mean that we cut ourselves from the rest of this LGBT coalition; on the contrary, the more coherent we are, the more weight we can carry into this struggle.I certainly have my opinions about these issues but rather than presenting them forcefully as in the past (a practice which, as I mentioned above, got me in trouble) I will ask questions such as:Do we have any common ground (besides clothing…and that is stretching it) with crossdressers, transvestites, and drag queens?Don’t we dilute our arguments and initiaves and “expose our flanks” by lacking a differentiation with the above? (i.e. the derisory counter question could be raised by an opponent: does a man dress in drags for he was born in a queen’s body?)Are we following a realistic approach toward the acquisition of medical benefits? — separating the vital from the cosmetic {i.e. hormones and SRS should be covered for they are procedures either (1) covered for the general population or (2) exclusive of ours, respectively. However, breast augmentation and depilation are not exclussive of ours as there are many women who were born women and have small breasts and suffer of hirsutism and still those precedures are considered cosmetic.The question of pre-ops and public bathrooms arises a great backlash among the general population, notably among women. Are we reading and acknowledging this or are we swimming against the current?Many of these points apply to f-to-m TS as well. I just spoke from the m-to-f because that is who I am.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: