News and Events > People news

Kodak Reaches Out To <not allowed> Employees

<< < (2/2)

GID is in a class by itself.

Unless you claim a Lesbian, Gay, or hetero identity your job may be at risk. 

Why do you think there is a push for protections?  It isn't because people are treated fairly in many cases.


--- Quote from: Valerie on September 15, 2005, 10:20:21 pm ---But I'm kind of wondering, does it make a difference legally if <not allowed> persons are specifically mentioned in the policy, or is it just good sense to do so that <not allowed> people feel safer and more protected in the workplace? 

--- End quote ---

I just took a quick look at the ACLU website in regards to transgender / gender expression law.

I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on television.  However, it appears that the courts are not necessarily extending GLB protections to include <not allowed> individuals.  I would guess that we are excluded because it is our gender expression that is different, not sexual orientation; and the law coveres sexual orientation.

Without specific protection, any <not allowed> indivual could be considered "personna non grata" for deviating from accepted norms of gender presentation for ones biological sex.  Deviating from these norms could be considered grounds for termination because a) our presence creates an unproductive workplace and/or b) we create a non-mainstream corporate face that could cost profits.

It doesn't matter how hard we work or how good a corporate employee we are.  There will be those who will not accept us, and will spend valuable time spreading rumors and generating fear.  Theses rumors and fears will cost productivity.  Without specific protections, we become expendable to protect productivity.




[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version