UPDATE/Georgia- Eleventh Circuit Upholds Victory for Transgender Employee Fired

[SandraJane]

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution


Court appears ready to hand legal victory to transgender woman

By Bill Rankin, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution | 5:34 p.m. Thursday, December 1, 2011


http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/court-appears-ready-to-1247748.html?cxtype=rss_georgia-politics-elections



Christian Boone, cboone@ajc.com Vandy Beth Glenn was fired from her job with the Georgia General Assembly after disclosing she was going to make the transition from man to woman. She has filed a federal law suit seeking her job back.


The federal appeals court in Atlanta appears ready to grant a legal victory to Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender woman who was fired as a legislative editor at the General Assembly after she disclosed she was going to make the transition from man to woman.

Two of three 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges hearing the case Thursday indicated U.S. Supreme Court precedents support a lower-court judge's finding that Glenn was the subject of sex discrimination.

[SandraJane]

Lambda Legal Urges Eleventh Circuit to Uphold Ruling for Transgender Woman Fired by Georgia Legislature


"The law is clear: It is unfair and illegal to fire a transgender employee because she does not conform to your sexist stereotypes of how a woman should be."


Gregory R. Nevins | Date: 12/01/2011

http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/ga_20111201_lambda-legal-urges

Vandy Beth Glenn Fighting for Transgender Rights


"Vandy Beth was fired because her boss didn't like who she is, and that kind of treatment is discriminatory and illegal."

"We're in court today to defend what the District Court has already confirmed: Vandy Beth was fired because her boss didn't like who she is, and that kind of treatment is discriminatory and illegal," said Greg Nevins, Supervising Senior Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal's Southern Regional Office in Atlanta. "Our client's story isn't a new one. In fact, employers in Georgia and across the country already have policies that prohibit discrimination against transgender employees. Though there are employers who don't understand it, the law is clear: It is unfair and illegal to fire a transgender employee because she does not conform to your sexist stereotypes of how a woman should be."

[Tammy Hope]

During Thursday's oral arguments, the judges seized on Brumby's pretrial testimony.

They cited a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision that found it is not just illegal to discriminate against employees because of their sex, but that it is also illegal to discriminate against those who don't conform to the stereotypes associated with their biological sex.

I'm no lawyer but

does it not logically follow, if the judge's interpretation here is correct (and given they are not liberals it's more likely than not) that transgender people ALREADY HAVE full non-discrimination protection under the law (in any place where the government already mandates non discrimination)?

I don't understand how you can't take this and apply it to any workplace, or public accommodations or any other place where the government involves itself in preventing discrimination on the basis of gender.

if this stands (as it certainly seems it will) here and upon appeal (which again, seems likely) then it's a game changer I would think.

[Butterflyhugs]

if the judge's interpretation here is correct (and given they are not liberals it's more likely than not)

What a stupid thing to say.

Here's a direct quote from the Lamda article, to answer your other question:

"The law is on our side, but everyone shouldn't need a lawyer to help them fight workplace discrimination. Congress must pass the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) because we still need a federal law to tell employers unequivocally that discrimination against LGBT employees in the workplace is illegal," added Nevins.

[Felix]

I say stupid things as often as the next guy, but it hurts my feelings when people categorize my statements so bluntly. Opinions vary as to what sides stupid comes down upon.

[Tammy Hope]

What a stupid thing to say.

Gee thanks.

The point is that if a conservative or a liberal rules in a case in a direction opposite from the stereotypical political views of "their side" one can assume the ruling is very very solid.

For instance, if the ninth circuit (largely liberal) rules on a case regarding gay marriage and comes out with a decision that seems favorable to the conservative point of view, you have to respect that it's probably an indisputable conclusion.

I assuming you are not disputing the notion that the stereotypical conservative position on this case would not be in Vandy's favor?

Here's a direct quote from the Lamda article, to answer your other question:

Lamda's quote is so much lobbying, not an answer to my question. My question is how does this NOT produce that result?

If Lamda asserts it doesn't, then explain how. Just calling for a redundant law doesn't address that question. I'm all for ENDA IF it's complete. the danger here is to pass a version of ENDA that's NOT trans inclusive (the likely outcome if it passes any time soon) then the message to employers is "don't monk with the gays but you can fire a transsexual at your leisure" which is exactly the opposite of today's outcome.

IMO.

[Butterflyhugs]

Gee thanks.

The point is that if a conservative or a liberal rules in a case in a direction opposite from the stereotypical political views of "their side" one can assume the ruling is very very solid.

The sentence exactly as you originally wrote it was:

I'm no lawyer but does it not logically follow, if the judge's interpretation here is correct (and given they are not liberals it's more likely than not) that transgender people ALREADY HAVE full non-discrimination protection under the law (in any place where the government already mandates non discrimination)?

Implicit in these words is a statement that if the judges were liberals, they would have been more likely to give an "incorrect" interpretation of the law. That is highly insulting to the professionalism and integrity of any judge who happens to have a liberal viewpoint.

But this is the Internet, so you're able to backpedal with "I didn't really mean that. The real meaning just got lost without the conversational cues of face to face communication."

[Tammy Hope]

The sentence exactly as you originally wrote it was:

Implicit in these words is a statement that if the judges were liberals, they would have been more likely to give an "incorrect" interpretation of the law. That is highly insulting to the professionalism and integrity of any judge who happens to have a liberal viewpoint.

But this is the Internet, so you're able to backpedal with "I didn't really mean that. The real meaning just got lost without the conversational cues of face to face communication."

Blah blah blah.

Judges on both sides DO let their personal politics affect their rulings at times, and even if it were not so, those who observe the actions of the courts most certainly do accuse them of doing so.

if you don't think that, even as we speak, there's a 200 post thread at Free Republic trying to figure out how these judges "went liberal" then you are not paying attention.

and the same thing happens at Democrat Underground in reverse.

The statement is that IF a judge is going to introduce his or her personal bias (and yes, it DOES happen) then it would be in the direction of their bias, not counter to it. The IMPLICATION is that for all those internet experts who will observe this case and be unhappy, the claim that "well it's a liberal judge so of course she won" won't stand because it's not a liberal judge.

now, if you consider it insulting to claim that judges would be " insulting to the professionalism and integrity of any judge" then, well, I hate it. Your are horribly naive if you think it never happens.

That said, it happens on both sides in equal measure, it's a failing of human nature - not of "being liberal"

[Felix]

Wow so you two are a little more in tune with partisan speech cues than I am. I didn't catch any implication, and I don't spend time on the sites you're talking about.

I only chimed in earlier because the word "stupid" is usually not good news on most forums. Peace, guys.

[Shana A]

Appeals court panel rules for Ga. trans woman in job discrimination case
by Dyana Bagby   
December 06, 2011 12:25

http://www.thegavoice.com/index.php/news/national-news/3856-appeals-court-panel-rules-for-ga-trans-woman-in-job-discrimination-case

A federal appeals court panel today upheld a lower court ruling that Georgia transgender woman Vandy Beth Glenn was illegally fired from her job as a legislative editor in the Georgia General Assembly after she informed her employer she planned to transition from male to female.

"The question here is whether discriminating against someone on the basis of his or her gender non-conformity constitutes sex-based discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. ...We hold that it does," the three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled. Judge Rosemary Barkett wrote the opinion for the unanimous panel.

[SandraJane]

Eleventh Circuit Upholds Victory for Transgender Employee Fired by Georgia Legislature


It is unfair and illegal to fire a transgender employee because she does not conform to stereotypes

Date: 12/06/2011

http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/ga_20111206_eleventh-circuit-upholds


(Atlanta, GA, December 6, 2011) — Today the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that the Georgia General Assembly discriminated against Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender woman who was fired from her job as Legislative Editor after she told her supervisor that she planned to transition from male to female.

[Tammy Hope]

Tammy Rainey, Mississippi GLBTQ Examiner
December 2, 2011

In a Tuesday ruling, a three judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling in the case of Glenn v. Brumby which held that Vandy Beth Glenn had been fired illegally from her job for the Georgia Legislature, agreeing that the act was unlawful sex discrimination. Glenn, who expressed optimism after the initial hearing last week, was nonetheless surprised to hear the panel had returned a decision so quickly.

Writing for the panel in the unanimous decision, Judge Rosemary Barkett made reference to several precedent setting cases including most notably the 1989 Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins case. Ruling on Hopkins, the United States supreme Court found for the plaintiff who claimed that she had been denied a partnership in the firm based on being considered "too macho" for a woman. The panel found that in so doing the court established that failure to conform to gender-stereotyped behavior and appearance norms was not a valid cause for discrimination

Continue reading on Examiner.com Appeals court decides in favor of Glenn - Mississippi GLBTQ | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/glbtq-in-tupelo/appeals-court-decides-favor-of-glenn

[Shana A]

Vandy Beth Glenn may soon return to work at Ga. General Assembly
by Dyana Bagby   
December 09, 2011 00:00

http://www.thegavoice.com/index.php/news/atlanta-news/3870-vandy-beth-glenn-may-soon-return-to-work-at-ga-general-assembly

What's next? Glenn returns to work.

After U.S District Court Judge Richard Story ruled in Glenn's favor last year, he ordered her to resume receiving her salary but granted a stay stopping her from returning to work at the Georgia General Assembly until the 11th Circuit ruled on the appeal. Now that ruling has been issued.

"The legislative session is about to begin [in January] and I'm sure they could use her soon. Now it's a matter of logistics," Nevins said. "I could get a call anytime now saying she can return to work and I'm waiting by the phone for that call."

[...]

Glenn said returning to work is what her case has been about since the beginning.

"I never should have been fired in the first place," she said. "This was a job I loved and I was good at it."