Sexual Orientation Discrimination Is Barred By Existing Law, Federal Commission

[Sydney_NYC]

Sexual Orientation Discrimination Is Barred By Existing Law, Federal Commission Rules

Originally posted on Jul. 16, 2015, at 6:00 p.m.
Chris Geidner

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/sexual-orientation-discrimination-is-barred-by-existing-law#.mvQN1Qjgd5

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has ruled that existing civil rights law bars sexual orientation-based employment discrimination — a groundbreaking decision to advance legal protections for gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers.

"[A]llegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex," the commission concluded in a decision dated July 15.

=======================
This is BIG!!!!

So now no only being transgender is covered, so is being gay, lesbian or bisexual. This is fantastic news for those that don't live in a state with anti-discrimination laws.

[suzifrommd]

This follows an EEOC ruling that gender identity is protected by the same law. Interesting that for once, we came first!

[traci_k]

Now if they could only get employer mandated heath insurance coverage for transition, I would be one, over-joyed, ecstatic girl. But any step forward is a step forward. (My new mantra).

[tgchar21]

Now if they could only get employer mandated heath insurance coverage for transition, I would be one, over-joyed, ecstatic girl. But any step forward is a step forward. (My new mantra).

See this post of mine for more on this issue.

[traci_k]

Not to get too far off topic, I can agree with you to a point, but in many cases transition and SRS is a life saving procedure. While FFS could be considered cosmetic, transition has been shown to be an effective treatment for gender dysphoria and is no longer considered experimental by Medicare. In recognition of that, several states have mandated inclusion of coverage and and/or offer it to  state employees. I know the federal government can't mandate to the states but is going to be up to the legislatures or Insurance Commissioners. For some, SRS IS emergency, lifesaving treatment and therefore worthy of coverage.

[tgchar21]

Traci, I do agree that health insurance (wherever it comes from) ideally should cover transition-related procedures. My point is given a political climate where ENDA protections are coming via razor-thin support among our politicians and judges we maybe shouldn't include health insurance mandates along with it at this time. Otherwise we might end up with a non-trans-inclusive bill (unlike LGBs, who do not have any innate medical expenses that straight employees don't, an insurance-mandate-inclusive proposal would give employers a tangible reason to exclude trans* people from protection).

[Tessa James]

There are several states, including California and Washington that mandate coverage for us if the insurance provider is covering similar care for cisgender people i.e. HRT for post menopausal women.  To not cover us based on our being transgender is inherently discriminatory, wrong and unacceptable for business as usual.  Civil rights and anti discrimination policies are typically not freely conferred by the masses but almost always have to be fought for by those left out.

Eventually equal rights will be recognized, such as in gay marriage, till then i hope more of us will stand up and demand equity now.