YEEAAAHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!!

Just got this in. Looks like a solid ruling in her favor. From the ruling itself:


"Conclusion:

In refusing to hire Diane Schroer because her
appearance and background did not comport with the
decisionmaker's sex stereotypes about how men and women should
act and appear, and in response to Schroer's decision to
transition, legally, culturally, and physically, from male to
female, the Library of Congress violated Title VII's prohibition
on sex discrimination.

The Clerk is directed to set a conference to discuss
and schedule the remedial phase of this case.

JAMES ROBERTSON
United States District Judge"

**********************************************************************

If anyone wants a copy of the actual entire pdf file, email to: maryanne@equalitymaryland.org
and i'll send it to you. Im sure it is already widely available, or will be soon.

MaryAnne,

This is truly great news! What are the thoughts about holding up on appeal? From what I v'e read so far, I think this ruling only applies and has effect in the district in which the case was actuated. Still great news, it just needs to be effective nationwide.



Dawn

OMG that's such wonderful news, Maryanne! I'm glad I heard it from you first-- I'll never forget the day we were present for Diane's testimony at the Congressional hearing. I hope this sets a precedent. My lawyer has been talking with Diane's lawyer, they're both with the ACLU, and Diane's case may have some bearing on mine. I'm calling my lawyer first thing Monday...

Two weeks in a row with significant victories for our rights! First Montgomery County... and now federal. Ah, I love good news for a change.

Most excellent.  I'll have to update my thesis now...

Lia

I was reading the pdf from the ACLU's website of the courts decision and it was the first legal document (other than my divorce papers) that nearly brought me to joyful tears. 

Schroer v. Library of Congress - Decision (9/19/2008)

QuoteImagine that an employee is fired because she converts
from Christianity to Judaism. Imagine too that her employer
testifies that he harbors no bias toward either Christians or
Jews but only "converts." That would be a clear case of
discrimination "because of religion." No court would take
seriously the notion that "converts" are not covered by the
statute. Discrimination "because of religion" easily encompasses
discrimination because of a change of religion. But in cases
where the plaintiff has changed her sex, and faces discrimination
because of the decision to stop presenting as a man and to start
appearing as a woman, courts have traditionally carved such
persons out of the statute by concluding that "transsexuality" is
unprotected by Title VII. In other words, courts have allowed
their focus on the label "transsexual" to blind them to the
statutory language itself.

What a knock-down, kickass legal opinion. I love it.... wish I'd said it first! That's exactly the sort of thing we need. It reads as very solid and watertight.

This is great news. I hope it won't get reversed in appeals.

Z