![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dolariOne thing the extended break between the Federal / State Level EEOC stupidity has given me is time to really dig into the court system. Thanks to Transgender Legal, I have some courtcases to dig into...and thinking of them in the terms of threads I tried to figure out a better defense than "Well, Schwenk covers me."
I'm very glad the state EEOC turned me down - the presentation of my precedents woulda REALLY sucked.
Basicly, thinking in threads:
Price Waterhouse vs Hopkins laid down into law that discriminiation due someones sex was illegal. It also laid down that discrimination due to someone not ACTING like the sex they are assigned is forbidden under Title VII protections.
Schwenk vs Hartford laid down into law that both pshysical sex and mental gender are covered by Title VII by the word "sex."
So here I am, fired because I refused to use the male restroom. That's GENDER discrimination, covered by Schwenk. Under Price Waterhouse, that's also discrimination against a man because he's failed to act like a man. Both are protected under Title VII. Oncale vs Sundowner proves sex discriminiation against a man by a man or on a woman by a woman is protected under Title VII.
That should cover me pretty well, no matter which tactic is used to undermine my position.
You can't be sexually discriminated against! You're a man! Your supervisor's a man! ONCALE VS SUNDOWNER
You can't be sexually discriminated against! You're a man! You need to use the men's room! PRICE WATERHOUSE VS HOPKINS
You can't be sexually discriminated against! You're a man! You're not a woman even if you DO think like one! SCHWENK VS HARTFORD
Thoseo fyou who want to read my legal ammo for yourself can go to http://www.realtime.net/~dolari/legalammo
Comments or suggestions welcome.
I'm very glad the state EEOC turned me down - the presentation of my precedents woulda REALLY sucked.
Basicly, thinking in threads:
Price Waterhouse vs Hopkins laid down into law that discriminiation due someones sex was illegal. It also laid down that discrimination due to someone not ACTING like the sex they are assigned is forbidden under Title VII protections.
Schwenk vs Hartford laid down into law that both pshysical sex and mental gender are covered by Title VII by the word "sex."
So here I am, fired because I refused to use the male restroom. That's GENDER discrimination, covered by Schwenk. Under Price Waterhouse, that's also discrimination against a man because he's failed to act like a man. Both are protected under Title VII. Oncale vs Sundowner proves sex discriminiation against a man by a man or on a woman by a woman is protected under Title VII.
That should cover me pretty well, no matter which tactic is used to undermine my position.
You can't be sexually discriminated against! You're a man! Your supervisor's a man! ONCALE VS SUNDOWNER
You can't be sexually discriminated against! You're a man! You need to use the men's room! PRICE WATERHOUSE VS HOPKINS
You can't be sexually discriminated against! You're a man! You're not a woman even if you DO think like one! SCHWENK VS HARTFORD
Thoseo fyou who want to read my legal ammo for yourself can go to http://www.realtime.net/~dolari/legalammo
Comments or suggestions welcome.
