NYTimes article: who is or isn't a man

[neveen]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/11/nyregion/11sexchange.html?nl=nyregion&emc=ura1

[void()]

“They were judging me for who I am, not for the job I was being asked to do, and that’s wrong, and I was hurt,” he said. “I’m doing this so everyone knows it’s wrong, so it doesn’t happen to anyone else.”

If they can do it him, then anyone. Glad he is standing up.

[elian]

I tend to agree with the employee, if he always identified as a man, and he went through all of the pain and expense of having a surgery then it seems kind of immature for the employer to disqualify him for not being male. When his legal documents state he is a male it seems to me that their claim of bona-fide job requirements is kind of flimsy.

Of course now that everyone in the place knows about his history I wonder if he will be treated fairly? Can only hope, but people are sometimes immature.

[Realist]

Was he on time?

Did he fulfill the conditions of his job performance worksheet? (or whatever they call it, there)

If so, how can they discharge him?

Geez, will this ever stop?

[Diva667]

Was he on time?

Did he fulfill the conditions of his job performance worksheet? (or whatever they call it, there)

If so, how can they discharge him?

Geez, will this ever stop?

They can, with full rights, discharge anyone because of their transgender status - it is not a protected class in most states. There is no federal protection for it either.

as a friend said -

"So here’s how you tell this is discrimination: if a man who had lost his penis in an accident had this job, no one would have fired him for being penis-less. If a man who had hypospadias & had to pee sitting down had this job, likewise. If a man who had a penis that required a catheter for him to pee had this job, he wouldn’t have been fired."

[DuckiesDarling]

Reading that article pissed me off. He needs to fight this, as far as he can.

[elian]

They can, with full rights, discharge anyone because of their transgender status - it is not a protected class in most states. There is no federal protection for it either.

as a friend said -

"So here’s how you tell this is discrimination: if a man who had lost his penis in an accident had this job, no one would have fired him for being penis-less. If a man who had hypospadias & had to pee sitting down had this job, likewise. If a man who had a penis that required a catheter for him to pee had this job, he wouldn’t have been fired."

I would normally agree with you but according to the article "gender identity and expression" is specifically called out in NJ anti-discrimination law.

Quite frankly unless they can prove that the dismissal was due to poor performance in a specific quantifiable way then the defendant's justification seems pretty flimsy. The article eludes to their response as "Being male is a bona-fide requirement of the job" - but since the employee is legally a male I'm not quite sure if that defense would hold up in court.