Transexual gets ?35,000 compensation for workplace discrimination

[Celtic_Kerr]

Louise Hannon (50) from Arbour Hill in Dublin, brought a case against First Direct Logistics in which she alleged she had been constructively dismissed when she revealed her gender identity to her employer and sought to live according to it in her workplace.

And how is one "constructively dismissed"?

One is constructively dismissed when one isn't told "you are fired" but put in the position where one is compelled to quit.

On the original point, good for her. I realise that for some clients it might be difficult to deal with a transgender person, but for some people dealing with an ethnic minority is unconfortable. We, as a society, shouldn't go about compromising the principles of equality just to appease the irrational prejudices of a minority. THAT would be political correctness gone mad.

As for the argument that McDonalds make wearing the uniform a condition of their employment, that's fine. Employers can impose conditions on their employees. They just need to be consistent and not arbitrary. From the report, nobody else was being told how to dress for work, so it was inappropriate for the employers to dictate how she should dress just because she was transgender (outside the obvious 'underwear inside the pants' sort of rules).

Also, someone above raised the issue of muslims wearing turbans. I think that you are thinking of sikhs.

The report probably wouldn't mention if anyone else was being asked to work. Having taken a multitude of Human Resources courses and a couple of internships, I can say that while she could have gotten a good severance package and raised nice awareness, I think she went overboard.

Read my posts, a lot of companies have to be very careful about such things and it really is a lose-lose for the company. They alienate clients and upset their OTHER workers, or they piss off someone and get called discriminate. It's not easy to head an HR position with so many factors. As I say in my first post, try to be too diverse and you might get hit with reverse racism.

This company was offering her solutions, she as agreeing to them, and then simply decided to sue them. I don't see 35,000 euros being justified

Firstly, there is no such thing as reverse racism. It's just racism.

Secondly, I get that it can be difficult for employers but that doesn't justify discrimination. As I said above, we shouldn't go about kowtowing to bigots. You can't simply say "group A doesn't like transexuals, employee B is a transexual and wants to identify as such, so let's just let the employer do whatever" like both groups have equally principled stances. Those who don't like transgendered people are irrational. Transgendered people are just trying to get by. We should tell the biggots to go root themselves.

Thirdly, the report did not say that she stayed on on conditions (not that that would be any less discriminatory); it said that she stayed on and had unreasonable conditions thrust upon her. Now you are reading things into the report that aren't there.

Reverse discrimination: Reverse discrimination, also known as positive[1] discrimination, is a controversial specific form of discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, or in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_discrimination

If someone makes an unreasonable request to stay home, you don't accept it for 4 months before deciding to sue, you say "No" and quit, or sue right away for discrimination. If someone says you must wear a suit to conferences, but you can wear a dress in the office, you don't accept it or a while and then say it was unreasonable.

When a demand is unreasonable, you don't accept it, you exercise your right to say "No".

Look at my t-shirt comment. It's the very same thing, and technically, i could do the very same thing she did, and I would probably win. People are just looking at the fact that she's transsexual and screaming "Discrimination". Yes, she should have awareness raised, but 35,000 euros is nuts, it's almost $50,000 because she was asked to go home and she said "Okay" for 4 months and then decided that it was an unreasonable request.

Again, you are assuming facts. You can't have a go at me for reading something into the facts and then do the same yourself.

No, your t-shirt comment is a trivialisation of a serious issue. A request to wear what you want to work is a world apart from requesting to be treated as the gender with which you identify. Now I don't know what the laws of Ireland are like but in most places, you can't just sue for any old discrimination, it needs to be discrimination based on one of several designated issues, such as race, gender, nationality, sexuality, religion etc. I could be wrong on the law of Ireland, or Canada for that matter, but I doubt it sincerely. So if you wish to maintain your argument that you could sue because you were discriminated against on the basis of your love of short-sleeves, I will expect a link to legislation.

I assume nothing. The company asked her to leave the company for a short time. A short time for a company can be a while, but it really depends on what they agreed would be a short time. I'm not having a go at you, I simply believe that $35,000 is an excessive amount to be asking in "damages/penalties/otherwise for this".

Now the report says that she decided she had to leave the company, and then says that transsexualism is considered a real medical case and then talks about the pursuit of the case. What the report does not say is whether the company offered a settlement, or a severance, or something. A statement and her severance would have gotten her word out there, this seems to have been over board.

Not coming after you at all.

Yes, it's not as extreme an example, but it's valid. It's not suing based on what I like to wear, it's the agreement entered. If I make an agreement with someone, I want them to uphold their word.

The report has VERY few details, such as the opinions of the customers, the co-workers, and WHY she was asked to make these changes, but the full story isn't know to any degree. You don't know if they were actually being incredibly discriminatory, or if the co-workers were exercising their rights to work in a comfortable working environment.

Now it would suck if the co-workers were bigots and the boss basically had no choice but to try and make concessions between the two (we'll continue paying you to work, but we'll see how it goes with you at home for a while), while it was the co-workers, but we don't know that. Until the reasons for the boss' demands become known, it's not like one way or the other can be said as to whether or not actual bigotry occurred on the boss' part.

The case I'm making (which you've chosen to ignore, but that's your choice) is the excessive weight of the $48,000 (35,000 euros) she sued them for to make her statement

 

[JimmyFury]

The company is not responsible for other people's predjudice

But the company is responsible for its own internal prejudices.

I'd go one step further.
If the company readily and happily conforms to other people's prejudices then they are responsible for them to an extent. It's a validation of the prejudice. It tells the client that their prejudice is something worth supporting.
That support creates an environment that fosters ignorance and allows it to continue.

 

[Still Life]

--

The outcome of the case would imply that the law protects against sexual discrimination in the workplace, including discrimination against transsexuals.

 

[DRobert]

Which is why it is good that the employer can always fall back on "I get that you don't like transgendered people but it's the goddamn law".

But I do understand that it can be hard for employers, no doubt about it. But difficulty doesn't justify discrimination and doesn't justify breaking the law.

And, out of curiosity, how far would you go with this 'end justifies the means' business? No jews or blacks in this workplace? No women allowed, it might offend small minded clients?

I don't see any laws being broken. I'm not talking about "Oh, you hired a transexual? We're not doing business with you anymore.", I'm talking about "I am disturbed by that transexual. I am subconsciously less likely to do good business with a company that makes me feel uncomfortable."

Thanks to the many strides of progress in human rights and society in general made in the last 100 years, must of us can compensate our own judgement for things like sexism, racism (provided neither party fulfills any stereotypes) and religious differences (provided that both parties are not extremists). Sexuality, we're still working on: I myself have no problem talking to lesbians, but maybe that's just because lesbians are nothing more than another category of women who will never sleep with me. Males gays.....the more flamboyant he is, the more of a problem I'm going to have talking to him, and I'm going to be freaked out if he flirts with me. Then again, that's for the same reason women would be freaked out when ugly men flirt with them.

It sounds like in the case in question, the lady invoked some sort of uncanny valley effect. No one can help that.

At the end of the day, you have to hire your employees based on how good they are at their job. Anything about them that doesn't interfere with them doing their job, or their co-workers doing their job, I literally can't give a fuck about. If their job is to interact with clients, then I'm going to make sure that they're someone the client would be comfortable with.

The fact that a law was broken (anti-discrimination laws) was the whole point of the article! As for the uncanny valley effect, are you aware that you just made that up? There was quite literally nothing in the article that even suggested that. Seriously, quote me the words from the article on which you based your uncanny valley theory. And the uncanny valley refers to the feeling of disquet that one feels when looking at something that is close to but not quite human. Well done, you just implied that a transgender person doesn't look human.

I repeat my earlier question: if it would help relationships with clients, would it be ok to say 'we don't hire black people'?

 

[Still Life]

--

It's fun to be right.

 

[Still Life]

The company is not responsible for other people's predjudice

But the company is responsible for its own internal prejudices.

I'd go one step further.
If the company readily and happily conforms to other people's prejudices then they are responsible for them to an extent. It's a validation of the prejudice. It tells the client that their prejudice is something worth supporting.
That support creates an environment that fosters ignorance and allows it to continue.

I would agree with you there. But I'm not sure how far the bounds of the law extends in this particular case.

I think the result sets a good and just precedent.

*Edit* Tired eyes.

 

[orangeban]

I don't think they deserve a cent.

Wanna work at Hooters? Wear their uniform.
Wanna work at the Playboy Mansion? Wear the outfit.
Wanna work at McDonald's? Wear the gear.
Wanna work at First Direct Logistics? Dress how the owner wishes you to.

Don't like it? Don't work there.

I hate it when transsexuals use their condition like this.

I dont think the main problem was the clothing guy, I think it was the fact they asked her to keep calling herself a man because it would be to "confusing" and some how easier on everyone else. Surely just saying "hes a women named Louise now" would have been the most simple way of doing it.

I agree with you on uniforms though, if you dont like the way a place is run you dont have to work there, clothing, hair, tatoos, they all count.

Tough.

The company wanted them to go by a certain name. Don't like it? Don't work there. Don't want to be called a Playboy Bunny? Don't work at the Mansion.

Okay, that idea works only if this was some kind of company that only employed males or made everyone look male. But it didn't, females were allowed to work there and they didn't get different treatment to the males (officially at least). If someone wants to swap over it's their right.

If a black person joined a job and someone handed them a bucket of white paint and said you can work here if you just paint yourself white, because some workers and customers are uncomfortable with black people, should they agree? Of course not. That'd be unfair and racist. Should the woman in the article dress like a man because some people are uncomfortable
with transexuals? No, of course not.

 

[MarkusWolfe]

The fact that a law was broken (anti-discrimination laws) was the whole point of the article! As for the uncanny valley effect, are you aware that you just made that up? There was quite literally nothing in the article that even suggested that. Seriously, quote me the words from the article on which you based your uncanny valley theory. And the uncanny valley refers to the feeling of disquet that one feels when looking at something that is close to but not quite human. Well done, you just implied that a transgender person doesn't look human.

I repeat my earlier question: if it would help relationships with clients, would it be ok to say 'we don't hire black people'?

It wasn't the EXACT uncanny valley, it was something similar to it, having to do with which gender they look like as opposed to how human they look. Are you telling me that when you look at the Bearded Lady at the circus, you don't feel at least a little disturbed?

Nice strawman you have there. If the client's representative would be pleased if I didn't hire anyone of a certain race, I might call up the client and inform him that his representative is a racist fuck. If the client himself would be pleased to hear that, then we're obviously dealing with the KKK. Even if the client was a bigot, he wouldn't want himself or his representatives to appear as such. Anyone bigoted enough to show off his bigotry isn't going to make a good business partner.

 

[Hashime]

Does it make me a bad person if I replaced Ms. with Mr. the whole article?

I don't actually see what the company doing as that bad. The employee who is a dude would come in dressed as a female. Regardless of their gender identity, they are still male and as of such would not look normal or even presentable wearing female clothing.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Does it make me a bad person if I replaced Ms. with Mr. the whole article?

Not necessarily, it just means you need to learn what 'gender' means.

 

[Tanis]

PC this, PC that.

Don't say 'retarded' or you'll be hung out to dry.

If you're gonna cut off or scoop out your genitals, fine...w/e.
However, don't expect people to call you by your 'other gender' name until you do or if these people have known you as one gender for years.

It's stupid.

MR Hanna is going to have a hell of a time finding a job now!

 

[Still Life]

they are still male and as of such would not look normal or even presentable wearing female clothing.

To you, maybe. To the individual who has been wronged they are female and they are protected by the law, ergo the outcome of the case. Society has evidently made that distinction if the courts are upholding this person's gender identity.

I don't know about you, but I'm not so narrow-minded to be bothered whether a transsexual is serving me as a customer.

However, the world will not change to suit your whim. If you wish to assign clothes a gender that is your choice. Your choice has no bearing on the outside world.

But the world has bequeathed this transsexual with laws that protect her, hence the result of the case.

Really, you need to keep up with the times.

 

[Korolev]

If she wants to live as a woman, let her. Why not? Does it hurt anyone? Does it cause any problems?

You might disagree as to the causes of transgender identity - some say it's genetic, some say it's culture, personally I think it's a mix of both - but just.... look, just go with it, alright? If someone wants to be addressed as a male or a female, just.... just do it. It doesn't take up anyone's time, it doesn't cause any delays, it has ZERO effect on the way you live your life, while allowing them to live their life the way they want to. It's just polite. Simple put, it's just polite.

Really, how much effort can it take to just GO ALONG WITH IT. It doesn't matter whether or not you accept their decision (although I encourage that you DO accept their decision and support them), but for god's sake just be polite about it.

Not that hard. Really. Not that hard at all.

 

[MarkusWolfe]

But the world has bequeathed this transsexual with laws that protect her, hence the result of the case.

Protect her from what, looking so disturbing in a dress that everyone asks she wears pants? Nothing can protect you from that.

 

[Still Life]

However, don't expect people to call you by your 'other gender' name until you do or if these people have known you as one gender for years.

Yet according to the article Louise had informed her employer through the appropriate channels and simply wanted to take advantage of her civil rights (like anyone else). Her employer unfairly required her to conform to a separate gender identity and hence the court action.

She is simply standing up for herself.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Protect her from what, looking so disturbing in a dress that everyone asks she wears pants? Nothing can protect you from that.

Why is it disturbing?

Not her problem. Yours. You sort it out.

For those wondering, you are not allowed to have serious sex-reassignment surgery until you live in role for at least a year, during which you are allowed minor hormone treatment. This means that you have to live full time in your new gender role, and can legally expect to be treated as a member of the sex you are transitioning to.

There is a legal responsibility on us as a society to treat the person in that position with respect, not get freaked out because your incredibly silly rules about who should wear what clothes are being broken.

 

[HentMas]

This is good news but at the same time it must be awkward for the company, especially if she was in a customer facing role and looked very masculine. It's kind of a double bind.

it shouldn´t matter, at all, if the customer thinks she looks manly or weird its his problem, he is not there to pick up girls, he is there to do business, and if a customer complains someone else can tend to him, if she was willing to leave when she decided to make the change, the company should have agreed in the first place if they thought she was going to be a problem.

but yeah, i agree this are really good news for the trans people,