From ThinkProgress:
A Georgia transgender woman has won her appeal that she was illegally fired for planning to make her gender transition. Vandy Beth Glenn had been a legislative editor in the Georgia General Assembly, but her supervisor, now-retired legislative counsel Sewell Brumby, testified that he found the thought of her transition “unsettling,” “unnatural,” and something that others would view as “immoral.” […]
The state could still appeal this decision to the full 11th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court.
That’s obviously great news, although I wonder if the decision will be upheld, and how this will apply outside the public sector.
ThinkProgress also added this interesting note:
It is worth noting that all three judges on the panel concurred, including Judge William H. Pryor. Pryor’s nomination to the bench was opposed by LGBT groups, who noted that he had filed an amicus brief supporting sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas. He also cast the deciding vote to oppose hearing a challenge to Florida’s law that banned gay people from adopting.
So does this mean that Pryor has grown a lot since Laurence, or that his views all along were more varied and nuanced than LGBT groups supposed?
Perhaps it just means that the legal issue was complicated. To use Scalia as an example: sometimes his position will be in overall favor of civil rights, and sometimes not. It’s not a change in his underlying thought processes.
Without reading all the cases involved (for which I have neither time nor inclination) I cannot say whether Judge Pryor has changed his views or not.
As gin-and-whiskey points out, often these cases are not (as the public newspapers would have it) decided simply on the basis of the irrational prejudices of the jurists involved, they actually turn on points of law (no!), which may be quite complex. An honest intellectual (which is what we are aiming for on the bench) will follow the argument where it goes, without inserting his private bigotries into the matter. I know absolutely nothing about Judge Pryor, but this decision speaks well for him, especially if he is, as previously asserted by some, a bigot.
I to have been a victim of Discrimination as a Disabled Veteran and Trnasgender Goverment employee at BAE Systems in Nashua New Hampshire.
This from a company who has an ethics policy about non discrimination on Gender Identity and Sexual Prefrence, but has recent multipe cases against Gender, Disability, and there did not seem to be any problems with my performance prior to them learning of my transgender status. They often made comment about a transgender african american female that worked there and how disgusted they were to have her in the same building. There was no issues other thsn I documented any issues found as a Govermennt auditor of their contract. The problems stsarte after they knew of my status.
After inquiring about the allegations by BAE in August their response was provided to me the reference to me leaving was after they bared me from their facillity their response on 2/22/2012 is as follows;
>> Dear Tamara,
>>
Several of the individuals who were involved in this case are no longer with BAE, and many organizational changes have occurred since you left, so retrieving everything I needed took far longer than anticipated. I have since conducted several interviews and reviewed the available material.
>>
What I see in the record is a complicated situation in which several BAE employees alleged that specific behavior – not your status, but statements and actions in the workplace unrelated to your job – made them feel harassed. The investigation conducted by HR was thorough, included several different sources of information, and seems to have followed an established process.
John Trusslow
Ethics Representitive
BAE Systems
If they cannot do it one way they will always try another.