Kate Lynn Blatt v. Cabela’s (USA)

3

The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued a right-to-sue letter to Kate Lynn Blatt, a transgender woman fired because of transgender status. Discrimination based on transgender status is sex discrimination, and we support the EEOC’s efforts to ensure that transgender people have the right to sue for sex discrimination.

EEOC issues finding in trans case

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Kate Lynn Blatt v. Cabela’s (USA)

  1. “Discrimination based on transgender status is sex discrimination, and we support the EEOC’s efforts to ensure that transgender people have the right to sue for sex discrimination.”

    Who says “Discrimination based on transgender status is sex discrimination”? “We” might support the EEOC’s efforts to ensure that transgender people have the right to sue for sex discrimination, but I don’t without (1.) knowing more about this particular case, and (2.) ensuring that the privacy rights of female employees are safeguarded and respected.

    According the article linked to this post,

    “The EEOC’s determination focused on Cabela’s alleged refusal to allow Blatt to use a women’s
    restroom. Instead, management required her to use a unisex restroom in a distant location, or
    the men’s room.

    Blatt said the unisex restroom wasn’t maintained properly, and using the men’s room wasn’t a
    reasonable option.

    “The unisex bathroom was an absolute disaster,” Blatt said. “It was non-hygienic and
    unsanitary.”

    The EEOC concluded that Cabela’s probably violated the law when denying Blatt access to the
    women’s restroom.

    “It was unlawful for [Cabela’s] to inquire into [Blatt’s] surgeries or medical procedures that she
    underwent or to subject her to any medical or visual examination as a pre-condition to use the
    women’s restroom. Requiring this type of documentation is a form of discrimination,” the EEOC
    stated.”

    So, people don’t even know if he still has male genitalia, and we aren’t allowed to ask. Penis in a women’s restroom is not a civil right, and female employees have a right to personal privacy. By allowing fully intact males in female employee restrooms, couldn’t the employer be liable for damages if a female is harmed in any way? For example, he could forget to lock the stall door and a female employee could walk in on him. Sometimes the tiny latches on the stall door don’t work very well. I’ve had women accidentally walk in on me. This could cause emotional suffering to the female employee.

    He was given the option of using a unisex restroom, but complained that it was too dirty and non-hygienic. Require the employer to clean the unisex restrooms on a more frequent basis.

    I don’t think that transgender identified persons should be fired solely for being transgender, but this still doesn’t adequately address the restroom issue and the privacy rights of female employees.

    Like

  2. In this particular case, I can see the reasoning behind gender stereotypes as sex discrimination. That is, the man was taunted and harassed for “appearing too feminine”. Did this individual say that he was transgender, or “identified as a woman”? I didn’t read anything about claiming transgender status.

    http://genderidentitywatch.com/2013/09/30/eeoc-v-boh-bros-construction-co-usa/

    “Woods’s supervisor harassed him because he thought he was feminine and did not conform to the supervisor’s gender stereotypes of a typical “rough ironworker….The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has restored a jury’s finding from March 2011 that Boh Bros. Construction Co. illegally subjected an ironworker to severe or pervasive harassment based on gender stereotypes”….

    As to Blatt, I’m not sure what to think. I’m suspicious of the statement, “Discrimination based on transgender status is sex discrimination.” Is it true in every case? I don’t think so, and I don’t see how it could be. In my opinion, males who identify as women and appropriate the identity of the female sex are carrying out a particular odious form of sex discrimination. Their actions are sex discrimination (gender stereotypes) by their very nature.. For all practical purposes, they are using sex based stereotypes. How is it possible to claim transgender status or gender identity without dredging up sex stereotypes? That is, I’m female because I wear a dress. Never mind the penis. I’m in a dress and I wear makeup. Therefore, I’m a woman. If this isn’t sex discrimination in the form of gender stereotypes, I don’t know what is. The term “sex discrimination” implies that biological sex exists. Then, the biological reality of sex gets turned on its head.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s