TS VS Library of Congress

[saifan]

Sorry if this is a repost...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/09/19/tra...ion/index.html

[SarahG]

Sorry if this is a repost...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/09/19/tra...ion/index.html

Interesting article.

I have a few comments regarding it:

I couldn't find what DC's current position is in terms of anti-discrimination legislation. Is gender expression covered in the law itself?

If not, I am willing to bet this case will be over turned:

"The evidence established that the Library was enthusiastic about hiring David Schroer -- until she disclosed her transsexuality," Robinson wrote. "The Library revoked the offer when it learned that a man named David intended to become, legally, culturally and physically, a woman named Diane. This was discrimination 'because of ... sex.' "

The courts have been relatively consistent that it is NOT sex discrimination in the United States when someone is discriminated against because of being trans, we fall under the "gender expression" and "gender identity" terms which, in many cases, never get into the discrimination laws.



Further in the article...

After Schroer had retired from the military, she applied for a job at the Library of Congress. Court records show that Schroer, then a male, took her future boss to lunch to outline her transition to a female, as she planned to present herself as a female on her first day of the job.

Schroer testified that on the day after the lunch, the job offer was rescinded, and she was told she wasn't a "good fit" for the library.

I by no means condone the LOC's actions in all this. They were wrong, blatantly so, and unnecessarily since this person was obviously qualified for the position.

I kind of feel Schroer used some poor judgment here... again, this does not by any means excuse the LOCs actions, but if you're planning to go FT on the first day of work- why would you possibly go to the interview presenting as a guy?

The odds are the LOC would have known the situation and acted no differently- especially if she doesn't pass (don't know the details there), has a long resume with a male name being used, or hasn't had her name changed by the time of the interview.

But it does seem that trans employees who go to get a job w/out taking care of their papers first, interview in guymode, only to expect to suddenly go fulltime after the weekend- are stacking the odds of something bad occurring (like discrimination/wrongful termination) against their favor. It also sends mixed messages to the employer, because presenting isn't being done consistently and it proliferates the stereotype that everyone just "impulsively changes their clothes" after a weekend and is then fulltime (ignoring the years of the process leading up to that). I really don't see how the "weekend transition" stereotype helps anyone, from either side of this debate. All it does is mislead & confuse people who don't know about trans issues.

Again I am not saying this should be blamed on her, or that LOC is off the hook- but trans applicants need to be proactive in lowering the odds of stuff like this from happening.

At the same time I do have to wonder if she'd have won the case at all if she hadn't gone to the interview in guymode, as it sounds from the article as if the evidence that the LOC was initially excited to hire her (until they found out she was trans), was critical in winning the case.

On that note it would be interesting if we could get some news outfit to investigate the prevailancy of trans job discrimination by having undercover ggs go interview with hidden cams and then, at the end, come out as trans. The change in face when an employer hears the information would show this really is about discriminatory bias, and the investigation could wait and see how many of these fake-trans applicants get rejection letters 2 weeks after the interview. It would also show which employers really are tolerant in their hiring practices (company policies and real actions being two different things).

[Ashley]

I kind of feel Schroer used some poor judgment here... again, this does not by any means excuse the LOCs actions, but if you're planning to go FT on the first day of work- why would you possibly go to the interview presenting as a guy?

? I don't see that as poor judgement at all. Do you really think she would have helped chances of getting the job by interviewing as a woman? All of her experience and credentials are as a man, so she wanted to make she she would get the job. It makes perfect sense to me.

And it's only because she chose to do this that she was able to bring it to court! If she had interviewed as a woman and was denied the job there's no way she could challenge it in court---they could make up any old reason for not hiring her.

If she hadn't done exactly this we wouldn't be reading about it here today!

[Ashley]

Oh wow! My roommate contacted her and they're having lunch Wednesday! I asked if I could tag along---I want to make a vlog or something. Anything you guys think I should ask?

\Living in DC rocks

[Alyssa87]

Oh wow! My roommate contacted her and they're having lunch Wednesday! I asked if I could tag along---I want to make a vlog or something. Anything you guys think I should ask?

\Living in DC rocks

sooo where does she work now?

[Ashley]

sooo where does she work now?

Good question. No idea---add that one to the list.

Wouldn't surprise me if she's unemployed right now.

[SarahG]

Do you really think she would have helped chances of getting the job by interviewing as a woman? All of her experience and credentials are as a man, so she wanted to make she she would get the job. It makes perfect sense to me.

Granted I don't know all the details, none of us do, but I- and this is just my opinion here, view it as bad judgment for a few reasons.

Her resume is probably all under an older name, assuming her name has been changed already (we don't know all the specifics so I will assume that has been done by now). There are ways that could have been handled differently, for instance using a first initial instead of the full first name, she could have (or already did, I have no idea) contact all the prior institutions on the resume so they know only to use the first initial, she could have while talking to them, asked how they would handle the situation when perspective employers call seeking more information. It pays to do that homework first, which may or may not have happened here (I don't know).

But that's really not where I disagree with the way she did things, I disagree with her decision on going to the interview in guymode because it sends mixed messages and confuses people who don't know about trans issues.

I only really have my own experiences to go off of in saying this, but in my experience I can see a notable change in the way people interact with me depending on how I've presented to them in the past. If someone has only ever seen me in girlmode, even if I come out to them- they're generally more likely to be understanding and more likely to keep from accidentally using the wrong name or pronouns (etc), than the people I have dealt with who have known me since before I went fulltime.

The last thing you (EDIT- you as in anyone reading this, my editorial commentary isn't aimed at anyone specifically) want to do is confuse someone who doesn't know about trans issues by giving the impression that transitioning is an impulsive decision, or something that just has (or hasn't yet) begun for you yet. You have to remember we see things differently from people who aren't trans, and to a perspective employer (especially one in a socially conservative setting like the one in this story) its gonna be a mind fuck if they see you in guymode one day, then see you in girlmode the next. If you're consistent from day1- they know who you are, they know what your situation is, there are no surprises, and there is no mass-speculation of "what Monday is going to be like" or "what you'll look like on Monday." But I will readily agree, this is one of those situations where the more passable the trans applicant is, the smoother things are going to go. If the applicant looks like a 50 yr old ex-nfl player in a dress w/out hrt, electro or makeup then the employer is probably going to be even more intolerant because they're going to wonder what effect there will be on customers, coworkers, and the environment (that doesn't excuse discrimination, I am just trying to express what is going on in these employers' minds when issues like this come up- usually these concerns are unfounded, exaggerated, and baseless- and even when they're not, that doesn't mean discrimination becomes ethical in those situations).

When someone tells a boss "oh hey, I am going to go fulltime on Monday" on a Friday, when they haven't changed their name yet, haven't gone through the stuff that usually comes before going fullltime, it causes avoidable drama.

My point, if there is one, is that if there is a chance to avoid drama by doing things one way instead of another, take it- and I think for a lot of people, going on hrt for a while first, getting electro done, moving on to the name change, going ft- and then applying is probably going to make things smoother even if you have a 30 pg resume in another name.

I know a lot of girls who have outted themselves to employers (when being hired or a year or two after the fact) to tell them that they're going to transition in the future (as in it hasn't happened yet) when nothing is going to change or be even a hint of an issue in the short term, but for what?

Now what I was really trying to get across in my first post, perhaps this was lost so I'll reiterate it here- is that it really doesn't matter how people do things, that doesn't give employers a blank check. Even if this was approached the worst possible way (which it wasn't) by the girl applying, that doesn't mean the LOC can just go "well, we don't hire freaks here- you know where the door is"

And it's only because she chose to do this that she was able to bring it to court! If she had interviewed as a woman and was denied the job there's no way she could challenge it in court---they could make up any old reason for not hiring her.

It is possible, like I already acknowledged, that if she had done things any other way it would not have gotten to court, or not succeeded if it had.

But they did make up "any old reason for not hiring her"- they said that she wouldn't be a good fit, they didn't say they were refusing to hire her because she is trans (even if the difference is semantics and even if it is obvious that her being trans was the real reason).

If she hadn't done exactly this we wouldn't be reading about it here today!

We don't know that, that would be speculation. This girl was so well qualified she would have had a pretty strong case even if she went to the interview in girlmode.

If I don't hire a perspective employee, and turn around and hire someone 5 times less qualified, you bet the first employee has a pretty good case against me, especially if the only difference (outside of resumes) between the two is that one was a minority and the hired one was not.

The courts absolutely need to get tough on job discrimination, but don't count on it- not because girls are going to interviews in girlmode, but because "gender identity" and "gender expression" are usually not part of discrimination protections. I still don't know if DC has either mentioned in existing laws, if it doesn't- this girl's nightmare, and the court ruling may be for nothing.

[Ashley]

No disrespect but your response make no sense in this context. I get what you're saying in general, which I agree with. But in this context, your approach would have not worked and we would not have had this lawsuit.

She was in the military! It's not like she could pretend she was a gg who had served!

Because she interviewed as a man (and it was understood she would get the job) and then later came out as trans LEGALLY a judge could see how she was discriminated based on her transgender status. If she had interviewed as a trans woman she would have never been offered the job in the first place and there would be no case. Or a much weaker case. It would have been much more difficult to prove that discrimination occurred.

...which you admit. But you still think it was a bad idea? What's better, to reduce confusion or win a landmark discrimination lawsuit? She made the right decision how can you not see that?

You say 'semantics'? Goodness! That's the law! The law is made up of a bunch of words that lawyers are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to interpret and debate. A bunch of words! Semantics---They matter!

*sigh*

I know what you're trying to say but you're forcing it on this one. Not to mention if she had done it your "right" way, we would not have had this historic case. Unbelievable.

[SarahG]

No disrespect but your response make no sense in this context.

You might be right, its hard to say because we're hearing very little of the specifics regarding this story. Well- you've seen the articles from the media, they're tiny and brief.

If it doesn't apply to this situation, fine- but I brought it up because:
1) I don't know if it does apply or not and given that
2) I think the information is relevant to anyone who would, in reading this thread, think it was an ideal way to approach being a trans job applicant which in many situations, simply isn't realistic.

...which you admit. But you still think it was a bad idea?

I think it would depend on information I already said I just don't know, because the coverage hasn't been in depth enough to say.

We don't know all the facts here, there is a lot that can impact if this was a bad idea (and if so, how bad).

What's better, to reduce confusion or win a landmark discrimination lawsuit?

Since you, I am guessing, live in DC- do you know if "gender identity" or "gender expression" exist under DC's discrimination laws?

Not to mention if she had done it your "right" way, we would not have had this historic case. Unbelievable.

For all we know, the LOC decided not to hire her- not because she is trans, but because she waited so long to say "oh by the way, now that I've practically been hired- I am going to be walking in as a girl on my first day, you know on monday"

She might have been hired had she been up front from the very start- but that would be something we'll never know now.

The LOC could very easily have been disillusioned with her after the way things played out, thinking they had been had, or that she wasn't being upfront, or wasn't trusting them enough to explain it to them right away.

THIS DOES NOT EXCUSE THE LOC'S BEHAVIOR HOWEVER (in all caps to make sure people reading this thread realize explaining and excusing actions are totally different). They were wrong, period.

[gimmeurblood]

i work at the L.O.C. I've seen the people they hire, and they can use all the good help they can get. I'd like to see where this thread goes
Please keep usinformed