RawNY
02-26-2008, 05:41 PM
Dear Friends,
The following appeared in the New York Law Journal this morning. It is a summary of a case decidedin Brooklyn, NY. I think that it says something qabout progress in the eyes of the law. Now, if the politicians only take notice.
Bumpus v. New York City Transit Authority
KINGS COUNTY
Civil Rights
February 26, 2008
Justice Miller
DEFENDANT NEW York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) employee moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint which alleged defendant verbally harassed and humiliated plaintiff, a transgender woman, by using derogatory names and bigoted epithets referring to plaintiff's gender identity and expression. Defendant argued lack of subject matter jurisdiction, alleging she was a NYCTA employee and immune from liability under the city Human Rights Law (HRL) existed. The court disagreed, stating the NYCTA was not exempt from local laws that did not interfere with the function and purpose of the NYCTA. It stated the complaint alleged plaintiff was harassed merely because she was a transgender woman, noting HRL afforded protection to transgender people in New York City. The court stated a transgender person did not become less of a person and lose the protection of the HRL by riding the subway. It found defendant's discriminatory behavior was not within the function of the NYCTA and denied defendant's motion.
I highlighted th last sentence . It says a lot.
Keep the faith, baby
The following appeared in the New York Law Journal this morning. It is a summary of a case decidedin Brooklyn, NY. I think that it says something qabout progress in the eyes of the law. Now, if the politicians only take notice.
Bumpus v. New York City Transit Authority
KINGS COUNTY
Civil Rights
February 26, 2008
Justice Miller
DEFENDANT NEW York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) employee moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint which alleged defendant verbally harassed and humiliated plaintiff, a transgender woman, by using derogatory names and bigoted epithets referring to plaintiff's gender identity and expression. Defendant argued lack of subject matter jurisdiction, alleging she was a NYCTA employee and immune from liability under the city Human Rights Law (HRL) existed. The court disagreed, stating the NYCTA was not exempt from local laws that did not interfere with the function and purpose of the NYCTA. It stated the complaint alleged plaintiff was harassed merely because she was a transgender woman, noting HRL afforded protection to transgender people in New York City. The court stated a transgender person did not become less of a person and lose the protection of the HRL by riding the subway. It found defendant's discriminatory behavior was not within the function of the NYCTA and denied defendant's motion.
I highlighted th last sentence . It says a lot.
Keep the faith, baby