Company hit hard for transgender hiring bias
November 18, 2008 by Sam NarisiPosted in: Discrimination, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Recent Decisions
Seems like the courts are always willing to expand the list of employees who can sue for bias. The latest pitfall for employers:
Transgender discrimination.
In one recent case, an employee was offered a job, and he accepted. When he got the offer, though, he told his new boss he wanted to discuss a “personal matter” — that he was in the process of becoming a woman and would soon be coming to work in women’s clothes.
The boss’s first reaction was to ask, “Why in the world would you want to do that?” Then, after a brief conversation, she told the new hire he’d given her “a lot to think about.”
The job offer was rescinded, and the applicant sued.
The court agreed that there is no federal law banning discrimination on the basis of transexuality. However, other courts have held that firing candidates because they don’t fit traditional gender stereotypes is illegal under regular gender bias law.
The judge applied that standard in this case, saying that “because gender identity is a component of sex, discrimination on the basis of gender identity is sex discrimination.”
The court refused to dismiss the case, and the company will now have to face a costly trial or pay an expensive settlement.
Cite: Schroer v. Billington
November 26th, 2008 at 11:42 am
I CANNONT REPLY ON THIS CRAP.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:44 am
OOPS CANNOT (GOT ME SO UPSET I CAN’T SPELL)
November 26th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Who cares what his/her/its sexuality is? Can this person do the job? IF the person is qualified and the hiring decision was based on the qualifications and the job offer was then rescinded because of the person’s sexuality, the new hire has a case. This type of candidate will probably become a larger part of the candidate pool moving forward in the US and Europe; this would also include women changing their sexuality. Unless the company is a faith based organization, you can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation…………..
November 26th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I am beginning to think that our court system has gotten overly confused. The employer in this case should have been made aware of the interviewees intent to change sex. When interviewing a potential employee its safe to assume the gender one is speaking with will remain as such. In this particular case I believe the court should have denied the suit stating the job offer was under the premise that the individual was male and would remain so. Call it discrimination but transgender isn’t the real thing no matter how it dresses.
November 26th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I don’t quite know what transgender is. Will this process include his needing time off for a sex change operation? That would be my number one concern. I wouldn’t want to hire anyone that told me they would soon be having a major surgery. I would ask them to reapply for the position after they were released to come back to work.
December 1st, 2008 at 10:45 am
I agree with Nomi. You hire someone because there is work for them. If someone needs time off for a completely elective surgery they should tell the employer before accepting the position.
We have recently been hiring more men for positions that have traditionally been held by women in our company. I think it’s a great thing. Gender doesn’t matter. The time off does.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:13 am
At one time, I worked for a high end retailer, who will remain nameless, in HR. I was not the recruiter or hiring manager but a previous employee who had the transgender surgery was the perfect candidate for the job. She knew the business and presented herself (formerly himself) as a polished professional. The department manager didn’t hire her based on the transgender issue. The team in HR was saddened and not savvy enough to understand this difficult issue. We, as a company, treated this individual unfairly.
December 11th, 2008 at 10:29 am
If the person is the best qualified candidate then they should be hired and time off should be handled through the company’s time off policies, period. Who knows they might end up being the best employee ever hired. I hear some of the same bias showing through in these comments from HR professionals which saddens me…
January 7th, 2009 at 10:40 am
I have applied for and gotten interviews for well over 200 jobs in the past 18 months for over 20 of those jobs I was handpicked at a headhunting site. Needless to say I’m still stuck with my old job despite being overqualified and modest about the paycheck. All these companies knew the local legislation very well and simply stated that “we do not belive you will fit in with the team” which is the only thing they can say in order not to be sued for gender discrimination. I’m 27 years old and slender, I have a masters degree in communication and I have excellent references from my current job working as a training process developer unfortunatly I am by now only making half the money I should be making working for a company I no longer burn for because I don’t have an F stamped in my passport. I will gladly accept any improvement possible to ward off discrimation for any reason other than competence. So unless I’m applying to be a gogo dancer I fully expect that I should have gotten a job by now…
and “forist” I’m asuming that she wasn’t applying for the job of being a gigelo in which case having male genitals would actually have mattered.
February 15th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Many transsexuals do not elect to undergo sexual reassignment surgery due to expense, medical exceptions, or personal reasons. In any case, transgendered persons must live for a year in their new gender before they are allowed to have surgery. Being hesitant to offer a transsexual person a job because they make take a leave of absence in the future could be considered discriminatory. Historically, companies have expressed similar hesitation to hire women who may or may not want time off in the future to give birth or be with their families. Pregnancy discrimination is now illegal, and transgender identity should be a protected class in the workplace as well.
Nova, best of luck to you in finding a company that values you in these tough times.
February 25th, 2009 at 10:49 am
I am concerned with Forist’s comment that “the job offer was under the premise that the individual was male and would remain so.” If a person’s gender is a factor in whether or not they are hired, that is discrimination.
I am disturbed by some of the comments that I’m reading which suggest that it is appropriate to discriminate against someone who is transgendered. Not hiring someone who is obviously qualified for a job for reasons that have nothing to do with their ability to do the job is discrimination.
Hang in there, Nova. There are people who will recognize your abilities without being put off by things that have nothing to do with your ability to do your job.
February 25th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Jeanette, my comment was not to discrimination against transgenders rather, I felt the transgender change should have been brought out during the interview. Not after the fact. Should the offer have been retracted? No. I’m not questioning Nova’s ability. Nor do I question the reasoning for waiting to tell the employer. Nova has her reasoning and it is not mine to judge. I will admit that I don’t agree with it however, I do understand the psychological reasoning behind it. If my comment appears discrimnatory it wasn’t intended to. What I believe is what I shared and I hold strong to it.
I do know if I were interviewing someone I would not ask nor expect someone to have a physical change after a job offer was made. As HR Director for our company I have hired women to work in several traditional male positions and with equal or better pay pending experience. Our business has been traditionally male driven for decades. It requires travel away from home for extended periods, work is not under pleasing conditions, it requires mechanical ability and process knowledge. Allot of people just do not fit.
February 25th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Nova, in reviewing comments I noted yours concerning my comment. It wasn’t my intention to hurt your feelings or to put you down. How you choose to live your life is not for me to judge. I merely expressed what my belief is and it wasn’t meant to discriminate. If I hurt your feelings I apologize.
I like to consider myself as having an open mind however, everyone has something they feel strongly about. I have my faults and I make no excuse for them. Your decision to change is yours to make and for me to express how I feel about such change may be in your eyes wrong or discriminating. If you walked into my office as a man one day and a women the next consider the shock or surprise I would have to deal with not only myself but, others as well.
I don’t question your ability nor the reason for changing gender. I don’t know you and it isn’t mine to judge you. I shared my thougthts maybe a little to bluntly but, none the less it is how I feel. Wether one agrees or disagrees with me makes no difference to me.
I do hope that whatever path you select makes you happy. Life is to short to travel through it unhappy. You have my best wishes.