"Transgender N.J. man sues over firing from job requiring men only"

Elrohir

RELATIONAL VALORIZATION
Joined
Nov 22, 2004
Messages
12,507
Transgender N.J. man sues over firing from job requiring men only

By Barbara Boyer

Inquirer Staff Writer

A transgender employee hired to oversee urine tests administered to men has filed a discrimination lawsuit against a Camden drug treatment center that fired him after it confronted him about his gender last summer.

El'Jai Devoureau, 39, said Urban Treatment Associates questioned him about his gender a day after he started working in the position, which had been open only to male candidates.

"Is El'Jai a male? The employer says no, and El'Jai says he is," said Michael Silverman of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund in New York, which filed the lawsuit Friday. "He's undergone hormone treatment and surgery."

The case challenges an employer's right to eliminate transgender candidates for positions that the law says may be gender-specific. Silverman said he was unaware of any previous transgender-discrimination case that addressed the issue.

When his employer asked about his gender after he began work, Devoureau responded, "I am a man, and I can do the job. They said, 'You're fired,' " he said during an interview Monday.

According to the lawsuit, Devoureau, of Gloucester County, was hired in June to observe men depositing urine in cups for drug analysis. The supervision is to assure that the sample is fresh and not from a different person.

The employer may require male workers for such a job, Silverman said.

In documents filed in January, after Devoureau filed a discrimination complaint with the state, the treatment center stated that it fired Devoureau because he was not a biological male. But it disputed that the termination was discriminatory.

"I've always lived as a male," Devoureau said. He has identified as male since about age 5 and has undergone treatment to transition, he said.

In 2006, Devoureau completed the documents required to change his gender for Social Security and for his New Jersey driver's license. Georgia also amended his birth certificate, he said.

After Devoureau began work, according to the lawsuit, an acquaintance recognized him and passed along to supervisors that Devoureau was physically female at birth and was transgender.

A day later, the lawsuit alleges, Devoureau was confronted by the program's director, identified as Van Macaluso. She allegedly told Devoureau that he was fired because she had been told "he was not a man, that he did not have the parts of a man, and that the job called for a biological male," according to legal documents.

Devoureau and his lawyer said they knew of no complaints about Devoureau's job performance.

A person who answered the phone at Urban Treatment Associates said that Macaluso would not be in the office until next week and that no one else could comment. The attorney representing the center did not immediately return a call for comment.

Devoureau said Monday that he filed the lawsuit to prevent transgender discrimination in the future.

"What matters is not who I am, but how I do the job," he said. "And I did that job perfectly."

"New Jersey is a national leader in transgender equality, and New Jersey is a worldwide model in protecting transgender people from discrimination," Steven Goldstein, chairman of the civil rights organization Garden State Equality, said Monday.

"We've never seen or heard of such a brazen disregard for the law," he said."

Thoughts?

On the one hand, this guy is, legally speaking, a man. Since that apparently goes so far as the modification of the birth certificate, I'm not sure that the law can creditably allow for distinguishment between him and someone who was born a male.

On the other hand, this is only a bona fide occupational requirement because of people's comfort zones -- there's no innate reason why women can't perform this job. The only reason employers are legally allowed to discriminate against women in cases like this (And presumably, men in situations involving women) is because many people would be made uncomfortable by having a member of the opposite sex observe them in such a way. But I know plenty of other people who would be just as uncomfortable, if not more so, if they were observed by a transgender person. So if people's comfort levels are a reasonably enough basis to discriminate against one protected status (Being someone of a particular gender) why not another (being someone who is transgendered)?

So I think the most consistent thing to do would be to carry his "What matters is not who I am, but how I do the job" argument to its logical conclusion, and ban any form of discrimination based on gender for jobs of this type. But that's not a solution I'm personally happy with, and I can't imagine many other people would be either. (I can, in particular, imagine a lot of women being extremely uncomfortable with heterosexual men watching them.)

Thoughts? Solutions? Random outrage from people who didn't read the article?
 
Would a gay man be allowed to perform this job?
Probably, which I think is probably another loophole, so to speak. (When I say "loophole," I mean another circumstance under which many people might be more uncomfortable, yet is still legal while potentially more/less/equally uncomfortable circumstances are legal to ban.)
 
Here's the thing. No one knew the guy was really a she-he until someone else brought it up.

Since it was never actually a problem in practice, then it shouldn't be a problem with full disclosure. Like gays in the military.... a perfect operational record and years of training, and all of a sudden you find out they are gay, that suddenly makes their service null and void, and their desire to continue trumped by the prejudice of others, which is rendered completely hollow by the fact that there was no problem until someone knew?

This isn't like a pilot who has been flying without a license. If male sex organs and an XY chromosome are not required to perform the tasks related to the job, and all that's necessary for the "comfort" of those being tested is a male appearance, then who the heck cares? People need to pull the sticks out of their ends.

Intergendered people have a hard enough go as it is. Which bathroom do they get to use? They're not really/fully either gender, according to some people. Well, deal with it. They gotta go too.
 
Here's the thing. No one knew the guy was really a she-he until someone else brought it up.

Since it was never actually a problem in practice, then it shouldn't be a problem with full disclosure. Like gays in the military.... a perfect operational record and years of training, and all of a sudden you find out they are gay, that suddenly makes their service null and void, and their desire to continue trumped by the prejudice of others, which is rendered completely hollow by the fact that there was no problem until someone knew?

This isn't like a pilot who has been flying without a license. If male sex organs and an XY chromosome are not required to perform the tasks related to the job, and all that's necessary for the "comfort" of those being tested is a male appearance, then who the heck cares? People need to pull the sticks out of their ends.

Intergendered people have a hard enough go as it is. Which bathroom do they get to use? They're not really/fully either gender, according to some people. Well, deal with it. They gotta go too.
So would you be ok with making it illegal to discriminate based on gender, either? (So men could be observed by women, women by men, and so on.)
 
I'm much more offended that anybody would actually want to perform this job.
 
I'm much more offended that anybody would actually want to perform this job.
In this economy, a job's a job. ;)

Do you have a serious response? I'm genuinely not sure what I think government policy should be, so I really am interested in what people have to say.
 
I recognise the need for "inherent requirements" exceptions to gender discrimination in employment law. That's fairly common sense, as long as they really are inherent requirements, and that's what we have a legal system for determining.

But I really don't think it's a good idea to entirely exclude trans and intersex people from all such positions. They're constantly victimised by the rest of us being obsessed with forcing people into one of two straitjackets, and that's something we should be working to reduce.
 
Probably, which I think is probably another loophole, so to speak. (When I say "loophole," I mean another circumstance under which many people might be more uncomfortable, yet is still legal while potentially more/less/equally uncomfortable circumstances are legal to ban.)

Personally, I'd feel more uncomfortable if I had to have a gay man watching me than if I was being watched by a straight transman.

It seems to me like they're trying to switch horses in midstream with this. If they wanted to specify from the start that a heterosexual males who were born into that gender were the only applicants they'd consider, I'd sympathize with them more. Firing a dude because they retroactively changed the qualifications for the job to exclude transsexuals doesn't seem like fair play to me.
 
So would you be ok with making it illegal to discriminate based on gender, either? (So men could be observed by women, women by men, and so on.)

Discrimination falls into one of two categories: fair and unfair.

It's fair to expect that, let's say a Hooters girl, is actually a girl. With hooters. The chain would probably go out of business if the waitstaff was nothing but fat hairy men in skimpy outfits.

It's not fair to expect that the cook at hooters is a female or a male. That has nothing to do with the ability to perform a task. It's not fair to expect that the applicant be black or white or asian. Discrimination for the sake of excluding people when it has nothing to do with the actual job is wrong, unfair, and should be illegal. Discrimination based on things like qualifications is fine.

As a rule, there's no real reason why men and women cannot observe the other while this sort of thing goes on, except it makes certain people uncomfortable. In a truly fair world, with perfectly mature people, no one would or should care who sees them naked. However, that's an ideal that doesn't match reality. If most people would feel more comfortable with a man or a woman, then they should be able to get that preference, because it would otherwise interfere with the ability of the observer to do their job.

A transgender who has lived a certain way their whole life and looks like a man, can perform the job exactly as well as a genetic male. They can do the job and no one would have a problem with it, until someone goes up to the person and tells them it is a transman. It's not the same situation. This person can perform the task and has done so. The problem is not the transman, but the people who have a problem with transmen. They need to grow up. It's exactly the same as being spooked by gay people. You don't know they're gay, they're not hitting on you, they're doing their job as a professional, and everything is fine... until you find out they are gay. Oh noes! How horrible. You were looked at by "a gay". It's the end of the world. Let's sue everybody.

Honestly, people need to let go of their hang-ups.
 
I am reminded of a Seinfeld episode. The gang was in the same diner as usual, but it had just changed owners and there were all new waitresses. Elaine noticed they all had big boobs so she immediately suspected that the boss had specifically hired them for that reason, and so she filed a discrimination complaint against him. It turned out they were his daughters.

My previous response was serious. I still can't get over that someone is actually fighting to keep this job. I don't want anybody watching me pee into a bottle no matter whether they are male or female, and I really don't think it matters. In both cases, I think I would be tempted to deliberately miss. Oops. Sorry.
 
Discrimination falls into one of two categories: fair and unfair.

It's fair to expect that, let's say a Hooters girl, is actually a girl. With hooters. The chain would probably go out of business if the waitstaff was nothing but fat hairy men in skimpy outfits.

It's not fair to expect that the cook at hooters is a female or a male. That has nothing to do with the ability to perform a task. It's not fair to expect that the applicant be black or white or asian. Discrimination for the sake of excluding people when it has nothing to do with the actual job is wrong, unfair, and should be illegal. Discrimination based on things like qualifications is fine.

As a rule, there's no real reason why men and women cannot observe the other while this sort of thing goes on, except it makes certain people uncomfortable. In a truly fair world, with perfectly mature people, no one would or should care who sees them naked. However, that's an ideal that doesn't match reality. If most people would feel more comfortable with a man or a woman, then they should be able to get that preference, because it would otherwise interfere with the ability of the observer to do their job.

A transgender who has lived a certain way their whole life and looks like a man, can perform the job exactly as well as a genetic male. They can do the job and no one would have a problem with it, until someone goes up to the person and tells them it is a transman. It's not the same situation. This person can perform the task and has done so. The problem is not the transman, but the people who have a problem with transmen. They need to grow up. It's exactly the same as being spooked by gay people. You don't know they're gay, they're not hitting on you, they're doing their job as a professional, and everything is fine... until you find out they are gay. Oh noes! How horrible. You were looked at by "a gay". It's the end of the world. Let's sue everybody.

Honestly, people need to let go of their hang-ups.
The only issue here is that you're being totally inconsistent. Why is it ok to tell people to let go of their hang-ups where transgender people are concerned, but not where people of the opposite sex are concerned? Is it the mere fact that it's generally more obvious that the person watching you is a woman than if that person is a transman?

So how about we put the observer in some sort of hazmat suit with a tinted face shield? That would make it so you can never be sure of who/what is watching you. If it's awareness of a particular thing that is the problem, then that should solve everything, shouldn't it? (And as an aside, that'd protect the poor worker -- transgender or otherwise -- who gets stuck with someone who can't aim, like Forma.)

If that's not the difference, then what is it? Why is it rational to be freaked out, as a man, by having a woman watch you pee, but totally irrational to be freaked out by someone who was born a woman and is now gendered as a man watching you pee? I really don't see what method you're using to determine which form of discrimination is fair, and which isn't -- they seem pretty equivalent to me.

If anyone has a good method for distinguishing between the two, I'd be grateful. (Anyone at all, not just pizzaguy.)
 
The way I see it, he got interviewed for the job, the guy that interviewed him believed he was a man, his boss believed he was a man, all the men that pee'd in front of him believed he was a man, and it's only because someone he knew blew the whistle, so to speak, did his possible man-hood become questioned. I'm pretty sure that this makes him at least suitable to watch other men pee in a cup.

Of course, now that the whole thing is out in the open, it will be a problem, because people now believe he is not a man and so would be uncomfortable with it... The sad thing is, if Urban Treatment Associates had kept him on knowing that he was transgender, they would have opened themselves up to lawsuits from the people they treat. So they were screwed either way. All the law does right now is make it difficult to employ transgender people, which is not good for anyone involved.

"What matters is not who I am, but how I do the job," he said. "And I did that job perfectly."
Yeah well done mate, you can watch people pee in a cup :lol: Great work there!
 
no matter if the person performing that job is male, female, trans, Martian, or cthulhu... I would feel uncomfortable in any case having somebody looking at me pissing.

Imagine this guy looking at you in the delicate and personal moment...

This is El-jai
 
I'm guessing you can't pee in private in case you cheat?
 
I think he's completely in the right. He's done everything he can to be recognised as a man. If the law prevents sexual discrimination, he's being discriminated against.
 
Top Bottom