City official faces firing over sex change plan

[JerrBear81]

City official faces firing over sex change plan

LARGO, Florida (AP) -- The City Commission voted to begin the process of firing a top official less than a week after he announced plans to pursue a sex-change operation.

The 5-to-2 vote Tuesday started a three-step process to remove City Manager Steve Stanton from the job he's held for 14 years.

Stanton, 48, confirmed last week that he is a transsexual. With a solid reputation as a forceful and energetic leader, he had hoped to keep his $140,000-a-year job as he underwent the gender reassignment process.

"It's just painful to know seven days ago I was a good guy and now ... I have no integrity," Stanton told the commission. "My challenge here has always been that someday I was going to leave this organization. So I am going to do it with a smile on my face."

Stanton can appeal the decision, though his contract says he can be fired without cause at any time.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/28/city.sexchange.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Read the rest by clicking the above link. I wonder how him getting a sex change makes him "unfit" to be in his position?

[Paul McEnery]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/28/city.sexchange.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Read the rest by clicking the above link. I wonder how him getting a sex change makes him "unfit" to be in his position?

Actually, I can see giving someone a sabbatical because of the hormones. Takes a while to get the hang of it, and that might not be the best in a high-energy position.

But firing someone -- that's got to be illegal.

[Mike Smash!]

But firing someone -- that's got to be illegal.

In Jeb Bush's Florida?

[JerrBear81]

Actually, I can see giving someone a sabbatical because of the hormones. Takes a while to get the hang of it, and that might not be the best in a high-energy position.

But firing someone -- that's got to be illegal.

I can see that too. I mean, any surgery would require some sort of sabbatical. But firing them for a sex change?

[StoneGold]

In Jeb Bush's Florida?

Only if this is Bill Clinton's America.


He got term limited out. Charlie Crist is governor now.

[Paul McEnery]

In Jeb Bush's Florida?

I'd think so, yes. Because of the Nunyabeeswax Act of 1776.

[Serik]

"Stanton can appeal the decision, though his contract says he can be fired without cause at any time."

We all know why the council wants him gone, but if they don't officially state that, would he (she?) not have any recourse? The council can argue that they're removing him just because, as the contract stipulates.

This is as stupid as barring gays from the military. If they're fit to serve, let them stay onboard. Government needs as many competent people as it can get...

[Winslow]

Actually, I can see giving someone a sabbatical because of the hormones. Takes a while to get the hang of it, and that might not be the best in a high-energy position.

But firing someone -- that's got to be illegal.

Personally, I think it should be illegal.

But I don't think transgender would fall under "sexual orientation" protections of most equal opportunity law.

[Drew Van T.]

We all know why the council wants him gone, but if they don't officially state that, would he (she?) not have any recourse? The council can argue that they're removing him just because, as the contract stipulates.

Right, that part is unfortunate in and of itself, because they still have that cover. If Stanton could somehow find a way to make them say it - "we're firing you because of the sex change" - then she could do some good on her way out, even if it doesn't reverse the decision (which it almost certainly won't).

[Paul McEnery]

Personally, I think it should be illegal.

But I don't think transgender would fall under "sexual orientation" protections of most equal opportunity law.

That's not the law.

Gender dysphoria is a recognized clinical condition. So you're effectively firing someone for being disabled.

[Charles RB]

But I don't think transgender would fall under "sexual orientation" protections of most equal opportunity law.

I thought it did.

[Winslow]

That's not the law.

Gender dysphoria is a recognized clinical condition. So you're effectively firing someone for being disabled.

I hadn't thought of it that way. You may be right.

I thought it did.

It's not the same thing.

[Black Atom]

Right, that part is unfortunate in and of itself, because they still have that cover. If Stanton could somehow find a way to make them say it - "we're firing you because of the sex change" - then she could do some good on her way out, even if it doesn't reverse the decision (which it almost certainly won't).

This sounds like the set-up for a great episode of Three's Company.

[Paul McEnery]

I hadn't thought of it that way. You may be right.


I am. Although, to my knowledge, it may not have been tested yet.

And I think Charles is wrong about the sexual orientation thing, because transsexuality isn't about orientation.

For that matter, it's utterly transparent why he's being fired. If s/he chooses to sue, I'd be very surprised if there isn't a high-profile lawyer willing to take the case on on contingency.

[rick]

In the vast majority of states, including Florida, there is no legal protection for being fired over sexual orientation.

She can sue, but honestly she doesn't have much of a legal footing to stand on.

[JerrBear81]

That's not the law.

Gender dysphoria is a recognized clinical condition. So you're effectively firing someone for being disabled.

I wonder if that'd work in a court of law though.

[Spike-X]

People can really be arseholes when they put their minds to it, can't they?

[Slam_Bradley]

In the vast majority of states, including Florida, there is no legal protection for being fired over sexual orientation.

She can sue, but honestly she doesn't have much of a legal footing to stand on.


This is the kind of suit that is settled to avoid publicity and litigation costs. It would be very difficult to pick a jury that would find against the city in this case.

[Paul McEnery]

This is the kind of suit that is settled to avoid publicity and litigation costs. It would be very difficult to pick a jury that would find against the city in this case.

I know you're the lawyer, and I'm just the loudmouth, and I take your point about the jury, but...

No.

This case is utterly cut-and-dried. It is illegal to fire someone because of illness, pure and simple. Gender dysphoria is a clinical condition. The only cure is gender reassignment. Piece of cake to prove it. It's just a done deal.

Oh, and as for the jury? Any good crying lawyer could get a Florida jury onside by talking about how utterly miserable our guy has been trapped in a man's body. What? You think that jury hasn't already seen that story on Days of Our Lives?

[Gilda Dent]

Actually, I can see giving someone a sabbatical because of the hormones. Takes a while to get the hang of it, and that might not be the best in a high-energy position.

It depends on the person. Most begin hormone therapy without an interruption in their employment. So long as there are no adverse side effects, there's no reason why she shouldn't be able to begin hormone treatment while doing her job.

I can see that too. I mean, any surgery would require some sort of sabbatical. But firing them for a sex change?

Surgery does require some recovery time. FFS typically a week to two weeks, and SRS a bare minimum of two weeks, with four to eight weeks even better. It varies depending primarily on health prior to SRS.

Personally, I think it should be illegal.

But I don't think transgender would fall under "sexual orientation" protections of most equal opportunity law.

I thought it did.

And I think Charles is wrong about the sexual orientation thing, because transsexuality isn't about orientation.

Orientation doesn't cover transgendered people. Protection for transgendered people usually comes under "gender identity and expression." California is the exception, where gender identity is covered in the legal definition of "sex". Florida state statute law doesn't address either. Some local municipalites, however, do have specific laws protecting gender identity.

As it happens, Largo City (http://www.largo.com/Commission_agendas/commission_packets/oct_14_2003/managers_report.html) does have an internal non-discrimination policy that covers all city employees.

A-3. Implementation of Discrimination and Harassment Prohibition Policy

Human Resources Director Sinz reports that the City Commission has approved the Discrimination and Harassment Prohibition policy effective immediately. The new policy specifically prohibits bias, prejudice, intimidation, coercion and harassment by any City employee at the work place, during business trips, or at City functions. The new policy mandates treating all human beings with respect regardless of race, religion, national origin, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. Any verbal, physical, or visual conduct that belittles, demeans, denigrates, or shows hostility toward an individual or group will disciplined up to and including discharge. At the regular Commission meeting on October 7, 2003, Mayor Jackson asked how staff will document that all employees receive and understand the new policy. Human Resources Director Sinz advises that the revised policy will be distributed to employees. In addition, Human Resources will highlight the policy in the Monday Morning Briefing, and will conduct additional training for all employees in November and December. Employees will be required to sign a form indicating receipt of the policy, and pledging to uphold this policy to keep the City of Largo a work place free of harassment and discrimination. New employees will receive the policy at sign-in and will also be required to sign a form.


That's not the law.

Gender dysphoria is a recognized clinical condition. So you're effectively firing someone for being disabled.

I am. Although, to my knowledge, it may not have been tested yet.

I wonder if that'd work in a court of law though.

Transsexuals have sued under the federal Americans With Disabilities Act and lost every time. However, there is a precedent in Florida's courts which says that gender identity is covered by the Florida Human Rights Act as either a disability or a perceived disability.

In the vast majority of states, including Florida, there is no legal protection for being fired over sexual orientation.

She can sue, but honestly she doesn't have much of a legal footing to stand on.

17 states have specific statute protections against discrimination on the basis of orientation and 10 more have protection for public employees by executive order or court decision. That's a little more than half. Nine states and D.C. have statutory protections for gender identity, and two more have executive orders for this.

Florida, though not covered in either instance, does seem to have gender identity covered through their state Human Rights Act, and the city commission itself made it illegal to discriminate against transsexuals as part of their own Discrimination and Harassment policy.

I think Stanton has a good case here.