Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people have often been lumped together as one entity with a singular, universal political platform. Transgender citizens, however, face a unique challenge in earning legal protection from discrimination. Since the early 1990’s, beneficial transgender nondiscrimination policies have been expanding, but changes have been incremental and often centered in the state and local levels of government.
Federal, state, and local governments all have the power to enact nondiscrimination legislation. Currently, however, there are few national laws prohibiting gender non-conformity discrimination explicitly (Garland, 599). Most of the headway has come on the state and local levels (Taylor, 189). It wasn’t …show more content…
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was originally written to assert that employers cannot discriminate based on an individual’s sex (“What you should know,” 2016). However, because there was no explicit description of “gender identity” in the writing, states and municipalities were able to work around it. Then in a 2012 landmark decision, the federal court case Macy vs. Department of Justice determined that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) would consider gender identity as an aspect of sex and therefore covered by the Civil Rights Act (“What you should know,” 2016). And yet, as North Carolina’s HB-2 clearly demonstrates, some states are attempting to undermine the federal level distinction made by the EEOC and create their own, state-specific …show more content…
This is in part because the controversial nature of transgender rights makes passing non-discrimination laws difficult (Taylor, 190). Yet even though some states have undermined Title VII, the federal government has been building a precedent of court cases that uphold transgender rights (Beyer, 1). There have been multiple federal court cases that have upheld the decision in Macy vs. Department of Justice, like Lusardi vs. Department of the Army in March of 2015 (“What you should know,” 2016). This case specifically addressed the issue of gender identity and segregated restrooms. The ruling was to uphold the precedent set in the Macy case, and decided that restricting a transgender female from using the women’s restroom was discriminatory (“What you should know,” 2016). There have also been cases that maintain gender identity is also covered by the Fair Housing Act (Garland, 599). But still, no federal law expressly provides legal protections for transgender people, so legislators in North Carolina can, at the very least, attempt to pass bills like HB-2. This is because it is possible that the Supreme Court could overrule the EEOC’s decision (Beyer, 1). According to the EEOC, however, “contrary state law is not a defense under Title VII” (“What you should know,”
Federal, state, and local governments all have the power to enact nondiscrimination legislation. Currently, however, there are few national laws prohibiting gender non-conformity discrimination explicitly (Garland, 599). Most of the headway has come on the state and local levels (Taylor, 189). It wasn’t …show more content…
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was originally written to assert that employers cannot discriminate based on an individual’s sex (“What you should know,” 2016). However, because there was no explicit description of “gender identity” in the writing, states and municipalities were able to work around it. Then in a 2012 landmark decision, the federal court case Macy vs. Department of Justice determined that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) would consider gender identity as an aspect of sex and therefore covered by the Civil Rights Act (“What you should know,” 2016). And yet, as North Carolina’s HB-2 clearly demonstrates, some states are attempting to undermine the federal level distinction made by the EEOC and create their own, state-specific …show more content…
This is in part because the controversial nature of transgender rights makes passing non-discrimination laws difficult (Taylor, 190). Yet even though some states have undermined Title VII, the federal government has been building a precedent of court cases that uphold transgender rights (Beyer, 1). There have been multiple federal court cases that have upheld the decision in Macy vs. Department of Justice, like Lusardi vs. Department of the Army in March of 2015 (“What you should know,” 2016). This case specifically addressed the issue of gender identity and segregated restrooms. The ruling was to uphold the precedent set in the Macy case, and decided that restricting a transgender female from using the women’s restroom was discriminatory (“What you should know,” 2016). There have also been cases that maintain gender identity is also covered by the Fair Housing Act (Garland, 599). But still, no federal law expressly provides legal protections for transgender people, so legislators in North Carolina can, at the very least, attempt to pass bills like HB-2. This is because it is possible that the Supreme Court could overrule the EEOC’s decision (Beyer, 1). According to the EEOC, however, “contrary state law is not a defense under Title VII” (“What you should know,”