Dr. Jillian T. Weiss

New York Times Tells of Trans Job Lawsuit

Filed By Dr. Jillian T. Weiss | April 11, 2011 12:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Politics, Transgender & Intersex
Tags: El'Jai Devoureau, Gibson Dunn, Stein McGuire, TLDEF, Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund, Urban Treatment Associates, Van Macaluso

The New York Times op-ed section brings word of an unusual lawsuit this morning. The Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund (TLDEF) has brought a lawsuit on behalf of El'Jai Devoureau (first name pronounced like LJ).

El'Jai was hired by a drug testing company to watch testees produce urine samples, presumably to ensure it was done properly and no switching of samples occurred. Word reached his supervisor that he is a transgender man. The supervisor asked for evidence of surgery, and El'Jai said that is private. He was fired.

This is an extremely important lawsuit because the questions to be addressed include whether being male in a particular way specified by the employer is a "bona fide" occupational qualification (BFOQ) and whether El'Jai qualifies as a male. BFOQ lawsuits in regard to sex are rare, and not as simple as they might seem.

It's particularly informative that TLDEF's legal partners in this suit are a major international law firm, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, and a highly respected local firm, Stein, McGuire, Pantages & Gigl. Firms like that don't take a case, particularly a pro bono case, unless they've got the law and the facts they see as likely to be successful. Furthermore, as impact litigation, which attempts to create useful precedents and, above all, to do no harm to the interests of the disadvantaged constituency it seeks to help, this one goes straight to the heart of trans advocacy: who is a man?

The complaint specifically states that "He has permanently transitioned to male and his government-issued identification documents reflect the fact that he is male. Defendants hired him as a man."

It should be noted that New Jersey is the only state that has an appellate precedent squarely on point in favor of transsexuals, ruling that a transsexual person is to be considered according to the sex with which he or she identifies. In MT v. JT, 355 A.2d 204 (N.J. App. Div. 1976), a New Jersey appeals court held that "if the anatomical or genital features of a genuine transsexual are made to conform to the person's gender, psyche or psychological sex, then identity by sex must be governed by the congruence of these standards." Almost every other court in the U.S. that has considered the issue has gone in the other direction. While that case involved a question of alimony after divorce, the court in the current case may find this reasoning persuasive, and perhaps even binding. Thus, while bringing a case like this could be extremely dangerous, it's probably better brought in New Jersey more than any other state in the nation.

I've also discussed the BFOQ requirement in past posts. Essentially, it means that being a male is part of the qualifications of the job. This cannot be on the basis of stereotypes, such as that the job requires strength or is dangerous. A woman who has the strength and the ability to do a hard or dangerous job must not be disbarred from doing so by reason of her gender. In the case of watching men give urine samples, the idea, I suppose, is that respect for the privacy of the men requires that they not be subjected to the scrutiny of a female while performing such intimate acts. If El'Jai were a female, that reasoning would hold. As noted, however, the complaint specifically states that "He has permanently transitioned to male and his government-issued identification documents reflect the fact that he is male. Defendants hired him as a man." If El'Jai's employees think he is not a man, is their subjective judgment more pertinent than that of the State of New Jersey?

The complaint more specifically states "As reflected on official government documentation, both federally and at the state level, he is appropriately recognized as male, including on his driver's license (New Jersey), his Social Security records (federal), and his birth certificate (Georgia)."

I think it interesting that there are three counts to the complaint, one for sex discrimination, one for gender identity discrimination and one for disability discrimination. While some legal advocates have indicated that they would not bring a claim based on disability discrimination because it may be considered by some to be disrespectful and perhaps even undercutting to the client's claim, I agree that this is an appropriate legal claim in most instances because it underscores the nature of the discrimination against transsexuals -- not only discrimination based on physical attributes, but discrimination based on psychological identity. But reasonable people can disagree on that issue.

Kudos to Michael Silverman of TLDEF, and to the other intrepid attorneys who will no doubt provide excellent representation to Mr. Devoureau.


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


In some vague respects, this reminds me of the Kimberly Nixon case with the Rape Crisis Center in Vancouver, BC. I think he has an excellent chance to win this, especially in New Jersey.

So BFOQ = Bona fide occupational qualifications... I wish you wouldn't use OPAs (obscure professional acronyms).

I agree, Gina, it did remind me of the Nixon case a bit. But I think from a social perspective, it's much better pitched to succeed. I think our society is less generally fearful of transmen than transwomen, and is less concerned about male rights to privacy. Of course, such fears are unfounded and male rights to privacy are important, but social prejudice is what it is.

OK Teach, I'm not a lawyer, but if I can get some free legal training from you, I will.

Assumption: The plaintiff has stipulated that they are Transsexual, and it is accepted by both parties that the plaintiff has a Georgia Birth Certificate saying "male".

Statute: Ga. Code Ann. ยง 31-10-23(e) (2005).

(e) Upon receipt of a certified copy of a court order indicating the sex of an individual born in this state has been changed by surgical procedure and that such individual's name has been changed, the certificate of birth of such individual shall be amended as prescribed by regulation.

The regulations state that a new BC is issued, rather than the old one marked up with amendments.


This establishes a rebuttable presumption that sex reassignment surgery has been performed, without needing to call expert witnesses or examine genitalia.

To rebut it, and trigger such an inquisition, one would need some form of credible evidence that the presumption was incorrect, am I right? A mere "well, I don't think that happened" isn't enough.

Also, it's arguable that the decision was made regardless of whether the plaintiff had had surgery or not, the claim is that they were not male regardless.

That goes against MT v. JT, 355 A.2d 204 (N.J. App. Div. 1976),where it was held that "if the anatomical or genital features of a genuine transsexual are made to conform to the person's gender, psyche or psychological sex, then identity by sex must be governed by the congruence of these standards."

Avenues of attack (or rather, defence).
1. Claim the Georgia BC is a fake.
2. Go through Georgia records office to find some technical or material defect that makes the BC invalid, such as lack of court order.
3. Go through the Georgia court records and claim that the medical evidence adequate for Georgia was inadequate under MT vs JT for New Jersey. ie second-guessing a judge in another jurisdiction, which I think might be a bit of a no-no.
4. Claim that the plaintiff is not a "genuine transsexual" under MT vs JT based on a lot of handwaving and misdirection. Good luck with that, but hey, it might work.
5. Attempt to distinguish MT vs JT by narrowing the definition of "sex" to only mean in that exact case's context, and that this situation is completely different. ie that the court didn't say what it plainly did. Get the right Judge, and this one could be a winner.

If and only if the presumption established by the Georgia BC is undermined, then the defendant can claim that the surgery (if any) was insufficient, and that claim must in turn be rebutted. Bring in the Expert Witnesses and Privacy Violators, and go into the knotty problem of FtoM surgery, where the medical state of the art isn't as good as it is with MtoF.

How am I doing?

In turn... the plaintiff could decide NOT to stipulate that they are Transsexual, and require the defence to prove that, and say exactly how they found out.... which could embarrass the defence so much they withdraw. Stipulate only that they were fired for being perceived to be transsexual. The plaintiff could also adduce evidence that the defendant did not make the decision on the basis of inadequate surgery, so the adequacy of that surgery is immaterial, and MT vs JT doesn't apply.

I'd have to look at the actual NJ law - it could be that being fired for being perceived to be Trans is not illegal, just actually Trans - in which case the Plaintiff may have to prove that they are Trans in return, which might be difficult. Again, the defence might claim that this is immaterial, the decision was based on perceptions, not facts.

I've seen more bizarre arguments made in court over the Wisconsin Sex Change Prevention Act.

You've done a thorough analysis it seems, Zoe. Yes, it seems he has a very supportable case. We'll see. I was so upset about the other aspects of his case I didn't read the complaint until just now. I don't understand all the nuances of disability discrimination but part of the evidence being used that is that he has,

"a serious medical condition recognized as such in both the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th Edition (DSM-IV)"

That significantly boosts the yuk factor for me, up even further than it was before I came across this. Can a diagnosis that states a person has a "mental disorder" really be relied upon to prove whether a person is male or female?

All that leaves is body part incongruence in need of physical resolution and intersex that doesn't if GID can't be relied on to establish legal gender identity which seems necessary if there are really true "bona fides" for certain "qualifications". I don't see how ideas of "gender identity" can hold up in the face of "gender is a social construct arguments". Evidence provided by positive treatment outcomes seems to make body part incongruence theories supportable, however(the brain is a body part). Of course, there is the problem of those not economically able, not able for medical reasons or because they live under repressive regimes to have their incongruence resolved. I don't think that has any bearing on whether this person should be considered legally male, however badly those aspects of the whole situation need to be addressed.

I still think having to rely on this as a test case is unfortunate because of what he wants to do to make his living and, as I wrote here, because his lawyers hope the DSM will shore up his argument, which I can't understand at all.

There is something very fuzzy about this case and it isn't the question of whether he is male or should have been fired. I am far less than fascinated that this should be the test case but it does put what it means to legally change sex to the acid test. I think it is very unfortunate that the gold standard for legal sex change has to be based on someone's right to probably inevitably violate someone else's rights through another kind of test. I hope he wins his case and the company he wants to work for goes under. My support for him is limited to support for a judgement that says his legal documentation means what it says. Suppose he were a guard in the army brig where Bradley Manning has to stand naked at attention every morning and he was the one who had to take roll call? An oppressive jerk is a jerk whether he had a sex change or not.

I'm curious, Edith, what makes you less than fascinated that this should be the test case?

I wrote a long reply to Desiree, regarding why. I am debating whether or not to post it. I think I will. I shouldn't get myself so wrapped up in this. I can't really express everything I find wrong with the kind of testing the company Devoureau wants to work for. Drug testing has become big business. One only has to contemplate the conflicts of interest involved in Florida where Rick Scott wants to impose drug testing for state employees without any probable cause but my objections go on and on. The former mayor of my city wanted to violate a city contract with the police union to impose drug testing after a scandal involving police and drug dealers in the midst of a very important election for Patrick Kennedy's seat in congress all because he thought it would give him popular support.

I think there should be consistency as far as human rights are concerned. I know what the rulings have been regarding drug testing but it still doesn't seem right. I think there are enormous implications involved in taking hair samples and fluids from a person's body that will only gradually make themselves evident. Most drug screening is screening for marijuana use. It shouldn't even be illegal. People who are dependent on legal medications are being screened, then fired from their jobs at a time when disability payments that are not enough to live on and medicaid payments are being cut. I know a person who was sent to a behavior modification center for a year for treatment he did not need. He had to pay for it out of his own pocket because he was caught with half a joint. I know people who had really bad addiction problems who could not get treatment until they committed a crime, were sent to prison and had it imposed on them. My hard drive would run out of space if I listed all my objections.

I think it is very unfortunate that a test case for the legality of identity transition had to arise out of this situation.

This entire discussion is, IMO, a derail and in any way hinting he's an 'oppressive jerk' because he's involved with that industry is pretty rude and unfair. But to the point, he's testing people who had former issues with drug addiction... these were not random tests.

the jerk comment, I agree, was crude. rude and unfair, however, would be an understatement to describe a criminal justice system he so enthusiastically wants to be a part of. human rights is not a partisan sport. "derail", I suppose so. not to bring up any objections regarding the kind of job he wants back would be to gloss over any of the uglier components of this situation. If the people he is testing are there willingly why do they need him to make sure they are not cheating on their tests? There is a lot more to this picture than meets the eye. I don't think people who blindly sign on to being part of an apparatus that is part of a system that is corroding other rights serve as good role models. I am sure this case will get some publicity.

I'll limit my enthusiasm to his right to be regarded legally male. Even there, I am beginning to wonder exactly what the details are in regard to his situation.

or, maybe his job prospects are limited and this is the best way he can put food on his plate.

Not everyone has the luxury of being able to let their morals dictate where they work.

Not everyone has the luxury of being able to let their morals dictate where they work.

I don't think I could say it any better myself. Who do you think he will be taking urine samples from if he gets his job back, hedge fund managers?

Also,

If one carefully considers this situation, I don't see how anyone could look at what Devoureau's duties would be at the company he wants to work at and say those duties would really have anything to do with the role a counselor at the Vancouver Rape Crisis Center would perform.

Angela Brightfeather | April 11, 2011 2:55 PM

I would be surprised if this case was decided in his favor and it did not strike a precedent for the fact that somehow it could be used in a future Supreme Court decision to distinguish exactly what is a man or a woman.

Of course this is the "name that can not be mentioned" when it comes to the Supreme Court as evidenced in at least two cases that they have decided not to take up in the past. It would appear that no one wishes to be painted into the corner of deciding legally what is a male and what is a female, because they know that it leaves at least two classifications, Transgender and Intersex, in a form of legal limbo and such a judgement would be challenged immediately, to say nothing of having to get into the chromosome issues. Then the truth would have to be faced......anyone can be whatever they wish to be, depending on how they wish to express themselves. The next step, of course, would be dogs and cats having sex in the streets and people using whatever bathroom they wish to use. Which would of course, lead to the downfall of modern civilization as we know it.

The question of exactly what is a man or a woamn steps on more toes than an elephant at a foot fetish convention. The truth is that I don't think that anyone wants to tackle that problem, not even the GLB Community and they are more attuned to accepting "whatever" than any other group in this society, simply by over the years and the process of osmosis, being around and having access to Trans people more than any other group.

If this does get a judgement, it might be a very signifigant one for the Trans community.

Even on the face of it, the elimination of 50% of the population (all women) for being considered for this job because of their not being able to see somone take a pee, is in itself a probable cause for a lawsuit I think (Thank God that no one has ever developed a test for drugs that requires a stool sample). It certainly points to the fact that with women and men exchanging almost every area of work that has ever been done or created over the past 20+ years, at times, even the hetero community is restricted and has to deal with "the bathroom issue" when restricting people about work thay can or cannot do. Strangly enough, this kind of work does not require a rocket scientist to qualify to do either, only the same kind of genitals.

So I say good luck to him and it will be very interesting to see how juris prudence dances around trying to define a man or a woman this time around.

Like it or not, occupational drug testing is a totally legitimate requirement for many jobs. I totally support my employer's zero tolerance standard for mind-altering substance use on the job, and assert that it is extremely irresponsible to argue that all employers should not be categorically prohibited from drug testing employees.

Wait, what? I didn't think that was up for debate here-- we're talking about whether it's justifiable for a drug-testing company to fire a trans employee for refusing to disclose the status of his genitalia.

Urban Treatment Associates specializes in treatment for addiction not workplace testing. The testing is non consensual, obviously. I don't have the time to go into this. It's more complicated than it appears on the face of it. If you are caught with half a joint you can be required to go for drug counseling and have your urine tested for a year. You will be tested for alcohol and everything imaginable. You can be without any drug problems or addictions. You can drink as much as you want, use a wide variety of drugs and avoid detection but not so with marijuana. You will be made to pay for counseling you have no need of. You will be made to pay court costs, lawyers fees and spend time out of work, even if it's a severe handicap. I know this for a fact.

It is very difficult for people with serious addictions to get treatment when it is needed if they don't have medical insurance. I know this for a fact, also. It seems as though an addict has to kill someone on the road or commit a crime to get treatment, then have it imposed on them. People go into methadone programs. What about their right to be employed? Recently someone who was involved in a serious car accident, who showed no signs of impairment switched her urine because she did not want the marijuana she smoked to be detected. She was found out because of the absence of methadone.

If you go to the Drug Policy Alliance website you will find plenty of research that indicates common prejudices about impairment regarding marijuana are unfounded. DPA is hardly a radical organization. There are larger issues regarding drug prohibition pressures on employers by insurance companies to minimize liability that extend to legally prescribed drugs. Drug testing is big business which also increases financial pressure to promote invasive techniques that violate a person's privacy without probable cause.

If you notice, I was very careful to say:

someone's right to probably inevitably violate someone else's rights through another kind of test.

Drug testing is a complicated issue. Legitimate only means legal. It does not always mean justifiable or ethical.
It is my opinion a person's body does not belong to their employer when they are not on the job.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/us/25drugs.html?pagewanted=2

Medical marijuana has become an issue. There was a high profile case involving a Walmart employee whose job was terminated, not as the result of performance issues but solely on the basis of thc in his urine.

There are many facets regarding privacy, invasive procedure

There are people who need prescription drugs in order to function. There is no logic to any of this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/us/25drugs.html?pagewanted=1

Opiates do cause impairment as is pointed out in the article. Should people who are in severe pain be prevented from working, however, when their medicaid and disability payments that were never enough to live on are being cut off? Methadone, oxycodone, and many other drugs are legal, marijuana is not, in most places. After hours use can get you canned for no good reason even if it has been legally prescribed.

I am able to speak freely about this because I abstain from illegal substances. The reason I do is because prohibition has driven an illegal trade in a plant that can be cultivated as easily as basil or tomatoes, that is run by the typical element that operates any kind of black market. I don't need the hassle. I have been abstinent for a long time now. There are no benefits. I don't appreciate contributing to problems the way Devoureau is. Everyone needs a job. How many will he work to prevent them from having one if he gets his job back. Who will pay for it?

I do think it's ironic in a way that someone rejected from a job, which involved looking at other people's genitalia for drug tests as a condition of employment, for refusing to discuss genitalia as a condition of employment because it's "private."

The entire point of the job he wanted was to violate other people's genital privacy. I get it, he needed the work, I'm not blaming him. But would it have been a smaller violation of privacy if, in order to see Devoureau's genitalia, they ordered him to take a drug test to get the job?

Personally, I think we could all stand to grow up about the genital thing and just have a person of any gender monitor people of any gender. My old doctor back when I was in college was a woman for a while (my parents HMO kept on changing them...) and it didn't bother me a bit. It's a job, not a place to get your jollies, and there are unprofessional people attracted to the same sex (or at least willing to make people of the same sex feel uncomfortable) just as there are people attracted to the opposite sex.

I should add: perhaps this case will settle the question of why we think it's important someone of the same sex work in those privacy violating situations, like the TSA pat-down or the drug test monitor. Is it because of the mistaken belief that all men are the same down there and all women are the same down there? Or is it because of the sex printed on documentation? Or is it just an arbitrary cultural rule?

I should also add: I hope Devoureau wins his case, in case that wasn't clear in the previous comment.

The fact that drug testees have to submit to lessened privacy doesn't mean the employee should. That's like saying corrections officers should be put in prison, or the store clerk should pay your grocery bill.

Drug testees are usually just employees (or potential employees) for other businesses. They're not necessarily suspected of having used drugs.

If a corrections officer breaks the law, they should be put in prison. If a drug test monitor applies for a job (the action that gets other people drug tested), then I don't see why they should be exempt from drug testing.

There are a real lot of privacy issues involved. Is having a glimpse of someone's genitalia the worst kind of invasion of privacy? I don't know how much you can find in urine but a lot of genetic information can be found in hair samples and, I am pretty sure, in blood samples. Some people are actually born with genitalia that doesn't match their karyotype. There are a lot of ironies involved here but I find them more of a nuisance than a fascination except I have been fastened to this subject to the distraction of everything else I should be trying to get done today.

"Is having a glimpse of someone's genitalia the worst kind of invasion of privacy?"

Good question - I'd answer no. There are worse violations.

Perhaps he's right in this case, but it does seem weird that one employment candidate is saying that looking at his genitals is off-limits when he wants to look at other employment candidates' genitals (for the job, I'm not saying he's a perv).

Why couldn't the testing center just have asked Devoureau to submit to a drug test? To me, since it's not the worst violation of privacy, that seems even more invasive than just asking about his genitalia. And that's perfectly legal.

Thanks for the ACLU link, Alex. As off topic as my reasoning seems, I think the right to privacy is a very important issue. I think it is a central issue for people like Devoureau. The fact that Devoureau was not drug tested further adds to the irony. He was accepted as male on the face of his presence. He was questioned on the basis of revelations of his past, which pretty much involves sharing his medical history. There was no probable cause to believe he wasn't male.

Earlier I wrote that I was aware of rulings that make drug testing allowable. As far as drug testing being "perfectly" legal, the ACLU article you linked reads like a litany of reasons why there should be legal protections against against unwarranted incursions into a person's privacy. It seems the article was written to point out how far from "perfectly" legal drug testing is. I don't know whether it states clearly in the Times article, or elsewhere, that Devoureau's job only involved the testing of people whose convictions would have denied them a right to privacy. Regardless, drug addiction is an illness. Treatment should be approached that way. I don't think people in the medical profession and social sciences should be playing the role of cops.

I find it more than ironic that a most of the etiological theories that prevail among social science practitioners relating to gender dysphoria come from a place that calls itself the Center for Addiction and Mental Health, a place whose mood disorder program receives fifty percent of its funding from DRUG companies. The CAMH is known for its two way mirrors from behind which observers would watch the behavior of gender dysphoric patients while dressing and undressing not to mention the plethysmograph that is attached to genitals to measure sexual arousal - all involving an invasiveness leading to very bad science.

That this situation should be the one that legal precedents are set from seems far more than ironic to me the more I think about it. I see problem after problem.

I'm a little confused by your choice of wording VS the courts: It should be noted that New Jersey is the only state that has an appellate precedent squarely on point in favor of transsexuals, ruling that a transsexual person is to be considered according to the sex with which he or she identifies.
Now the courts:In MT v. JT, 355 A.2d 204 (N.J. App. Div. 1976), a New Jersey appeals court held that "if the anatomical or genital features of a genuine transsexual are made to conform to the person's gender, psyche or psychological sex, then identity by sex must be governed by the congruence of these standards."
You are saying that New Jersey recognizes gender Identity simply on a persons word but the court is saying that they must have had gender surgery which is it? If he hasn't had surgery but has obtained change of birth certificate etc he has failed to meet the courts standards for New Jersey. If he has had the surgery then he meets the standard. I am also surprised by the courts usage of wording a "genuine transsexual." I think it points out they aren't fooled by the word transgender and recognize there is a difference.If he hasn't had the surgery and is happy with what he has below I don't believe that he should have ever applied for that job. That doesn't mean I believe he should be banned from using a mens room simply for the purpose of going to the bathroom.

Yes, it is confusing. I had to puzzle for a few minutes to figure out how to say that a transsexual person is to be considered according to their new sex, because some transsexuals don't consider that a "new" sex, but rather a recognition of their "true" sex. I found it hard to make the sentence work using that old standby -- "the sex assigned at birth." I didn't intend to signify that the mere identification with a particular sex works the magic, but the court is clearly recognizing the sex with which the person identifies. I note that the opinion was issued well before the word "transgender" was invented, and also before the original meaning of the word "transgender" was later shifted from signifying "a non-operative transsexual" to signifying "all gender variant individuals." So it's not that the MT court recognized sex based on a person's word, but on the word and the surgery. I think the "genuine transsexual" phrase was used in response to a major debate in the 70s about who was a "true transsexual" and who was a "transvestite." You see the same debate in the lower court opinion of the Ulane v. Eastern Airlines case in the early 80s. I think the current case is premised on the idea that one does not need to disclosure sex reassignment surgery, so in that sense the current case is seeking a slightly different ruling than the MT case gave, but MT is a far-forward starting point than most states would allow a plaintiff. You are right on the money when you say that this is confusing.

Stonewall Girl Stonewall Girl | April 11, 2011 8:51 PM

I was getting confused myself trying to follow all the sideways discourse. But tell me if I'm wrong since this seems pretty much a slam dunk. The job calls for a man, he says he is a man and has several pieces of multi-governmental identification that says he is a man, so what's the big deal ... he's a man!

Now if the employer advertised for a man with a penis would that be kosher or just irrelevant, or a man with testicles? Would this employer be a laughing stock or what?

" the sideways discourse."

Is this a train or is it a thread? De rail? I'm not a horse wearing blinders while pulling someone else's load or a train rolling down the track without a mind, oblivious to everything in its path.

No, there is nothing about this situation that's a "slam dunk".

Heres what I think and how I describe myself and I think the easiest way to end the confusion. First I am woman, second I was born with Gid, third the proof is that I am undergoing the physical change to female.When that process is completed I am legally a woman and I don't want to have to be putting up with this crap I have a life to live.Get rid of all the unnecessary BS labels that shouldn't apply to me and it doesn't matter whether the label comes from the left or the right it is equally unjustified.As for the transitional time period it should be legally protected as a medical treatment. Anyone else that doesn't fit under that umbrella should have the legal protections associated with whatever point they are at and whatever medical diagnosis they have. Notice I didn't say psychiatrict I said medical but if there are psychiatrict issues involved they should play a part in their legal protections.I feel all the labels add up to less than a human and certainly less than a man or a woman.

I'm more concerned now having read your article, Jillian, about the potential for success with this suit. If I understood it correctly, the case law in NJ says that they determination of gender is your genitalia. (If that's a misreading, please straighten me out.)

I'm not okay with that on general principle. And since most FTMs never have genital surgery, I'm especially concerned about that standard. I'm also dubious that the plaintiff has had it, based solely on probability. That, and I believe he would probably be willing to answer the question about it.

Finally, I think the easiest way to test the company's viewpoint about the plaintiff is to ask them if they are willing to hire him to watch women pee instead of men. After all, if he doesn't qualify for one, surely he qualifies for the other. Let them try to squirm out of that.

Question:

After racing the bit you quoted from the previous case, do you think that it'll be harder for him to win since most transmen don't have bottom surgery? It seems like the previous case required "genital features of a genuine transsexual are made to conform to the person's gender, psyche or psychological sex."

Trans women can & do have bottom surgery more often & with better results from what I've learned on Bilerico. Will this affect the case?

Should have been "reading" & not "racing." stupid iPad autocorrect!

Quick question to Jillian. Jillian, what would happen if the court decided that being a male is a necessary qualification for performing urine monitoring. This wouldn't turn into a case where Mr Devoureux had to demonstrate his "maleness"would it?
thanks for the reponse.