Success: Diane Schroer and ACLU Win Sex Discrimination Suit Against LOC

New York Times: A former Army Special Forces commander passed over for a job as a terrorism analyst at the Library of Congress because he was changing genders won a discrimination lawsuit. Judge James Robinson of Federal District Court ruled that the Library of Congress had engaged in sex discrimination against Diane Schroer of Alexandria, Va., formerly known as David Schroer. The library was initially enthusiastic about the hire, Judge Robinson said in his decision, adding, “The library revoked the offer when it learned that a man named David intended to become, legally, culturally and physically, a woman named Diane.”

Schroer's case was first reported here on LISNews in 2005.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Good.

Good.

No..

No. You're wrong, it's not good. It's much better than that. It's fantastic.

I am undecided

I am undecided on the decision, primarily because I have not read it yet, and secondarily it does not really affect me in several ways.

(If you will pardon the odd hoop jumping here) It does not really affect me because if I had to hire someone I would hire the person best qualified for the job. I fail to see what one's gender, or orientation, or anatomical, cultural status, or which box is checked in their driver's license would have to do with how well they could work in a library. Heck I've seen some library jobs for which a bright marsupial would be well qualified, but none ever apply.

Perhaps I am just old fashioned, but if I hired someone and they told me they were transgendered I would simply say "How nice for you. Here is your desk, let me know if you need anything at all."

What kind of a pinhead would not hire someone based on ... well anything other than their lack of ability to do the job. Why would anyone start this kerfluffle? Let the new-hire do the job and mind your own damn business. Sometimes the idiots really annoy me. This is my tax money they are costing us. The DOJ can stop reviewing reviewing the decision and do some important work, and if they can't find anything important then go fill a pothole or two.

I think we didn't need this decision, because we didn't need this case. This never should have happened. I guess now that it has been decided it is probably good, but I really do have to read it before I make up my mind.

>>"What kind of a pinhead

>>"What kind of a pinhead would not hire someone based on ... well anything other than their lack of ability to do the job. Why would anyone start this kerfluffle? Let the new-hire do the job and mind your own damn business."

I could not agree more. However, the reason we needed the case is the fact that the incident did happen (i.e. there was a pinhead). Yes, in an idea world, if the marsupial is the best qualified, and applies, he/she/it should get the job, end of story. However, this is not the idea world, and stupidity like this does happen. Good she won the case.

new hires and health issues

ok, take out the transgender issue: if you were about to hire someone and he said, "oh, by the way, I'm about to have hip and knee replacement surgery and I will need to be away from work for 3-4 months," would you hire that person?

when I read that story, that's the first thing I thought: "damn, I don't want to hire someone who is going to miss a lot of work right off." I did an interview with a kid once who interviewed great, nice kid, but he had been shot in the foot and probably wouldn't be fully recovered for several months. so I had to pass. after he was better, sure, I'd hire him in a heartbeat (really. it's the 21st Century: who hasn't been shot?).

Yes, this issue is different, "Schroer explained she would be using a traditionally feminine name (Diane instead of David) and would dress in traditionally feminine clothes when she started the new job, and would not have sexual reassignment surgery for at least a year,"
BUT as a supervisor, you **ALWAYS** consider the potential new-hire transition for the position. I give greater consideration to some local than I do for someone from Ohio.

It seems to be clear that this was a case the LoC had to lose, since their position was that descrimination is okay if it makes people uncomfortable. So the one thing I learned from this is that in the future, I'm starting each interview with, "Question one: Are you a dude? I'm serious. Let me just take a squeeze. Okay. Question number two..." That should help.

As long as you're able to

As long as you're able to perform the job quite efficiently, I do not see why a person's sexual orientation would be a factor in determining in the job position being available to him/her. Such discrimination has no place in modern society.

Syndicate content