And the contracts are renewed annually. This law forces School Districts to enact performance standards that must be strictly adhered to. There is much liability at stake. The first time a transgender person shows up in drag, all heck will break lose. The person will need to be dealt with, with a matrix in place, it will make it easier to dismiss the less effective employee/teacher.
This law demands greater performance management.
[quote]Butch, I believe there is a very realistic difference between a classroom containing a person of color and a person choosing to expose his hairy legs whilst dressed up in a feminine power suit. Or a gold lame evening gown. [/quote]
Not under the new law there isn't. Both are protected classes of people, and the derogatory statement you just made regarding a persons gender identity could be considered â€œhate speechâ€ by some now.
Iâ€™m not saying I agree with this new law by the way. Iâ€™m discussing the effects it will have now that it has been passed, intended or not. If I can think of these things, you can rest assured that gay/lesbian/transgendered activists can as well.
[quote="Peter"]And the contracts are renewed annually. This law forces School Districts to enact performance standards that must be strictly adhered to.[/quote]
What law is that?
When was the last time that a Maine teacher was not renewed for not meeting performance standards? Has it ever happened?
Those in favor of the law revise and attempt to rewrite what is going to happen. You will all be proven wrong.
The Dress Code thing will not fly. If a Man says he "feels like a woman" and wants to wear a dress, he is protected by the "female dress code." Unless your school dress code requires all people regardless of gender to wear a suit and tie, then men will be allowed to wear dresses, and any student who makes a scene over it will be suspended, put in detention, or otherwise punished for his disruption. The student will be blamed for being insensitive, and trying to persecute the teacher.
You don't think so? Well, using your own analogy about Black people, what would happen if a student decided to laugh at a dark-skinned teacher who came to school in Native African attire? The kid would be kicked out of class for racism!
I'm sure a teacher in drag would have a whole hour talking to the class, explaining his/her choice of attire, and how good it felt to wear, and how maybe they ought to try it out. Is there a law against a teacher telling male students to wear dresses? In fact, there's now a law enforcing the teacher's right to talk about it!
Peter, if the teacherâ€™s contract is not renewed because of the â€œactual or perceived heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality or gender identity or expressionâ€ the school will be discriminating. A school couldnâ€™t get away with not renewing the contract of a minority teacher because they claim that what the person looks like is too distracting for the students, could they? Why would it be any different under this new law?
This "anti discrimination" law will definitely produce confusion between teachers and students.
Many states have begun issuing dress codes for the public schools. Let's not forget that most states do criminal background checks including pedafiles records.I understand that Maine is very lax in this area...Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The classrooms are not designed to project nor display and exhibit one's libido nor political agenda...and some students, will test it just for the heck of it...
The State of Maine CAN issue certain dress codes for students and teachers of any public school if the situation warrants it. This is already done in several states.
[quote] Let's not forget that most states do criminal background checks including pedafiles records. I understand that Maine is very lax in this area... Please correct me if I'm wrong. [/quote]
You are. Maine does a criminal background check, including fingerprints.
[quote]The State of Maine CAN issue certain dress codes for students and teachers of any public school if the situation warrants it. This is already done in several states.[/quote]
A page or two back the legality of a gender-based dress code was discussed. Under the new law that applies to Maine and not other states, such a thing may well be illegal. So, unless all employees must wear pants (which may not even be possible), the school cannot discriminate against a man who feels he is a woman inside and wants to wear a dress in the classroom.
I'm not sure what the answer is on the dress code issue, but I think Butch's arguments are reasonable. The fact that Maine passed a law that leaves these questions unanswered is troubling.
Even if we wanted a gay rights law, we could have picked one based on what is in place in most states where issues have been well litigated. Instead, we had to be out on the cutting edge.
Maybe we can get the legislature to review this law now that such issues have been brought up? Or will people paint anyone who suggests that the law is flawed as a discriminatory homophobe as happened during the referendum process?
Dan, would it seem reasonable that under this new law an â€œeveryone must wear pantsâ€ rule would have to be based on a genuine workplace need, like a health and safety issue or something like that?
I think it is time to understand the law has passed 55%.....majority.
Yes Charlotte, the law has passed and you are proud of that. Thatâ€™s not an issue Iâ€™ve brought up at all. Iâ€™ve only brought up the effects of the passage that you worked so hard to make happen.
Now, since this is going to be the law of the land, can you show me where Iâ€™m wrong and why a male teacher who feels heâ€™s a woman trapped in a manâ€™s body canâ€™t wear a dress while in the classroom?
Like I have stated...federal upheld dress code in schools.
[quote="charlotte"]I think it is time to understand the law has passed 55%.....majority.[/quote]
No kidding. Really? And here I was thinking that because the law passed someone here was trying to get an understanding about it's effects on employer/employee relationships. Heaven forbid anyone try to get an understanding of what their obligations are under the law that passed.
David, like we did not discuss this prior to the vote? Right....Hey, additional discussion is fine.
Charlotte, you me and regulars may have discussed this but many of the names on this thread were quite absent those discussions.
If I recall right Charlotte, you steadfastly avoided providing any information or answering any questions concerning situations like this being discussed. While that was a wise campaign mode way to deal with the issue it is not, IMHO, a wise way to continue on. Nor did it make previous discussions as open, honest and informative as they could have been.
The campaign never ran from the word transgender or from the questions that came from that inclusion.
[quote="Butch Moore"]Peter, if the teacherâ€™s contract is not renewed because of the â€œactual or perceived heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality or gender identity or expressionâ€ the school will be discriminating. A school couldnâ€™t get away with not renewing the contract of a minority teacher because they claim that what the person looks like is too distracting for the students, could they? Why would it be any different under this new law?[/quote]
Legally they can...If, at the end of the day the teacher is not effective as others. Then its here is your hat, what is your hurry.
If the Unions have that much control over the contract/ accountability issue, that is a mutually exclusive issue.
A worker who is over 40 is in a protected class...I know many 40 plus year old people who have been fired.
A salesperson who is transgender and offends prospects still has to perform at a certain acceptable standard. If that person does not perform, they can be fired.
[quote="charlotte"]The campaign never ran from the word transgender or from the questions that came from that inclusion.[/quote]
It certainly did. Ted O'Meara dodged scuh questions whenever they came up in debates.
Charlotte, the only way that statement is true is if you consider "we don't support discrimination of any kind" to be not running away from the word transgender or questions that came from its inclusion.
[quote="charlotte"]Like I have stated...federal upheld dress code in schools.[/quote]
Wrong again. Stop avoiding the truth. Read the damn points made about dress codes. Unless every teacher, male and female, is now forced to wear a suit a tie, a Man who is "transgendered" and feels like a woman is empowered to wear a dress in the classroom. Your dress code cannot "discriminate" against the "transgendered." Your argument is a lie!
A transgendered male to female won't be wearing dresses to work just because 'she' can. In fact, they will probably be more uncomfortable doing that than you'd be looking at them. HOWEVER~~~~~>
What a transgendered male to female WILL be doing..so they CAN be who they truly are in society, will be undergoing gender identity therapy, getting accessed as being truly transgendered...(or NOT)...and then given a medical regime of pills to take to reverse their hormonal levels to match their gender identity. In male to female...they will lose facial hair, muscle tone....etc...and the ones who can afford it, will undergo operations to physically change their sexual organs. In the interm, they will be required to live as the opposite sex for one full year before undergoing radical surgery.
So it isn't about playing "dress-up" like the cross-dressers do. Cross-dressing isn't even in the ballpark ! To those who are transgendered, this is no game or walk in the park. And it's a shame some of you think it is akin to getting into the ladies room for a good look. Grow up.
Another tedious lecture from our schoolmarm, Mrs Pondscum.
[quote="apondsong"]Cross-dressing isn't even in the ballpark ! [/quote]
Cross dressing is different and, to the extent it is a result of one's perceived gender identity, also protected under the statute.
I am frankly amazed at the so-called supporters of those with gender identity disorders. We seem to have all those who voted FOR and lobbied FOR the statute ducking and dodging its plain meaning, together with some fairly hefty precedent as to "hostile work environment" discrimination. Everyone seems to assume that such people will be harassed and derided to the point that they cannot do their jobs, and that will be an ANSWER.
By contrast, everybody who voted against the law, by voting "YES", seems to accept the fact that they legally will be required to accept a greater degree of license in gender expression . reflection of identity.
Who are the bigots?
As to the "grow up" admonition, it seems the height of childishness to plug your digital ears and sing "LALALALALA" as loud as you can, to avoid dealing with some very real issues.
That is why nobody has yet answered Scott's question"
If the statute has the effect Butch suggests, "Would you be okay with that court ruling?"
"Why can't you people answer this simple question?
PS to charlotte and the other nay-sayers: We aren't talking about dressing like a slut. We are talking about men dressing within the same parameters as women are permitted in the same school. You people can be SO intolerant.
Food for serious thought: Here is policy guidance from the EEOC on hostile work environment cases.
The Commission believes these factors rarely will be relevant and agrees with the dissent in Rabidue that a woman does not assume the risk of harassment by voluntarily entering an abusive, anti-female environment. "Title VII's precise purpose is to prevent such behavior and attitudes from poisoning the work environment of classes protected under the Act." 805 F.2d at 626 (Keith, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part). Thus, in a decision disagreeing with Rabidue, a district court found that a hostile environment was established by the presence of pornographic magazines in the workplace and vulgar employee comments concerning them; offensive sexual comments made to and about plaintiff and other female employees by her supervisor; sexually oriented pictures in a company- sponsored movie and slide presentation; sexually oriented pictures and calendars in the workplace; and offensive touching of plaintiff by a co-worker. Barbetta v. Chemlawn Services Corp., 669 F. Supp. 569, 45 EPD Â¶ 37,568 (W.D.N.Y. 1987). The court held that the proliferation of pornography and demeaning comments, if sufficiently continuous and pervasive "may be found to create an atmosphere in which women are viewed as men's sexual playthings rather than as their equal coworkers." Barbetta, 669 F. Supp. At 573. The Commission agrees that, depending on the totality of circumstances, such an atmosphere may violate Title VII. See also Waltman v. International Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 50 EPD Â¶ 39,106 (5th Cir. 1989), in which the 5th Circuit endorsed the Commission's position in its amicus brief that evidence of ongoing sexual graffiti in the workplace, not all of which was directed at the plaintiff, was relevant to her claim of harassment. Bennett v. Coroon & Black Corp., 845 F.2d 104, 46 EPD Â¶ 37,955 (5th Cir. 1988) (the posting of obscene cartoons in an office men's room bearing the plaintiff's name and depicting her engaged in crude and deviant sexual activities could create a hostile work environment).
4) Sex-based Harassment - Although the Guidelines specifically address conduct that is sexual in nature, the Commission notes that sex-based harassment - - that is, harassment not involving sexual activity or language - - may also give rise to Title VII liability (just as in the case of harassment based on race, national origin or religion) if it is "sufficiently patterned or pervasive" and directed at employees because of their sex. Hicks v. Gates Rubber Co., 833 F.2d at 1416; McKinney v. Dole, 765 F.2d 1129, 1138, 37 EPD Â¶ 35,339 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
Acts of physical aggression, intimidation, hostility or unequal treatment based on sex may be combined with incidents of sexual harassment to establish the existence of discriminatory terms and conditions of employment. Hall v. Gus Construction Co., 842 F.2d 1014; Hicks v. Gates Rubber Co., 833 F. 2d at 1416.
5) Constructive Discharge - Claims of "hostile environment" sexual harassment often are coupled with claims of constructive discharge. If constructive discharge due to a hostile environment is proven, the claim will also become one of "quid pro quo"harassment.26 It is the position of the Commission and a majority of courts that an employer is liable for constructive discharge when it imposes intolerable working conditions in violation of Title VII when those conditions foreseeably would compel a reasonable employee to quit, whether or not the employer specifically intended to force the victim's resignation. See Derr v. Gulf Oil Corp., 796 F.2d 340, 343-44, 41 EPD Â¶ 36,468 (10th Cir. 1986); Goss v. Exxon Office Systems Co., 747 F.2d 885, 888, 35 EPD Â¶ 34, 768 (3d Cir. 1984); Nolan v. Cleland, 686 F.2d 806, 812-15, 30 EPD Â¶ 33,029 (9th Cir. 1982); Held v. Gulf Oil Co., 684 F.2d 427, 432, 29 EPD Â¶ 32,968 (6th Cir. 1982); Clark v. Marsh, 655 F.2d 1168, 1175 n.8, 26 EPD Â¶ 32,082 (D.C. Cir. 1981); Bourque v. Powell Electrical Manufacturing Co., 617 F.2d 61, 65, 23 EPD Â¶ 30,891 (5th cir. 1980); Commission Decision 84-1, CCH EEOC Decision Â¶ 6839. However, the Fourth Circuit requires proof that the employer imposed the intolerable conditions with the intent of forcing the victim to leave. See EEOC v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 698 F.2d 633, 672, 30 EPD Â¶ 33,269 (4th Cir. 1983). But this case is not a sexual harassment case and the Commission believes it is distinguishable because specific intent is not likely to be present in "hostile environment" cases.
Applying these concepts to gender identity discrimination seems pretty straightforward. Of course, the Law Court might bail you out here. I'd admire them more if they simply enforced the "plain meaning" rule. that would mean that you'd be required to tolerate gender expression of a perceived female to the same extent as you'd tolerate it from a biological female.
Ain't that just like a freakng lawyer......all double talk ! :lol:
Hey Mark of Nonsense...must really piss you off , you not knowing who I am ! :P
SO...anyway...would one of you bottom-dwellers care to tell me what the hell Scotts question is.....I'll be GLAD to answer it for you.
Hey Mark of Nonsense...must really * you off , you not knowing who I am ! :P
Don't flatter yourself.
Hateful self-congratulatory nags without original thought have never piqued my curiosity.
Ok...I got the question.
Yes. I'd be perfectly fine with it. Any school worth its salt, that has this ruling to deal with and a cross-dresser or transitioning transsexual teaching...should have the common sense to give any children with questions or issues about it, a place to air them and recieve feedback.
I'd much rather have my child be taught by a transsexual that was a superior teacher, than one who dressed straight and had lousy teaching skills. It's always wise to get beyond the outter and look into the INNER concerning people; all people. Likewise, I'd pull my kid from a transsexual's class in a heartbeat, if that PERSON couldn't teach.
Anybody got a problem with that?
Isn't their a Professor at Farmington who had a sex change?