Skip to comments.US Judge Allows Transgender Person To Sue Under Disability Law
Posted on 05/19/2017 12:02:25 PM PDT by Thalean
"A U.S. judge ruled on Thursday that a transgender woman could move forward with a sex discrimination lawsuit against her employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act, even though it explicitly excludes transgender people from protection.
The plaintiff, Kate Lynn Blatt, becomes the first transgender person to be allowed to sue under the ADA for gender dysphoria, according to her Philadelphia-based lawyer, Neelima Vanguri.
But U.S. District Judge Joseph Leeson avoided ruling on the constitutionality of the ADA, as the plaintiffs had sought, under the legal principle that courts should avoid decisions on constitutional grounds if possible.
Being transgender is not considered a disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, but it can give rise to gender dysphoria, a type of anxiety that may require medical treatment. Gender dysphoria forms Blatt's basis for making a claim under the ADA.
Leeson, from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, found that simply being transgender would be insufficient to bring a case, but that gender dysphoria was a medical condition worthy of protection against discrimination."
On the one hand, these people argue that they're being discriminated against because they are perfectly normal people.
On the other, they're trying to say that they have a mental disability which should allow them to have special treatment.
Which is it?
A major problem with American law is that it increasingly works differently for different groups. For example, ethnic minorities often get state benefits that aren't available to the public at large.
The way I see it: these people are just trying to get their cut.
A John’s Hopkins Hospital research report, and others states that transgenderism is a mental disorder - or words to that effect. So the judicial will by court order make it a protected class?
“ADA” yet ANOTHER BUSH Family SCREW JOB!
Judges are just making it up as they go along. There is no such thing as “law” anymore.
Mental Disorder. I say it is a learned behavior forced on little boys and girls by liberal teachers.
Ironically enough, I think we can agree that they’re disabled, at least mentally so, and that’s what drives them to believe their delusion about gender. But as a finished surgical product, they’e probably the safest species in America. At least Dave Chapelle thinks so.
It’s a form of psychosis.
Tell be again why we have elections?
I agree this person is disabled, mentally ill.
If a human has a Y chromosome, he is a male.
If the human does not, she is a female.
Everything else are various flavors and degrees of mental illness.
“I think we can agree that theyre disabled, at least mentally so,”
No, I don’t agree with that. Sexual orientation is not inborn, it is learned. A baby born does not understand sexual orientation, therefore it is taught to them with age. Almost everything is taught to the person as it grows. If they are taught that violence is the answer to things, they will use it. Look at the middle east where islam is teaching to kill the infidel. And there are other behaviors that can be misinformed or misunderstood that might be acceptable in one place but barbaric in another. It is all learned, not born with. Otherwise everyone would never be guilty of crimes on anything. And our society would be no better than who was in charge at the moment.
Meanwhile, her employer will probably go bankrupt for being tied up in court and paying lawyers.... The employer should turn around and sue the judge....
Another judge afraid of the wrath of the combined power of the LGBT bunch.
You chops your dick off, you are insane. You tries to create a dick out of your c******, you’re insane.
Unfortunately, the law was written to apply to those with disabilities and those “perceived” to have a disability.
I always wondered why it was written that way, it appears to be to line the pockets of trial lawyers.
"US Judge Allows Transgender Person To Sue Under Disability Law"
There are two major constitutional problems with the judges decision imo.
First, while I agree with the idea of federal protections for disabled people in principle, it remains that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect disabled people.
Next, regarding so-called federal sex protections, the only sex-related right that the states have amended the constitution to expressly protect deals only with voting rights, evidenced by the 19th Amendment. But since the referenced politically correct transgender issue is clearly outside the scope of voting rights, the feds dont have the power to interfere with this issue.
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the care of our persons [emphasis added], our property, our reputation and religious freedom. Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. United States v. Butler, 1936.
So the judges misguided (imo) decision in this case is another example of the already unconstitutionally big federal government slowly unconstitutionally expanding its powers. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, had warned patriots to be vigilant against the feds doing this.
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. James Madison, Speech at the Virginia Convention to ratify the Federal Constitution (1788-06-06)
To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791
The system of the General Government is to seize all doubtful ground. We must join in the scramble, or get nothing. Where first occupancy is to give right, he who lies still loses all. Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1797.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November 18 !
Since Trump entered the 16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the 18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.
In fact, if Justice Gorsuch turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February 18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably havent been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitutions Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal governments powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal governments limited powers listed below.
Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States. Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added]. Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. United States v. Butler, 1936.
great information & analysis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.