Judge orders employer to pay man $115,000 for not letting him use womenâ€™s bathroom

ST. PAUL, Minnesota, February 2, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – A judge has awarded $115,000 to a man whose employer did not let him use the women's bathroom.

Minnesota-based Deluxe Financial Services, the largest check printing company in the U.S., is paying the settlement and apologizing to a Mr. Austin, who now goes by the female name "Britney."

Mr. Austin was hired and employed as a man in the Phoenix offices of Deluxe, but in 2011, he announced to his supervisor that he considered himself a woman and began dressing as a female at work. His supervisor would not let him use the women's community bathroom, and, according to the lawsuit, co-workers "intentionally us[ed] the wrong gender pronouns to refer to" him. Deluxe also refused to change his name to "Britney" on company records, because he had not undergone cosmetic surgery to make himself appear female.

Austin also complained that Deluxe's health insurance for employees did not cover such surgery.

Terms of the settlement included Deluxe writing Mr. Austin a reference letter, paying for transgender care in its health insurance for employees, creating a written policy against transgender "discrimination," conducting training sessions every year for all employees against transgender "discrimination," and annual accountability reports to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) showing compliance with settlement terms.

The Obama EEOC brought the lawsuit. EEOC attorney David Lopez explained that the Obama administration is committed to "securing the rights of transgender individuals," and "[w]e hope that employers will take notice and begin to take proactive steps to prevent and eliminate discrimination against their transgender workers."

"This is an example of Obama bullying companies into embracing the trans agenda," Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth told LifeSiteNews. "Obama has stacked the EEOC."

This is the third lawsuit filed by the Obama EEOC supporting the delusions of gender-confused individuals. Most have been cases where the employer concedes and settles out of court. A Florida eye clinic was forced to pay $150,000 in April 2015 to a man who wants to be called a woman, and another similar Obama EEOC lawsuit is pending against a Detroit funeral home.

"Our concern is that these social issues are not even being discussed in this election cycle," LaBarbera added. "Perhaps these transgender rulings can be reversed when we have an administration with some sanity to it, but we have to talk about these things. Where is the debate on this in the public square?"

"I think they overwhelmed us," LaBarbera said, "and they are trying to do all they can before Obama's term is over."

The words the Obama EEOC uses to describe both the lawsuits and the transgender plaintiffs are significant. The district EEOC director in Phoenix, Rayford O. Irvin, described employers' refusal to allow men in women's community bathrooms as "being forced to face the indignity and danger of using a restroom inconsistent with [Mr. Austin's] gender identity."

Irvin describes natural gender as "subscrib[ing] to sex stereotypes" and states that the concerns of all non-transgender employees are irrelevant. "Employee and customer preferences based on stereotypes [sic] are not a legitimate reason to discriminate."

I speak from some experience.

Many years ago I was a Branch Manager/Stock Broker and we had any number of unwarranted claims made by idiot clients because they lost money. These claims went to binding arbitration and were settled behind closed doors. Sometime in the early 1990’s there was some ruling that allowed these arbitration hearings and settlements to become public. The lawyers had a field day. The number of fallacious claims went through the roof and as a result it severely hampered business and firms found it cheaper to settle a claim than fight.

I actually advised my firm to settle a $400,000 claim for $35,000 even though the client had no real basis. He claimed that he lost this money because we allowed him to place trades while he was stoned on drugs and we supposedly knew he was stoned.

Even in hindsight, I can’t say it was wrong to settle.

Patriots, please bear in mind that the only sex-based right that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect, also giving Congress the legislative power to strengthen, is voting rights as evidenced by the 19th Amendment.

Also note that, regardless what FDRs thug justices wanted everybody to believe about the scope of Congresss Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate INTRAstate commerce.

”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 [emphases added].” - Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

Also note that regardless what Obamas activist justices want everybody to believe about Obamacare, previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for Intrastate healthcare purposes. This is evidenced by the excerpts below.

And since this issue concerns health insurance, note the fourth entry in the list below from Paul v. Virginia. In that case state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that regulating insurance is not within the scope of Congresss Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), regardless if the parties negotiating the insurance policy are domiciled in different states.

”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. [emphases added]” - Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”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.
”Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” -Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
” 4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphasis added] of indemnity against loss.” - Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
”Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” - Linder v. United States, 1925.

So the feds have no constitutional authority to stick their big noses into this issue imo.

And lets not put all the blame on the Obama Administration for the federal governments unconstitutional interference in 10th Amendment-protected state powers. More specifically, note that corrupt Congress has always had the power to stop lawless Obama dead in his tracks but has stubbornly refused to do so.

Remember in November !

When patriots elect Trump, Cruz, or whatever conservative they elect, they need to also elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will protect the states from federal government overreach.

Also, consider that such a Congress would probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.

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.