Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge orders employer to pay man $115,000 for not letting him use women’s bathroom
LifeSiteNews ^ | 2/2/16 | Father Mark Hodges

Posted on 02/02/2016 2:13:26 PM PST by wagglebee

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."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; mentalillness; moralabsolutes; peepingtom; transgender; voyeurism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-68 last
To: Pride in the USA; Stillwaters

Unfathomable sickness.


61 posted on 02/03/2016 12:22:58 AM PST by lonevoice (Life is short. Make fun of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

If a person “changes sex,” a change so fundamental that they aren’t the same person, doesn’t that warrant a hiring initiative? I wouldn’t hire this person, then.


62 posted on 02/03/2016 8:18:11 AM PST by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I used to use Deluxe Checks, but not anymore. Not if they are going to grovel before this deranged world view.


63 posted on 02/03/2016 8:19:09 AM PST by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

They should let the man sit up on that toilet like a gargoyle I say.


64 posted on 02/03/2016 10:59:05 AM PST by Lil Flower (American by birth. Southern by the Grace of God. ROLL TIDE!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Zeneta
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.

You did what you thought was right.
Those who gained much money from false claims WILL pay for it later on. Never fails.
And, you know, I really would NOT like to be there when "what goes around comes around." It won't be pretty and I wouldn't want to witness it.

If he's still a "stoner" he will be paying the price sooner rather than later.

65 posted on 02/03/2016 12:07:02 PM PST by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: trisham
I'm not sure that's required. Consider Bruce Jenner.

What a real disappointment he was.
He is still a man, despite any cosmetic surgery. He WILL age like a man. DNA can't be altered...yet.

66 posted on 02/03/2016 12:08:41 PM PST by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ShasheMac

I’d like to use the bathroom in the Oval Office.
OK?


67 posted on 02/03/2016 4:11:54 PM PST by sasquatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: sasquatch

I wasn’t referring to the room. ;)


68 posted on 02/03/2016 4:21:29 PM PST by ShasheMac (www.needGod.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-68 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson