Main | Tuesday, October 16, 2007

HomoQuotable - Kate Kendell

"The removal of protection for transgender people, in addition to allowing continued discrimination against transgender people, would open the door to the court's weakening of statutory protections under ENDA for all members of the LGBT community. Over the past two decades, many federal courts—including the U.S. Supreme Court—have adopted astoundingly narrow constructions of anti-discrimination statutes. We would be foolish—and irresponsible—to ignore this body of case law as we are attempting to pass an effective statute that will protect members of the LGBT community from discrimination.

For example, although statutes prevent employers from discriminating based on national origin, courts have nevertheless interpreted those statutes to permit employers to discriminate against workers who speak with an accent associated with a particular country or region. Similarly, courts have interpreted race discrimination statutes narrowly to permit employers to discriminate against workers who wear hairstyles (such as braided hair) associated with a particular race. The basis for these decisions is that not all persons from other countries speak with an accent and that not all persons of a particular race wear a particular hairstyle. While we strongly disagree with the reasoning in these decisions, it, unfortunately, does not take a stretch of imagination to envision a court holding that a statute prohibiting only sexual orientation discrimination does not protect a butch lesbian or a feminine gay man because not all lesbians and gay men are gender non-conforming." - Kate Kendell, Executive Director of the National Center For Lesbian Rights, in an article posted on the blog of the American Constitution Society For Law and Policy.

Labels: , , ,

comments powered by Disqus

<<Home