NYC to fine you $250k for misgendering a transgender

[StLucieBengal]

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/27/nyc-will-fine-you-250000-for-misgendering-a-transsexual/

Just ridiculous.  All over pronouns.

Quote:Did you call a transsexual person “he” or “she” when they preferred to be called “zhe?” According to a newly updated anti-discrimination law in New York City, you could be fined an eye-watering $250,000.
In the latest, astonishing act of draconian political correctness, the NYC Commission on Human Rights have updated a law on “Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Expression” to threaten staggering financial penalties against property owners who “misgender” employees or tenants.

Incidents that are deemed “wilful and malicious” will see property owners face up to $250,000 in fines, while standard violations of the law will result in a $125,000 fine. For small business owners, these sums are crippling.

It’s not as simple as referring to transmen “he” or transwomen as “she,” either. The legislation makes it clear that if an individual desires, property owners will have to make use of “zhe,” “hir” and any other preferred pronoun. From the updated legislation:

The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification. Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles.

Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir

Other violations of the law include refusing to allow individuals to use single-sex facilities such as bathrooms that are “consistent with their gender identity,” failing to provide employee health benefits for “gender-affirming care” and “imposing different uniforms or grooming standards based on sex or gender.”

Examples of such illegal behaviour include: “requiring female bartenders to wear makeup,” “Permitting only individuals who identify as women to wear jewellery or requiring only individuals who identify as male to have short hair,” and “permitting female but not male residents at a drug treatment facility to wear wigs and high heels.”

In other words, if a bar owner prevents male bartenders from wearing lipstick and heels, they’ll be breaking the law. They’ve now got a choice between potentially scaring off customers, and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. Regardless of the establishment’s clientèle or aesthetic, every property owner will be forced to conform to the same standard.

This is the latest in what Spiked Online editor-in-chief Brendan O’Neill calls “The Crisis of Character” in the west, in which identities become grounded in subjective interpretation rather than objective reality. The state is now forcing society to recognise the subjective identities of individuals, regardless of how absurd or surreal they may seem. In New York City, recognising someone’s identity is no longer a matter of case-by-case common sense and courtesy. It’s zir way or the highway.

[GMDino]

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/new-protections-enacted-in-new-york-40111/

[quote]December marked a continuation of the year-long trend toward expanding workplace rights for New York City employees under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), as the New York City Council sought to add the new protected status of “caregiver” to the NYCHRL, and the New York City Commission on Human Rights issued new enforcement guidelines to protect transgender individuals.

On December 16, 2015, the New York City Council passed legislation amending the NYCHRL to include "caregiver as a protected status. Once enacted, this amendment will make it unlawful for employers to discriminate against individuals because of their actual or perceived status as caregivers. The amendment defines “caregiver” as “a person who provides direct and ongoing care for a minor child or a care recipient.” “Care recipient” is broadly defined as “a person with a disability who: (i) is a covered relative, or a person who resides in the caregiver’s household; and (ii) relies on the caregiver for medical care or to meet the needs of daily living,” and can include children, spouses, domestic partners, siblings, parents, grandparents, and grandchildren as well as the children and parents of the caregiver’s spouse or domestic partner. This amendment to the NYCHRL is currently awaiting Mayor de Blasio’s signature, and will take effect 120 days after its enactment.

In addition, on December 21, 2015, the New York City Commission on Human Rights issued new enforcement guidelines, entitled the Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Expression, which reaffirm that the city’s gender discrimination laws also prohibit discrimination against transgender individuals. Specifically, pursuant to the NYCHRL, gender discrimination includes discrimination based on “a person’s gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the legal sex assigned to that person at birth.” The Enforcement Guidance makes clear that, among other things:


employers cannot refuse to hire, promote, terminate, or set different terms of employment because of an individual’s actual or perceived status as a transgender person;

employers must use a transgender employee’s preferred name, pronoun and title;

employers must permit transgender employees to use single-sex facilities, such as bathrooms and changing rooms, consistent with their genders and regardless of their assigned sex at birth;

employers cannot impose different uniform or grooming standards based on employees’ sex or gender;

employers cannot provide employee benefits that discriminate based on gender, and health benefits plans must cover transgender care (aka transition-related care or gender-affirming care); and

employers cannot consider employees’ actual or perceived status as transgender when evaluating requests for accommodations.

Steep penalties can be imposed against employers that violate the NYCHRL: up to $250,000 for violations resulting from willful, wanton or malicious conduct.

In the wake of this new legislation and other amendments to the NYCHRL, such as the Fair Chance Act, which prohibits most employers in New York City from inquiring into a job applicant’s criminal history until after a conditional offer of employment has been extended (see our November alert), the Stop Credit Discrimination in Employment Act, which significantly restricts the use of credit information for employment purposes (see our September alert), and the NYC Unemployment Discrimination Law, which makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate against applicants based upon their prior unemployment status, New York City employers would be well-advised to review and if necessary update their employment applications, offer letters, job postings and existing policies and procedures to ensure compliance. [/quote]

[StLucieBengal]

GMDi Wrote:http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/new-protections-enacted-in-new-york-40111/

[quote]December marked a continuation of the year-long trend toward expanding workplace rights for New York City employees under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), as the New York City Council sought to add the new protected status of “caregiver” to the NYCHRL, and the New York City Commission on Human Rights issued new enforcement guidelines to protect transgender individuals.

On December 16, 2015, the New York City Council passed legislation amending the NYCHRL to include "caregiver as a protected status.  Once enacted, this amendment will make it unlawful for employers to discriminate against individuals because of their actual or perceived status as caregivers.  The amendment defines “caregiver” as “a person who provides direct and ongoing care for a minor child or a care recipient.”  “Care recipient” is broadly defined as “a person with a disability who: (i) is a covered relative, or a person who resides in the caregiver’s household; and (ii) relies on the caregiver for medical care or to meet the needs of daily living,” and can include children, spouses, domestic partners, siblings, parents, grandparents, and grandchildren as well as the children and parents of the caregiver’s spouse or domestic partner.  This amendment to the NYCHRL is currently awaiting Mayor de Blasio’s signature, and will take effect 120 days after its enactment.

In addition, on December 21, 2015, the New York City Commission on Human Rights issued new enforcement guidelines, entitled the Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Expression, which reaffirm that the city’s gender discrimination laws also prohibit discrimination against transgender individuals.  Specifically, pursuant to the NYCHRL, gender discrimination includes discrimination based on “a person’s gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the legal sex assigned to that person at birth.”  The Enforcement Guidance makes clear that, among other things:


employers cannot refuse to hire, promote, terminate, or set different terms of employment because of an individual’s actual or perceived status as a transgender person;

employers must use a transgender employee’s preferred name, pronoun and title;

employers must permit transgender employees to use single-sex facilities, such as bathrooms and changing rooms, consistent with their genders and regardless of their assigned sex at birth;

employers cannot impose different uniform or grooming standards based on employees’ sex or gender;

employers cannot provide employee benefits that discriminate based on gender, and health benefits plans must cover transgender care (aka transition-related care or gender-affirming care); and

employers cannot consider employees’ actual or perceived status as transgender when evaluating requests for accommodations.

Steep penalties can be imposed against employers that violate the NYCHRL: up to $250,000 for violations resulting from willful, wanton or malicious conduct.

In the wake of this new legislation and other amendments to the NYCHRL, such as the Fair Chance Act, which prohibits most employers in New York City from inquiring into a job applicant’s criminal history until after a conditional offer of employment has been extended (see our November alert), the Stop Credit Discrimination in Employment Act, which significantly restricts the use of credit information for employment purposes (see our September alert), and the NYC Unemployment Discrimination Law, which makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate against applicants based upon their prior unemployment status, New York City employers would be well-advised to review and if necessary update their employment applications, offer letters, job postings and existing policies and procedures to ensure compliance.

[/quote]

Thanks for making my point on why this is a ridiculous fine. No wonder NYC is a joke. Hope this nonsense never comes to Florida.

[GMDino]

Thanks for making my point on why this is a ridiculous fine.    No wonder NYC is a joke.   Hope this nonsense never comes to Florida.
[/quote]

[StLucieBengal]

Sorry Dino but none of this should be protected.

In almost every business presentation is everythng and this is no way I would ever deal with this nonsense as an employer. And I shouldn't be forced to deal with it either.

Transgender is something they decide. It's not like a handicapp or skin color which they can not decide.

[*bfine32*]

(01-24-2016, 10:47 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Sorry Dino but none of this should be protected.  

In almost every business presentation is everythng and this is no way I would ever deal with this nonsense as an employer.    And I shouldn't be forced to deal with it either.      

Transgender is something they decide.    It's not like a handicapp or skin color which they can not decide.

I wouldn't go as far as to say none should be protected.

I will say being forced to allow them to use which ever restroom they feel like or no consideration of sex when awarding accommodations is a bit over the top.  

[StLucieBengal]

bfine Wrote:I wouldn't go as far as to say none should be protected.

I will say being forced to allow them to use which ever restroom they feel like or no consideration of sex when awarding accommodations is a bit over the top.  

Let me clarify . I am ok with the current levels of protection for skin color, pregnant women, and the handicapped.

But protections for choosing to be the opposite sex is just too over the top. There are just took many rights of others you are stepping on to accommodate someone's personal not mandatory choices.

[Vlad]

(01-24-2016, 10:47 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Sorry Dino but none of this should be protected.  

In almost every business presentation is everythng and this is no way I would ever deal with this nonsense as an employer.    And I shouldn't be forced to deal with it either.      

Transgender is something they decide.    It's not like a handicapp or skin color which they can not decide.

The argument there is that being transgendered is what they think or feel they are, its not a decision they make. They are wired differently, like *****.

I've always felt I was black. I need a special name too.


And some of that affirmative action would be cool.

[StLucieBengal]

Vl Wrote:The argument there is that being transgendered is what they think or feel they are, its not a decision they make. They are wired differently, like *****.

I've always felt I was black. I need a special name too.


And some of that affirmative action would be cool.

Saying your transgender just makes you look like you lack the commitment of sticking to a decision. Get the surgery if it's that's how you truly are inside. none of this half stepping.

[Vlad]

(01-25-2016, 01:19 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Saying your transgender just makes you look like you lack the commitment of sticking to a decision.   Get the surgery if it's that's how you truly are inside.   none of this half stepping.

OK I see your point. 

They don't have the balls to go through with it...pun intended.lol

[BmorePat87]

Good for NYC. Reasonable anti-discrimination laws for employers.

[StLucieBengal]

BmorePat Wrote:Good for NYC. Reasonable anti-discrimination laws for employers.

[GMDino]

(01-25-2016, 01:15 AM)Vlad Wrote: The argument there is that being transgendered is what they think or feel they are, its not a decision they make. They are wired differently, like *****.

I've always felt I was black. I need a special name too.


And some of that affirmative action would be cool.

I'm sure you get called special a lot.  

[Mike M (the other one)]

Whatever happened to just calling someone by their Legal name?

[JustWinBaby]

Why "hir" instead of "hem"?

[SteelCitySouth]

(01-25-2016, 05:17 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Whatever happened to just calling someone by their Legal name?

Mike when to the store to by 10 points of flour Mike needed to use to bake the birthday cake Mike wanted to give Sally.  Mike knew that Mike would need to use Mike's Second oven located in Mike's basement.

Yeah...Who needs pronouns? 

[StLucieBengal]

SteelCitySou Wrote:Mike when to the store to by 10 points of flour Mike needed to use to bake the birthday cake Mike wanted to give Sally.  Mike knew that Mike would need to use Mike's Second oven located in Mike's basement.

Yeah...Who needs pronouns? 

We have plenty of pronouns . He or she works just fine without all the weird ones. Besides they all change constantly.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-25-2016, 06:17 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Mike when to the store to by 10 points of flour Mike needed to use to bake the birthday cake Mike wanted to give Sally.  Mike knew that Mike would need to use Mike's Second oven located in Mike's basement.

Yeah...Who needs pronouns? 

I seriously doubt a land lord/employee would need to write a book on a very frequent basis.

Attention tenants:
Please promptly remove clothes from the laundry facilities.

In many cases from Employer's, it would be gender neutral emails anyways.

Attention Employees:
Job advancement opportunity.
Then list the job and it's requirements. No need for any pronouns other than "Employee".

Nothing wrong with using the Pro-nouns Tenants or Employees.

[SunsetBengal]

(01-25-2016, 01:01 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Let me clarify .  I am ok with the current levels of protection for skin color, pregnant women, and the handicapped.    

But protections for choosing to be the opposite sex is just too over the top.    There are just took many rights of others you are stepping on to accommodate someone's personal not mandatory choices.

It's not even that, Lucie.  I'm all for equal protection for all, under the law.  Protection from such things as brutality and harassment.  However, this is overstepping on the grounds of preferential treatment.  By forcing the majority to make special considerations and accommodations for a very small minority, that are not being afforded to the general populous, is wrong.

Is it wrong to do violence to folks because they are black, white, or gay?  Yes.
Is it wrong to ridicule or harass folks because they are black, white, or gay?  Absolutely.

Is it right to force the general population to incorporate new words into the vocabulary, just to accommodate a few?  No.
Is it right to force folks that are born and live as biological females to share a restroom with someone who simply identifies as "female"?  Hell no.

[StLucieBengal]

SunsetBeng Wrote:It's not even that, Lucie.  I'm all for equal protection for all, under the law.  Protection from such things as brutality and harassment.  However, this is overstepping on the grounds of preferential treatment.  By forcing the majority to make special considerations and accommodations for a very small minority, that are not being afforded to the general populous, is wrong.

Is it wrong to do violence to folks because they are black, white, or gay?  Yes.
Is it wrong to ridicule or harass folks because they are black, white, or gay?  Absolutely.

Is it right to force the general population to incorporate new words into the vocabulary, just to accommodate a few?  No.
Is it right to force folks that are born and live as biological females to share a restroom with someone who simply identifies as "female"?  Hell no.

Well said . Rep to you .

Besides can't these transmissions be covered under gay? really they are cross dressing until they get the chop. So may not be gay in all cases I guess.

As an employer I would like the right to let someone go who came to work dressed as the opposite sex. Employees represent the image of the business. I certainly wouldn't want the cast of Too Wong Foo representing Lucie LLC in public.