Posted on Oct 30, 2017
6
6
0
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge in Washington on Monday barred President Donald Trump's administration from excluding transgender people from military service.
US court bars Trump from reversing transgender troops policy
Posted from sfchronicle.com
Office of the President (POTUS)
LGBTQ+
Transgender
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 9
5
5
0
So one President can have an Executive Order and the courts are silent and then another President issues an Executive Order and the courts step in. It appears we have a legal issue here when it comes to the political affiliation of the President and the use of Executive Orders vs Congressional policy. This will be heading to the SCOTUS to rule on anyway.
(5)
(0)
PFC Michael Korach
One could argue It’s not that he (Oboma) had competent government Attorneys it’s that the Federal court has been filled with Left leaning judges for years now. We have spent countless millions of dollars trying to have social engineering through judicial activism. Now Transgender federal employees are explicitly protected by Executive Orders and regulations. Which this judge now says The President cannot undue. Interesting? Here are just a few. Note that most are Title VII violations.
The Law: Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. ... Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Title VII - employment. 42 USC 2000e (Title VII) protects employees and applicants from discrimination based on race, color, sex, national origin or religion. ** Reprisal for engaging in EEO activity or opposing discriminatory practices is also prohibited by Title VII. For example, a person who wasn’t hired due to their national origin would have a remedy against the concessionaire (perhaps the airport) under Title VII, such as via the EEOC. Certain civil rights claims can be filed under either statute. For the individual, discrimination complaints can be filed under either Title VI or Title VII. Title VII offers much broader relief and remedies in the employment arena.
Examples of cases holding that discrimination against transgender people violates federal sex discrimination laws These are not all of them
Prescott v. Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego, No. 3:16-cv-02408 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2017) (holding that discrimination against transgender patients violates the Affordable Care Act).
E.E.O.C. v. Rent-a-Center East, Inc., --- F.Supp.3d --- , 2017 WL 4021130 (C.D. Ill. Sept. 8, 2017) (holding that discrimination against transgender workers violates Title VII).
Brown v. Dept. of Health and Hum. Servs., No. 8:16DCV569, 2017 WL 2414567 (D. Neb. June 2, 2017) (holding that discrimination against transgender people constitutes sex discrimination that is subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution).
Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District, 858 F.3d 1034 (7th Cir. May 30, 2017) (holding that discrimination against transgender students constitutes sex discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution).
Dodds v. U.S. Dept. of Education, 845 F.3d 217 (6th Cir. 2016) (holding that discrimination against transgender students likely constitutes sex discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution).
Glenn v. Brumby, 663 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2011) (holding that termination of employee based on her gender transition, transgender status and unsubstantiated “bathroom concerns” constitutes sex-based discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution).
Barnes v. City of Cincinnati, 401 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that termination of employee based on her gender transition constitutes sex-based discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act).
Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding that termination of employee based on her gender transition constitutes sex-based discrimination under Title VII).
Rosa v. Park West Bank & Trust Co., 214 F.3d 213 (1st Cir. 2000) (holding that refusal to serve transgender customer constitutes sex-based discrimination under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act).
Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that the Gender Motivated Violence Act (GMVA) applied to targeting of a transgender person).
The issue seems to be in the way in which Title VII is viewed and SCOTUS needs to rule on this in order to provide clarity to the rule of law.
The Law: Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. ... Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Title VII - employment. 42 USC 2000e (Title VII) protects employees and applicants from discrimination based on race, color, sex, national origin or religion. ** Reprisal for engaging in EEO activity or opposing discriminatory practices is also prohibited by Title VII. For example, a person who wasn’t hired due to their national origin would have a remedy against the concessionaire (perhaps the airport) under Title VII, such as via the EEOC. Certain civil rights claims can be filed under either statute. For the individual, discrimination complaints can be filed under either Title VI or Title VII. Title VII offers much broader relief and remedies in the employment arena.
Examples of cases holding that discrimination against transgender people violates federal sex discrimination laws These are not all of them
Prescott v. Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego, No. 3:16-cv-02408 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2017) (holding that discrimination against transgender patients violates the Affordable Care Act).
E.E.O.C. v. Rent-a-Center East, Inc., --- F.Supp.3d --- , 2017 WL 4021130 (C.D. Ill. Sept. 8, 2017) (holding that discrimination against transgender workers violates Title VII).
Brown v. Dept. of Health and Hum. Servs., No. 8:16DCV569, 2017 WL 2414567 (D. Neb. June 2, 2017) (holding that discrimination against transgender people constitutes sex discrimination that is subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution).
Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District, 858 F.3d 1034 (7th Cir. May 30, 2017) (holding that discrimination against transgender students constitutes sex discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution).
Dodds v. U.S. Dept. of Education, 845 F.3d 217 (6th Cir. 2016) (holding that discrimination against transgender students likely constitutes sex discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution).
Glenn v. Brumby, 663 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2011) (holding that termination of employee based on her gender transition, transgender status and unsubstantiated “bathroom concerns” constitutes sex-based discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution).
Barnes v. City of Cincinnati, 401 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that termination of employee based on her gender transition constitutes sex-based discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act).
Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding that termination of employee based on her gender transition constitutes sex-based discrimination under Title VII).
Rosa v. Park West Bank & Trust Co., 214 F.3d 213 (1st Cir. 2000) (holding that refusal to serve transgender customer constitutes sex-based discrimination under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act).
Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that the Gender Motivated Violence Act (GMVA) applied to targeting of a transgender person).
The issue seems to be in the way in which Title VII is viewed and SCOTUS needs to rule on this in order to provide clarity to the rule of law.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
CPT (Anonymous) - So the Commander and Chief can make a decision that any judge can over rule? Or just the ones that are not in their ideology wheelhouse.
(2)
(0)
PFC Michael Korach
Capt Gregory Prickett - agreeded and as time moves on this President will appoint judges who see this issue differently and for sometime in the future. As the pendulum swings the other way.
(2)
(0)
Susan Foster
This would have all worked out without the drama if he had left it alone and left off the EO. There seemed to be no reason for it, and even the heads of services were caught off guard--as well as Mattis. Mattis was already evaluating the policy because he had been asked to (not because they don't serve as well as anyone else). He just caused needless drama and I'll bet he didn't ask any lawyers ahead of time.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Some here have asked why I post these articles, with annoyance. I do so to bring attention to those of us who have served / are serving and want to serve their country.
In 1991, when our country was at war, the medical fact that I was a M2F transsexual in transition didn't seem to be a disqualifying factor for the army.
Although attempts at MEPS were made to humiliate me, and I was treated in a derogatory fashion by some, I passed my physical and psychological evaluation reporting for Duty, and was deployed to Southwest Asia where I served for several months.
After leaving active duty in 1988 I worked for an airline in a professional capacity, being an executive level in their IT department. My post military careers have always been professional positions, I'm not a pornstar or a sex worker nor would I ever dream of such, which seems to be common fixation with some people.
Others denigrate our medical condition as a lifestyle choice, or a fetish and gloat over the fact the suicide rate is so high (its not) using this as proof of our instability.
And I just love it when people pull out some archaic line of scripture and attempt to use it to beat us over the head. Those of you without sin, cast the first stone.
I served my country in War and Peace with all my heart and was willing to risk everything, all I ask for is respect. No one carried my pack, paid my way or took up the slack for me.
In fact people like me are a minority in the service, and it wouldn't surprise me if the real number turns out to be less than 5000 in force of over a million.
We have served, are serving and will continue to serve no matter what POTUS tweets.
We're ready, willing and able to give our country our last full measure of devotion should circumstances require us to do so.
In 1991, when our country was at war, the medical fact that I was a M2F transsexual in transition didn't seem to be a disqualifying factor for the army.
Although attempts at MEPS were made to humiliate me, and I was treated in a derogatory fashion by some, I passed my physical and psychological evaluation reporting for Duty, and was deployed to Southwest Asia where I served for several months.
After leaving active duty in 1988 I worked for an airline in a professional capacity, being an executive level in their IT department. My post military careers have always been professional positions, I'm not a pornstar or a sex worker nor would I ever dream of such, which seems to be common fixation with some people.
Others denigrate our medical condition as a lifestyle choice, or a fetish and gloat over the fact the suicide rate is so high (its not) using this as proof of our instability.
And I just love it when people pull out some archaic line of scripture and attempt to use it to beat us over the head. Those of you without sin, cast the first stone.
I served my country in War and Peace with all my heart and was willing to risk everything, all I ask for is respect. No one carried my pack, paid my way or took up the slack for me.
In fact people like me are a minority in the service, and it wouldn't surprise me if the real number turns out to be less than 5000 in force of over a million.
We have served, are serving and will continue to serve no matter what POTUS tweets.
We're ready, willing and able to give our country our last full measure of devotion should circumstances require us to do so.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
He doesn't have to reverse the policy to keep most transgender service members from serving, he simply needs to keep service members who are on hormone therapy, have recently transitioned or who are considering transitioning from positions that might need to deploy.
(4)
(0)
SGT Victoria Belbusti
We’ve been deploying transgender service members and no issues came to light. So why keep them from deploying? Unless they are still transitioning and not yet stable on their meds.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SGT Victoria Belbusti - I'm not suggesting, or saying he should do this... only that it's possible to implement what would effectively be a ban in such a way that a court wouldn't block it. The focus is one the theater, not the policy itself.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google