Guess What? You Can No Longer Be Fired For Being LGBT Anywhere In America.
After last month’s historic move to nationally recognize same-sex marriages, the next battlegrounds for gay rights in America are housing and employment protections. Now it seems a major step has been taken on the latter, potentially putting to rest for good the ability to fire an employee based on his or her sexual orientation. That’s huge!

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, created to enforce and implement the 1964 Civil Rights Act, ruled this week that workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal.

The ruling states that employers who discriminate against LGBT workers are violating Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination “based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.”

It’s a new interpretation of the law with wide-reaching potential.

In the past, courts have ruled that Title VII doesn’t apply to sexual orientation because it isn’t explicitly mentioned, but the new interpretation accounts for LGBT discrimination under the umbrella of sex discrimination.

“Sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination because it necessarily entails treating an employee less favorably because of the employee’s sex,” the EEOC concluded.

It’s similar to how racial discrimination extends to relationships. Just as a man can’t be fired for dating a woman of a different race, the same man can’t be fired for dating a person of the same sex.

Oddly enough, Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the dissent in the marriage equality case, hinted at this same logic during sessions considering whether or not to take the case.

“If Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t,” Roberts argued in April. “And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”

What remains unclear is how this new interpretation will affect current efforts to pass legislation specific to protecting LGBT employees.

Of course, these new guidelines only help if you can prove you were fired for being gay. But it’s a cause for celebration nonetheless.

Matildas pledge support for USWNT

The Matildas have stated their support of the US Women’s National Team in their claim against the US Soccer Federation for wage discrimination.

“There is a global awakening to bridging the gap between men and women’s pay, and the world’s female footballers are leading the way,” saidProfessional Footballers Australia (PFA) Player Relations Executive Kathryn Gill.

“True parity can only be achieved through a cultural shift. What has become increasingly evident is that, despite progress, this shift is still some way from occurring with players continually having to take more extreme courses of action to bridge what is simply an unacceptable divide.”

On Thursday (US time), five members of the USWNT – Carli Lloyd, Becky Sauerbrunn, Alex Morgan, Hope Solo and Megan Rapinoe – filed a complaint with the US Equal Opportunity Employment Commissions (EOEC) stating they earned as little as 40 percent of the remuneration provided to the US Men’s National Team.

Matildas co-captain and PFA Matildas Committee Member Clare Polkinghorne has affirmed the full support of the Matildas.

“The US women’s team stood with us during our battle for fairness and we now stand with them,” said Polkinghorne.

“This is not about repaying the favour but doing what is right for the game and the players.”

This echoes the support provided by the US players during the Matildas own dispute with the FFA over remuneration last September that resulted in Australia cancelling a scheduled two match series with the world champions.

“Sport has the power to play a transformative role for society and it must be seized. We can no longer accept the same excuses,” concluded Polkinghorne.


When Muslim woman Samantha Elauf was rejected for a sales staff position at Abercrombie & Fitch - due to her head scarf violating the company’s “classic East Coast collegiate style ”dress code - she worked with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to take the clothing chain to court for religious discrimination.

In June 2015, eight years after the original incident, Elauf’s case finally reached the Supreme Court. An 8-1 ruling was issued in her favor, and though Abercrombie argued she should have disclosed the religious motivation behind her head scarf, the majority of the Justices were quick to dismiss this notion.

Most of Obama's "Controversial" Birth Control Rule Was Law During Bush Years | Mother Jones

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn’t provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don’t offer prescription coverage or don’t offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC’s interpretation of the law, you can’t offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.

“It was, we thought at the time, a fairly straightforward application of Title VII principles,” a top former EEOC official who was involved in the decision told Mother Jones. “All of these plans covered Viagra immediately, without thinking, and they were still declining to cover prescription contraceptives. It’s a little bit jaw-dropping to see what is going on now…There was some press at the time but we issued guidances that were far, far more controversial.”

After the EEOC opinion was approved in 2000, reproductive rights groups and employees who wanted birth control access sued employers that refused to comply. The next year, in Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., a federal court agreed with the EEOC’s reasoning. Reproductive rights groups and others used that decision as leverage to force other companies to settle lawsuits and agree to change their insurance plans to include birth control. Some subsequent court decisions echoed Erickson, and some went the other way, but the rule (absent a Supreme Court decision) remained, and over the following decade, the percentage of employer-based plans offering contraceptive coverage tripled to 90 percent.

Court rules firing a black person because of their dreadlocks isn’t racial discrimination.

In 2010, Chastity Jones had her job offer rescinded from Catastrophe Management Solutions in Alabama, because of her hair. Jones had dreadlocks which, the company stated, tend to “get messy.”

After receiving a complaint from Jones, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against the company on her behalf. They argued that “prohibition of dreadlocks in the workplace constitutes race discrimination.”

But on Thursday, a U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a ruling from a district court that it wasn’t racial discrimination because hair is apparently different from other characteristics.

follow @the-movemnt

“The conversation around who does and does not have the right to go to the bathroom is growing increasingly more transphobic in our nation. We must work together to fight such injustice!”

 As seen on the Believe Out Loud Facebook page

Statistics Show Exactly How Many Times Trans People Have Attacked You in BathroomsSurprise: There are zero reported cases of this happening.


Great new OSHA guidelines for employers!

“Yesterday, the Department of Labor’s Occupational and Health Administration (OSHA) released a best practices guide for employers regarding restroom access for transgender workers. The guide recommends that all employees should be permitted to use facilities that correspond with their gender identity and recommends providing additional options such as all-gender restrooms.”

You can read the “Guide to Restroom Access for Transgender Employees”here or below. This guide follows a historic decision by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), in a case brought by Transgender Law Center, which confirmed that it is unlawful discrimination to deny transgender employees access to the restroom consistent with their gender identity. If you’re experiencing similar discrimination at your job, check out our guide to filing a complaint with the EEOC.”

From the Transgender Law Center’s website

Transgender people will be able to use affirming bathrooms in federal buildings
The Obama administration this week will announce a directive that will require federal buildings to guarantee transgender bathroom access.

The Obama administration is announcing a new directive that in all federal buildings — of which there are more than 9,000 — transgender people must have the right to use the bathrooms that affirm their gender identity.

The new regulation is the latest in a series of pro-trans policy positions the Obama administration has taken.

The Justice Department in May filed a civil rights lawsuit against North Carolina over House Bill 2, which bans trans people from using restrooms consistent with their gender identity and prohibits local municipalities from enacting LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination measures.

The Obama administration last October filed a brief in support of Gavin Grimm, a trans student who filed a lawsuit against his Virginia school district’s controversial policy that bans him from using the boys restroom or locker room. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2012 ruled that discrimination against employees on the basis of their gender identity amounts to sex discrimination under federal law.


Millions of Obese Americans Are Actually 'Quite Healthy'
A new study came to the conclusion that body mass index (BMI) is a really crude and awful indicator of someone's health.

Recently the Commission for Equal Opportunity in Employment in the United States proposed a rule that would grant employers the right to penalize certain employees with fees that reach up to 30 percent of their total insurance cost if they don’t meet a number of 24 health criteria.

Their findings, which appear in the International Journal of Obesity, suggest that 34.4 million Americans considered overweight by virtue of BMI are actually healthy, as are 19.8 million who are considered obese.

The researchers noted that previous research did not find a clear link between weight and height, and its relation to various health markers, meaning that just because a person is of a particular weight and height doesn’t necessarily mean their blood pressure will be in normal range or even an unhealthy range, for example.

In other news EurekAlert reported, the results showed that more than 2 million people identified as “very obese” by virtue of having a BMI of 35 or higher are, in reality, healthy; that’s about 15 percent of Americans so classified.

Most doctors and experts believe obesity has ballooned into a massive global health crisis, although much of the statistics use BMI as a yardstick.

How to Get Away With Harassing, Firing or Never Even Hiring a Trans Worker of Color

The supervisor was like, ‘That is what they play with. That is nothing serious,’” recalls Lombardi, who adds that some of his White coworkers tossed around the N-word. He filed a complaint with his union assuming that it would go to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Instead, a human resources manager did an internal investigation.

Lombardi is clear that what happened to him was discriminatory, but he wonders if he has enough of the “right” information to make a legal case.

 "I talked to three or four lawyers, and they want nothing to do with it,“ he says. ”I think maybe I am saying the wrong things. It is like I have no rights, period, because I am a person of color and then I am transgender. I look the way I look.“


Trans people of color are still suffering from harrassing. This is just what happening to them. They are the subject for condemnation, discrimination and mockery!

More likely you will not get a job if the employer finds out you are transgender. Especially if you are black!

So, we have nothing to do with this issue, because our society is too ignorant to treat trans workers of color like people!

They find different excuses, but no reasonable arguments!

BREAKING: A new, non-profit organization created to finance and produce films, documentaries, TV and other forms of media uniquely dedicated to the empowerment of women has been launched with a mission to create content that will change perceptions of female stereotypes. On the advisory board of the company called We Do It Together are Jessica Chastain, Juliette Binoche, Freida Pinto, Queen Latifah, Twilight director Catherine Hardwicke; actress Ziyi Zhang, to name only a few.

The move comes after the revelation last fall that the The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was interviewing dozens of female directors about the discrimination they face in both film and television. Women currently receive only 16% of the episodic TV directing jobs, and last year directed less than 5% of the major studio releases.

We Do It Together looks to change this. They say they will raise capital from grants, governments, corporate sponsors, and individual donations to invest in the production of films, proceeds from which will be reinvested in the company to create a self-sustaining organization, prepared to invest in additional films. The first film through this new company will be announced at the 2016 Cannes International Film Festival.

The advisory board also consists of such creative talent as male director Hany Abu-Assad; A United Kingdom director Amma Asante; The Diary of a Teenage Girldirector, writer and actress Marielle Heller; City of God Director Katia Lund; Ellesdirector Małgorzata Szumowska; actress, producer and writer Alysia Reiner; MacArthur Fellow, Harvard Professor, Alfred I. DuPont-Columbia Award, National Humanities Medal honoree Henry Louis Gates; and BAFTA-nominated and Wadjdadirector Haifaa Al Mansour.

The board will be responsible for collaborating on the slate of films they will produce. They also plan to start local chapters to make regional impacts.

The organization’s launch comes as the company readies itself for its first public speaker platform, with We Do It Together scheduled to participate at the United Nations’ 3rd Annual Power of Collaboration Global Summit on February 29th. Speaking to the topic of “A Glimpse to Next Stop: Conversations With Men (And Women) in Hollywood,” board member and founder Chiara Tilesi will be presenting the new international non-profit production company model and discussing the organization’s mission of challenging the status quo, producing movies by women and about women, while changing deep-seated perceptions about female stereotypes.

Sitting on the board of directors of We Do It Together are producer Albert Berger; DDA Partner Dana Archer; The Gersh Agency’s Sandra Lucchesi; Mosaic manager Paul Nelson; Producer-Director Carol Polakoff; Primetime Emmy-winning producer Shelby Stone; producer and philanthropist Tilesi; and Septembers of Shiraz writer and producer Hanna Weg.

Jessica Chastain, Juliette Binoche, Freida Pinto, Queen Latifah, Other Women Launch Production Company To Help Female Empowerment In TV And Film

Judge Throws The Book At Christian Organization That Fired Woman For Being Pregnant

Judge Throws The Book At Christian Organization That Fired Woman For Being Pregnant

A Christian non-profit organization fired a woman because she was pregnant, and a U.S. District Court made them pay the price for it. Sharmira Johnson performed her job well, according to her own employer. She was a model employee for United Bible Fellowship Ministries, Inc., a non-profit that cares for the disabled and helps provide them with housing. But because Sharmira became pregnant, her…

View On WordPress

Made with WordPress

Great new OSHA guidelines for employers!

“Yesterday, the Department of Labor’s Occupational and Health Administration (OSHA) released a best practices guide for employers regarding restroom access for transgender workers. The guide recommends that all employees should be permitted to use facilities that correspond with their gender identity and recommends providing additional options such as all-gender restrooms.

You can read the “Guide to Restroom Access for Transgender Employees” here or below. This guide follows a historic decision by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), in a case brought by Transgender Law Center, which confirmed that it is unlawful discrimination to deny transgender employees access to the restroom consistent with their gender identity. If you’re experiencing similar discrimination at your job, check out our guide to filing a complaint with the EEOC.”

From the Transgender Law Center’s website

Federal appeals court rules in favor of transgender students using gender-affirming bathrooms
The Obama administration has taken the position that sex discrimination bans under federal law include protections against anti-transgender discrimination.
By Chris Geidner

Yesterday, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Obama administration is within its rights to extend Title IX protections to transgender students. 

Translation: Another win for the rights of trans students to use the bathrooms and locker rooms that affirm their true gender identity. 

The Gloucester County School Board, however, passed a policy that restricts students to restrooms reflecting their “biological gender.” The transgender student who was targeted by the policy, Gavin Grimm, brought this lawsuit in federal court, seeking an injunction against enforcement of the board’s policy.

The decision is a big victory for the Obama administration, which weighed in at the appeals court to support Grimm’s challenge, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has been making the case for protecting LGBT people under existing civil rights laws since 2012. The Education Department, for its part, has been pressing the Title IX interpretation with school districts since 2013.

The appeals court had heard the arguments in January, and Tuesday’s ruling is the first such appellate ruling in the country on the Obama administration’s policy — which it also has advanced regarding the sex discrimination ban under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Hey, this is a really big deal. 

The ACLU requests a federal investigation into Hollywood’s gender bias

Earlier today, the ACLU of Southern California and the national ACLU Women’s Rights Project reached out to state and national agencies to request an investigation into what they deemed the “systemic failure” to hire women directors in the film and television industry. The two groups sent a fifteen-page letter to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the Labor Department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that included extensive statistical and anecdotal evidence on the “dramatic disparities” in the hiring of women directors. The complete letter has been published on The New York Times’ movie blog.

The civil rights organizations are asking for an in-depth probe into the “dramatic disparities” in the hiring of women directors for episodic television and feature films. They cite the fact that women made up only 7 percent of the directors of the top 250 grossing films (down from 9 percent in 1998) of 2014, and only 1.9 percent of directors for the top 100 grossing films in 2013 and 2014. Overall, women directors helmed only 4.1 percent of the 1300 top-grossing films from 2002-2014. Television remains almost as impermeable—a DGA analysis cited inThe New York Times of about 220 shows (comprising 3500 episodes) from 2013-2014 found that only 14 percent of directors were women.

More at avclub.com


LBJ Signs the Civil Right Act of 1964 - Fifty Years Ago Today

On this day in 1964, President  Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawing discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, or sex in public accommodations such as hotels, theaters, parks, restaurants, and other public places.

The act also authorized the withdrawal of Federal funds from programs that practice discrimination. It discouraged job discrimination through the creation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Additionally, it authorized the Attorney General to bring lawsuits against schools practicing segregation, and made the Commission on Civil Rights a permanent organization. 


The Civil Rights Act of 1964, page 5. 

President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the 1964 Civil Rights Act with Martin Luther King, Jr. and others behind him.  East Room, White House. 7/2/64.

-from the LBJ Library

A Shocking Number Of States Don’t Protect Unpaid Interns From Discrimination And Sexual Harassment

Unpaid interns are vulnerable because they are not technically “employees”under the federal Civil Rights Act, which means they’re not protected by bodies like the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Interns must receive “significant remuneration" for the commission to consider them employees. But some states have started modifying their laws to address the disparity between paid and unpaid workers.

Get the full story here.

In 1991, a political drama mesmerized the nation. A law professor named Anita Hill had made a stunning accusation — that Clarence Thomas, then a Supreme Court nominee, sexually harassed her when she worked for him at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The events that ensued are now the subject of the HBO film Confirmation, which premieres Saturday at 8 p.m. ET. Kerry Washington, who you probably know best as Olivia Pope on Scandal, plays Hill, who was very reluctant to reveal this decade-old secret.

‘It’s So, So Complicated’: Kerry Washington On Clarence Thomas’ 'Confirmation’

Photo: HBO