What are the LEGAL ramifications of being "caught" or outed"?

[Wildaboutheels]

Any Legal Eagles wandering about here? I am asking in reference to the rights of emloyers. THEIR right to terminate an employee for how they dress or where they go on their OWN time.

Quite understandable that a Doctor, Lawyer or Indian chief might be terminated, local News/sports anchor, University president etc. Someone that is constantly under public scrutiny or is paid to interact with the public. But what about the averge Joe or Jane? Would it be LEGAL to terminate someone merely for being a CD? Or would they have to trump up something such "poor job performance", "constantly late to work", "poor attitude" etc.?

Anyone ever heard of someone being fired for it or "coerced" to quit?

[SheriM]

I've not had experience with being let go for feminine dressing, however, in most of the cases we read about, I would side with the employer. The employer hires people to do work for him/her and to enhance the business. If appearance detracts from that goal or even has a negative impact on business, it is certainly understandable why he/she would not want to have that person in their employ.

[Julie Gaum]

In most states and I worked/lived in 14 the state laws back up the employer who usually states on the application you sign that "An employee may be terminated for any cause.......". In practice the easiest reason is "cutting work forces" or "employee not up to our standards (Something vague). In this manner age, race, sexual persuasion, and so on can be avoided by stete laws that mouth the basic no-nos. Off the subject but just as silly is that applications in every state do not ask one's age and yet down below they ask year graduated high school, college and military. Don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out one's age from that. Yet this subtefuge has been going on for at least 60 years!
Julie

[Lorileah]

The U S Government now cannot fire you for dressing or transitioning as it falls under the sexual part of discrimination (even though you are not a female a TG is protected under the same rules) Caveat though is the military has different rules and even with DADT gone, being TG is till a reason to discharge you. So if you are a civilian employee on a military base they can't fire you for gender reasons, but if you are military they can. Otherwise as stated it is by state or community. Most places the employer can let you go for any reason.

[DeeInGeorgia]

To ShariM, you seem to forget that the excuse you suggest fir the employer was used as a justification to not employ people of color, people with disabilities, gays, women in the recent past or even now. That customers are offended is because of their own bigotry.

[Rogina B]

My only thought is "IF you are really good at what you do"....then any employer will most likely grant you the freedom of expression.You have to dress appropriately for the job under any circumstances..Although I work for myself,I am interested in knowing[or imagining]if a qualified technical person could do technical work in some of the companies I buy from. If you have a thick skin,and are sharper than your average customer,I think you will survive the cut. Just my opinion.

[Veronica27]

To ShariM, you seem to forget that the excuse you suggest fir the employer was used as a justification to not employ people of color, people with disabilities, gays, women in the recent past or even now. That customers are offended is because of their own bigotry.

An employer is in business to earn a living, and in so doing enables his employees to earn their living. This involves putting the customer first, regardless of their personal opinions and beliefs. Before a customer's desires can be ignored, the impact on the business has to be weighed carefully. The examples you list are not out of the ordinary, and I cannot think of any employer losing business in this day and age because he hired any of them. Crossdressing on the job is not yet anywhere near being a normal situation.

Secondly, a customer does not necessarily have to be offended in order to feel uncomfortable in a given situation. Having a crossdresser unexpectedly handle his or her transaction could be a bit unnerving because it is anything but a normal everyday experience for most people. Bigotry is a pretty strong word to apply to ordinary people who suddenly have something completely out of the ordinary thrust at them. We want people to be sensitive to our needs, but I don't think we can expect that unless we are willing to be sensitive to their feelings as well.

Veronica

[BRANDYJ]

in answer ti Sue's question:

Clarification Brandy. I understand your need to run your business your way, but would you at least extend a warning that said "I can't allow that here"?

Yes, I would extend a warning and then maybe ask them to come over and dress at my house, just never in my place of business.

An employer is in business to earn a living, and in so doing enables his employees to earn their living. This involves putting the customer first, regardless of their personal opinions and beliefs. Before a customer's desires can be ignored, the impact on the business has to be weighed carefully. The examples you list are not out of the ordinary, and I cannot think of any employer losing business in this day and age because he hired any of them. Crossdressing on the job is not yet anywhere near being a normal situation.

Secondly, a customer does not necessarily have to be offended in order to feel uncomfortable in a given situation. Having a crossdresser unexpectedly handle his or her transaction could be a bit unnerving because it is anything but a normal everyday experience for most people. Bigotry is a pretty strong word to apply to ordinary people who suddenly have something completely out of the ordinary thrust at them. We want people to be sensitive to our needs, but I don't think we can expect that unless we are willing to be sensitive to their feelings as well.

Veronica

Veronica, very well said. That is exactly how I feel. To many CD's are selfish and think that if anyone does not like them being dressed around them is their problem and not theirs. To me that is very insensitive. I care about other's feelings and comfort level around me.

[PetiteDuality]

in answer ti Sue's question:

Yes, I would extend a warning and then maybe ask them to come over and dress at my house, just never in my place of business.

Then you could be sued for sexual harassment :-)

Litigation in US has gotten too far...

[LeaP]

... Bigotry is a pretty strong word to apply to ordinary people who suddenly have something completely out of the ordinary thrust at them. We want people to be sensitive to our needs, but I don't think we can expect that unless we are willing to be sensitive to their feelings as well.

I think bigotry is exactly the right word. You can toss in ignorance and a few other choice terms, too.

People who are merely being themselves aren't "thrusting" themselves on people any more than gay people are "forcing their lifestyle" on people. Having rights also requires no sensitivity on the part of others, else rights never have teeth.

I'm dual-minded on the employer question. I think true family businesses (meaning small businesses who employ ONLY immediate family members) should fall into the arena of personal association rights. Businesses who employ members of the public should not be permitted to discriminate - period. I regard business owners who discriminate as personally and primarily responsible for perpetuating the culture of discrimination in business. Passing this off on customers is cowardly, even if the concern sometimes has some basis in reality. After all, one (hopefully) doesn't START discriminating if a customer objects to, say, the race of an employee.

[BRANDYJ]

I think bigotry is exactly the right word. You can toss in ignorance and a few other choice terms, too.

People who are merely being themselves aren't "thrusting" themselves on people any more than gay people are "forcing their lifestyle" on people. Having rights also requires no sensitivity on the part of others, else rights never have teeth.

I'm dual-minded on the employer question. I think true family businesses (meaning small businesses who employ ONLY immediate family members) should fall into the arena of personal association rights. Businesses who employ members of the public should not be permitted to discriminate - period. I regard business owners who discriminate as personally and primarily responsible for perpetuating the culture of discrimination in business. Passing this off on customers is cowardly, even if the concern sometimes has some basis in reality. After all, one (hopefully) doesn't START discriminating if a customer objects to, say, the race of an employee.

I have to disagree with you Lea. By definition: A person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. I am not a bigot by that definition simply because I don't believe a crossdresser or anyone has the right to dress the way they want to dress in the work place. I am not intolerant of crossdresser, gays or transexuals in any way. But if I was a business owner I have the right and responsibility to make a profit in order to survive. I strongly feel a crossdresser would make my customers uneasy, uncomfortable, embarrassed orotherwise cause them to do business elsewhere. I am a crossdresser, so how can you say I am bigoted just because I feel there is a time and place for everything. The work place is not one of them. What someone does on their own time, including me, is no one's business.
In a retail store where there are sales people waiting on the customer, the manner of dress and looks is very important to the success of that business. If I was selling high end clothes, furniture, or anything where the public has to deal with a sales person, I would not hire someone with tattoos all over their body, piercings in their nose, brows, lips and tongues. It would ruin the professional image of the store. now if I was selling things that attract those with the tats and piercings, I then would hire them to wait on like minded people.

This is not being a bigot, it's being a smart businessman.

[I Am Paula]

Here in Canada, the only three legal reasons someone can be fired are :
Alcohol or drug use.
Theft
Willfully disrupting business or productivity. This ones the big, no, huge grey area. In my opinion you could interpret that just about any way you see fit.

I'm no lawyer, and I'm not sure about The United States, but I'll bet that they can fire you for most anything if they put thier mind to it.

[DonnaT]

It's been done, firing someone for CDing off the job, but there are new ramifications for employers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1449282.html

So, yes, they would likely need to invent some other reason to fire you. At least under the current administration.

[StarrOfDelite]

It's been done, firing someone for CDing off the job, but there are new ramifications for employers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1449282.html

So, yes, they would likely need to invent some other reason to fire you. At least under the current administration.

I am a lawyer, and have some limited familiarity with discrimination law. It's damnably complicated when you get down to specific cases, but, generally speaking, in most American jurisdictions the doctrine of "employment at will" prevails, which means that an employer can fire any employee with the appropriate period of notice for any reason. The only limits on this law are the anti-discrimination statutes of the type which were first promulgated in 1964 under LBJ. I never handled a case involving transgender discrimination, but it has been my impression that it is spelled out as being a prohibited discriminatory reason for discharge in some state statutes, and not protected by anti-discriminatory language in others. I have no idea what the Florida statute says.

Donna, thanks for the article from Huffington Post about the Macy case. Since this decision relates to discrimination by the U.S. Government, there may be some questions if it applies to private employers. Note, however, that even if it is incorporated into the general employment discrimination law, some very small companies may not be bound to follow it under federal law.

Most state anti-discrimination statutes cover smaller employers, and some are more strict than federal law. The only way to get an idea about your rights is to consult with a lawyer. A practitioner in the area could give you an overview of your rights inside an hour, and how much it would cost would depend on where you live. I have no idea what the going hourly rate is in Tampa, but would estimate something between $250-400. The best time to consult a lawyer is BEFORE anything happens. The old adage about an ounce of prevention, et cetera, is applicable in almost every legal situation.

Generally, if you have a state anti-discrimination statute you will get at least an interview with an investigator if you are fired and file a complaint. The EEOC process is fairly complicated, and trying to summarize it here would only confuse the issue more.

If you are under the income level you are entitled to at least a free consultation with a lawyer at your local legal aid society.

As you implied with your comment about "under this administration," the EEOC can be politicized, and might reverse itself if a more conservative administration is in power.
If the decision of the EEOC in the Macy case holds up through the appeals process, which will include hearings before the appropriate circuit court of appeals and possibly the Supreme Court, then it would put crossdressing on the same level as being gay or lesbian. The Obama administration may choose not to appeal the case, as it might not wish to appear anti-GLBT in an election year.

[Anne2345]

It's damnably complicated when you get down to specific cases, but, generally speaking, in most American jurisdictions the doctrine of "employment at will" prevails, which means that an employer can fire any employee with the appropriate period of notice for any reason.

Employment law, in and of itself, is not complicated at all. The law is what it is, the application is relatively simple, and there is a mountain of previously established case law in any given jurisdiction. Employment law complaints involving issues of first impression are very far and few in between, so there is very little need to reinvent the wheel.

Obviously, the terminated employee has the burden of proof. The difficulty in prevailing in an employment discrimination complaint is proving that discrimination occured. A sophisticated employer will not give a reason for termination in an at-will jurisdiction, because no reason is necessary. In so doing, it makes it that much more difficult to prove.

If, however, an employer is stupid enough to fire an employee for being green, for example, and puts the reason in writing, that's an easy case. But in today's legal climate, employers have become much slicker than that.

In the end, the employer is going to do what the employer is going to do, whether it is for one reason or another. Or for no reason at all . . . .

[StarrOfDelite]

Employment law, in and of itself, is not complicated at all. The law is what it is, the application is relatively simple, and there is a mountain of previously established case law in any given jurisdiction. Employment law complaints involving issues of first impression are very far and few in between, so there is very little need to reinvent the wheel.

Obviously, the terminated employee has the burden of proof. The difficulty in prevailing in an employment discrimination complaint is proving that discrimination occured. A sophisticated employer will not give a reason for termination in an at-will jurisdiction, because no reason is necessary. In so doing, it makes it that much more difficult to prove.

If, however, an employer is stupid enough to fire an employee for being green, for example, and puts the reason in writing, that's an easy case. But in today's legal climate, employers have become much slicker than that.

In the end, the employer is going to do what the employer is going to do, whether it is for one reason or another. Or for no reason at all . . . .

Beg to differ. As I tried to explain, the statutes themselves are relatively straightforward, although there is enough legal language in them to confuse most college graduates who don't own a legal dictionary. However, the law is what judges say it is in each individual case, and since each individual case depends on relatively complex facts involving performance evaluations, testimony about incidents evincing discriminatory intent from the complainant, the supervisor, fellow employees, and other documentary and testimonial evidence such as complaints from customers or suppliers, it can get very, very complicated in individual cases. Also, as noted, transgenderism is not specifically statutorily protected in many states, including some large industrial employment states like Ohio, where so far as I know, the question of whether the state law covers transgenderism has not been decided one way or the other. I am unaware whether Oiler v. Winn Dixie has ever been overruled, for example, do you have any input on that?

[Carroll]

It all depends on the state or the company. A lot of states are "Right to hire/fire", meaning you can be legally be terminated for no reason. Some companies follow this, or will come up with little things. NY is a right to fire, but the company I used to work for had to have a really good reason to fire you. Though I never did it, I had every right to show up dressed for work if I wanted to. They (Sears) takes it's anti-discrimination policy seriously.

[BRANDYJ]

It depends on where you live in America. In any place where there are non-discrimination laws with gender identity/expression, the answer is no, at least in theory.

Unfournately, crossdressers can and do get fired from their jobs for being a crossdresser, even though most don't crossdress on the job. This can even happen in a locality where non-discrimination laws are on the books. All an employer has to do for a worker they have found out to be a crossdresser is to look for anything else they can fire them on.
I would not risk my job. So many ways around any discrimination laws. You could be transferred, reassigned out of public site, given a different position at lower pay. Or other ways to make you just want to quit so they don't have to worry about firing you.

[Wildaboutheels]

It sounds thus far that any company with deep enough pockets or a "good enough" attorney can find a way to fire someone law or no law? Easy to imagine that very few people would be willing to fight it.

[Badtranny]

Is Lori the only respondent who is actually out?

One of the problems with discourse on this site is the huge quantity of speculation. Closeted people speculating on the danger of being outed.

I'm 100% out and there has been zero legal or professional ramifications. Much of it is related to your comfort level. Dirty little secrets are generally disagreeable in any context, but if you can be self assured and confident about who you are then being "caught" would be no big deal.

"Hey Bob, I saw you and your wife at the mall and I was a little shocked to see how you were dressed" Yeah, me and the wife like to mix it up sometimes. You should have seen me last Halloween.

There is nothing wrong with cross dressing. Stop acting like it's shameful and eventually people will see that it's just another fun thing to do. Like Cos play, or a Trekkie convention, or Renaissance fairs, or Civil War re-en actors. If you get "outed" just own it. You weren't doing anything wrong.

[Debglam]

Yes & yes!

Is Lori the only respondent who is actually out?

One of the problems with discourse on this site is the huge quantity of speculation. Closeted people speculating on the danger of being outed.

I'm 100% out and there has been zero legal or professional ramifications. Much of it is related to your comfort level. Dirty little secrets are generally disagreeable in any context, but if you can be self assured and confident about who you are then being "caught" would be no big deal.

"Hey Bob, I saw you and your wife at the mall and I was a little shocked to see how you were dressed" Yeah, me and the wife like to mix it up sometimes. You should have seen me last Halloween.

There is nothing wrong with cross dressing. Stop acting like it's shameful and eventually people will see that it's just another fun thing to do. Like Cos play, or a Trekkie convention, or Renaissance fairs, or Civil War re-en actors. If you get "outed" just own it. You weren't doing anything wrong.

Yes from a philosophical perspective. Your employer calls you in and shows you a photo or says someone saw you out dressed. IMHO, your initial response is going to have a lot to do with where things go.

Employment in the private sector in many states is "at will." This means that an employer can terminate an employee for a good reason, a bad reason, or for no reason at all. An employer, however, cannot terminate an employee for reasons specifically prohibited by law. Employment discrimination cases, though, can be very difficult to prove.

Yes from a legal perspective. It really all depends upon the terms of your employment. At will means at will.

[Stephanie47]

In Washington State it is illegal to fire someone for any gender issues; gay, lesbian or cross dresser. Of course, you would have to be able to prove your case.

[carrkool]

on another note there was another case where a lady who was in trans applied for a job i think it was atf. she explained everything and applied as her new self. than out of the blue she was told do to cuts the possiontion was no longer open to anyone. she got to looking alittle later and found another person less qualified had been hired instead. she filled an eeoe complaint and won. the courts ruled that not hiring her due to her trans was a form of sex discrimination. i want to say this was in a high court and never appealed.

[Veronica27]

This is one of those issues where the differences between crossdressing and transgendered come into play. Most laws that have been passed on the issue refer to "T". I don't think that many employers are averse to having transgendered individuals dress in the manner in which they are most comfortable. However, constantly switching back and forth to suit the mood of a crossdresser, can be disruptive. The employer should have some rights in this situation, including the right to establish rules as to when and where and if, or to negotiate an agreement with the employee and other staff. What a person does in their own time should be up to them, unless they are somehow representing the employer while on their own time.

There is nothing wrong with cross dressing. Stop acting like it's shameful and eventually people will see that it's just another fun thing to do. Like Cos play, or a Trekkie convention, or Renaissance fairs, or Civil War re-en actors. If you get "outed" just own it. You weren't doing anything wrong.

I've been scooped. Or maybe someone has hacked into my computer. I was thinking about writing a thread about the similarities between crossdressing, cosplay, historical re-enactment and all the various types of fan conventions, and to that end have been doing some research about these activities. Crossdressing can be a part of some of these things, depending upon the aims of the group and the degree of authenticity they want. Oh well, I guess the element of originality of thought is gone, so I will put it on the back burner for awhile. That's the problem with lethargy and procrastination. I'm just happy that I'm not the only one with similar thoughts.

Veronica

[STACY B]

Is Lori the only respondent who is actually out?

One of the problems with discourse on this site is the huge quantity of speculation. Closeted people speculating on the danger of being outed.

I'm 100% out and there has been zero legal or professional ramifications. Much of it is related to your comfort level. Dirty little secrets are generally disagreeable in any context, but if you can be self assured and confident about who you are then being "caught" would be no big deal.

"Hey Bob, I saw you and your wife at the mall and I was a little shocked to see how you were dressed" Yeah, me and the wife like to mix it up sometimes. You should have seen me last Halloween.

There is nothing wrong with cross dressing. Stop acting like it's shameful and eventually people will see that it's just another fun thing to do. Like Cos play, or a Trekkie convention, or Renaissance fairs, or Civil War re-en actors. If you get "outed" just own it. You weren't doing anything wrong.

Nothing Wrong ,,, Waittttttt a Min ? What if ya crossdressing in someone elses clothes not your own ? Huh ,,, What about that ? Maybe a clothes line theaf ,, Or panty robber than ya mite get it ? Never mind ,,, Some one just brought all my stuff back .. Just checking /