• 15
  • April
    2011

In our last post, we discussed a discrimination case that will likely shape the way California and other states approach the issue of transgender discrimination. El'Jai had just started a new job working at a drug treatment center. His job was to supervise men while they provided urine samples to make sure they did not try to claim someone else's urine as their samples.

On his second day at work, El'Jai was fired when he refused to answer his boss's question regarding whether he had undergone sex-change surgery. Although his driver's license, birth certificate and Social Security Administration records all show that he is male, that was not enough for his employer.

El'Jai sued, claiming discrimination.

When the treatment center responded to his lawsuit, they stated that firing him was legal. In their response, they said that because the "sex of the employee engaged in that particular job position is a bona fide occupational qualification," firing him was not discrimination. In short, they responded by saying they could El'Jai because he is not a man.

It will be interesting to see how the company's response holds up in court. There are currently 12 states, including California, that have employment discrimination laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Regardless of the laws, there are few transgender discrimination cases brought forward in most states. In New Jersey (where El'Jai's case is being filed), a gender identity case has never been brought to verdict.

Like many employment discrimination cases, El'Jai was fired because of who he is, instead of how well he performed his job. Thankfully, he's fighting the system and said, "I'm doing this so everyone knows it's wrong, so it doesn't happen to anyone else."

Source: The New York Times, "A Lawsuit's Unusual Question: Who Is a Man?" Richard Perez-Pena, 10 April 2011