![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wolven7Found via ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
moonandserpent: 'The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has ruled in favour of Diane Schroer in her Transgender Discrimination case against the Library of Congress.'
'In refusing to hire Diane Schroer because her appearance and background did not comport with the decisionmaker's sex stereotypes about how men and women should act and appear, and in response to Schroer's decision to transition, legally, culturally, and physically, from male to female, the Library of Congress violated Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination.' -Taken from the notes and Conclusion.
Which, asmoonandserpent notes, is not to say that this won't be appealed; it almost certainly will. But it sets a very interesting precedent.
moonandserpent: 'The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has ruled in favour of Diane Schroer in her Transgender Discrimination case against the Library of Congress.''In refusing to hire Diane Schroer because her appearance and background did not comport with the decisionmaker's sex stereotypes about how men and women should act and appear, and in response to Schroer's decision to transition, legally, culturally, and physically, from male to female, the Library of Congress violated Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination.' -Taken from the notes and Conclusion.
Which, as
moonandserpent notes, is not to say that this won't be appealed; it almost certainly will. But it sets a very interesting precedent.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-09-20 02:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-20 03:13 pm (UTC)