www.aclu.orgJOIN THE ACLUTAKE ACTIONDONATEABOUT US
ACLU Blog of Rights - Official Blog of the ACLU National Office Blog of Rights Homepage Support the ACLU

Join Us At:

Jun 23rd, 2008 Google Bookmarks Technorati StumbleUpon Digg! Reddit Delicious Facebook
Posted by Chris Anders, Senior Legislative Counsel, ACLU at 3:49pm

Congress to Hold Historic Hearing on Gender Identity in the Workplace

This Thursday, June 26, the House Education and Labor Committee's Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions will hold a hearing on discrimination against transgender employees. Congressman Robert Andrews (D-NJ) will chair this historic hearing, the first Congressional hearing on transgender issues and gender identity discrimination in the workplace.

Diane Schroer, an ACLU client, will be one of the witnesses. Schroer was an Airborne Ranger qualified Special Forces officer who completed over 450 parachute jumps, received numerous decorations including the Defense Superior Service Medal, and was hand-picked to head up a classified national security operation. She began taking steps to transition from male to female shortly after retiring as a Colonel after 25 years of distinguished service in the Army. When she interviewed for a job as a terrorism research analyst at the Library of Congress, she thought she'd found the perfect fit, given her background and 16,000-volume home library collection on military history, the art of war, international relations and political philosophy. Schroer accepted the position, but when she told her future supervisor that she was in the process of gender transition, they rescinded the job offer. The ACLU is now representing her in a Title VII sex discrimination lawsuit against the Library of Congress.

Click here to learn more about Diane's case. Her story was also highlighted in the recent ACLU report, "Working in the Shadows: Ending Employment Discrimination For LGBT Americans."

Shannon Minter, the legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (who successfully argued the recent marriage case before the California Supreme Court), will discuss some of the legal issues affecting the transgender community. The committee will also hear testimony from a transgender employee working in a Massachusetts HIV/AIDS service organization and a representative from a Fortune 500 company that protects its employees against gender identity discrimination.

The hearing will be broadcast live on the web at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, June 26. Click here for a link to the webcast.

If your Congressperson serves on the Subcommittee, please call their office and ask that they attend the hearing. Call 202-225-3121 and ask for your representative's office.


Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions

Democrats (13)
Robert Andrews, NJ, Chairman
George Miller, CA
Dale Kildee, MI
Carolyn McCarthy, NY
John Tierney, MA
David Wu, OR
Rush Holt, NJ
Linda Sanchez, CA
Joe Sestak, PA
David Loebsack, IA
Phil Hare, NH
Yvette Clarke, NY
Joseph Courtney CT

Republicans (10)
John Kline, Ranking Member MN
Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, CA
Kenny Marchant, TX
Charles W. Boustany, Jr., LA
David Davis TN
Peter Hoekstra, MI
Cathy McMorris Rodgers, WA
Tom Price, GA
Virginia Foxx, NC
Timothy Walberg, MI

Google Bookmarks Technorati StumbleUpon Digg! Reddit Delicious Facebook
We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are requests for legal assistance and postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability.

One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites.

We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published.

Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section.

1 Response to "Congress to Hold Historic Hearing on Gender Identity in the Workplace"

  1. David Marshall Says:

    A trust betrayed? Gone for veterans are the check and balances within and between our branches of government that so many have died for! Please hold your U.S. House and Senate members responsible. Thank you.

    In 1994 the Chief Judge of Congress’s 1988 established Court of Veterans Appeals stated that the, "Constitution, Statutes and Regulations" are "policy freely ignored" by both "The Veterans Health Administration" (VHA) and the Secretary of the DVA, i.e., the "STATE OF COURT" transcript PARAGRAPH 9 with Congress’s law of the land U.S. CODE, TITLE 38, SECTIONS (§) 511 and § 7252. Decisions of the Secretary; finality; REFERENCES [1], [2] & [3]. This is a no teeth Congressional LEGISLATIVE Court that captures veterans within the Executive Branch’s Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). Lost is a before military service right to a with teeth, independent from Congress and the DVA, Judicial Branch Court.[2] Fifteen (15) years after the Chief Judge's statements the Secretary of the DVA and his laymen "initial adjudicators" still are not held responsible for their "freely ignored" and medically brainless "Schedule of Ratings for Disabilities" decisions.

    A couple of examples of the "initial adjudicators" to date "freely ignored" are this veterans 1957 DVA Physician’s resultant USAF Physician's, "MPerR PERMANENT" "SURGEON HQ ARRC JUN 25 ‘58 MEDICALLY DISQUALIFIED FOR MILITARY SERVICE" of from 1952 to 1956! Then the layman adjudicator’s brainless 6/27/96 Supplemental Statement Of Case (SSOC) no "...competent medical evidence...". After an ongoing 19 years in the DVA administrative process the veteran receives a 100% disability. To date there is still no recognition of the 1957 resultant 1958 "disqualified"!

    REFERENCES (Emphasis added throughout) with comments:

    [1] "STATE OF COURT, CHIEF JUDGE FRANK Q. NEBEKER, STATE OF THE COURT, FOR PRESENTATION TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF VETERANS APPEALS THIRD JUDICIAL CONFERENCE, OCTOBER 17-18, 1994 {as it appears in Veterans Appeals Reporter}"

    --------------------PARAGRAPH 9 of 16 in "STATE OF COURT" TRANSCRIPT records DVA laymen ignoring medical opinion without veteran recourse.-----------------------------

    "I believe my message is clear. There is, I suggest, no system with judicial review which has within it a component part free to function in its own way, in its own time and with one message to those it disappoints -- take an appeal. That is, I am afraid, what we have today in many of the Department's Agencies of Original Jurisdiction -- that is AOJs -- around the country. Neither the Court, through the Board, the Board, nor the General Counsel has direct and meaningful control over the Agencies of Original Jurisdiction. Indeed, it is also clear that the VHA -- the Veterans Health Administration -- ignores specific directives to provide medical opinions as directed. And this is resulting in unconscionable delays. Let us examine judicial review. Remember, the Court and the Board do not make policy, the Secretary and Congress do. The Court simply identifies error made below by a failure to adhere, in individual cases, to the Constitution, statutes, and regulations which themselves reflect policy -- policy freely ignored by many initial adjudicators whose attitude is, "I haven't been told by my boss to change. If you don't like it -- appeal it." The complete 16 paragraph "STATE OF COURT" transcript is available on request. Previously at, and now missing from the Chief Judges and state_of_court sites: www.goodnet.com/~heads/nebeker and www.firebase.net/state_of_court_brief.htm

    The top medically ignorant "boss" is Congress’s confirmed "Secretary" of the DVA.

    AND THE CONGRESS’S "policy freely ignored" UNITED STATES CODE law of the land, take away from Veterans:

    [2] UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 38 > PART I > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER I >
    § 511. Decisions of the Secretary; finality
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc...11----000-.html

    "(a) The Secretary shall decide all questions of law and fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary under a law that affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary to veterans or the dependents or survivors of veterans. Subject to subsection (b), THE DECISION OF THE SECRETARY AS TO ANY SUCH QUESTION SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE AND MAY NOT BE REVIEWED BY ANY OTHER OFFICIAL OR BY ANY COURT, whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise."

    THEREFORE, NO COURT REVIEW OF THE MEDICALLY UNTRAINED DVA laymen and "Secretary" "schedule of ratings for disabilities" decisions as proven by:

    [3] UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 38 PART V > CHAPTER 72 > SUBCHAPTER I >

    § 7252. Jurisdiction; finality of decisions

    "(b) Review in the Court shall be on the record of proceedings before the Secretary and the Board. The extent of the review shall be limited to the scope provided in section 7261 of this title. THE COURT MAY NOT REVIEW THE SCHEDULE OF RATINGS FOR DISABILITIES adopted under section 1155 of this title or any action of the Secretary in adopting or revising that schedule."

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image. Ignore spaces and be careful about upper and lower case.
 

Quicksearch


© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004
This is the Web site of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation.
Learn more about the distinction between these two components of the ACLU.

User Agreement | Privacy Statement | FAQs | Site Map

Statistics image