2. Discrimina3on
is
no
new
topic
in
either
the
job
market
or
in
public
rela3ons.
If
anything,
in
recent
years
the
3de
has
certainly
turned
against
businesses
that
ac3vely
discriminate
against
certain
recognized
groups.
While
that’s
not
to
say
it
doesn’t
happen,
as
Ronn
Torossian
reveals,
companies
tend
to
pay
a
higher
price
than
they
once
did.
3. S3ll,
there
are
those
who
want
this
debate
to
con3nue.
They
argue
that
employers
have
every
right
to
choose
who
they
want
working
for
them.
Even
if
that
choice
is
apparently
discriminatory.
Others
cau3on
more
covert
selec3on
processes
that
allow
the
companies
to
maintain
their
personal
standards
while
also
appearing
to
meet
the
leFer
of
the
law.
4. Both
of
these
posi3ons
are
currently
being
challenged
by
Saks
&
Co.
According
to
a
mo3on
filed
in
federal
court,
Saks
is
asking
for
a
discrimina3on
lawsuit
filed
by
an
ex-‐employee
to
be
dismissed,
“because
transsexuals
are
not
protected
under
Title
VII,”
a
sec3on
of
the
1964
Civil
Rights
Act
that
bans
employment
discrimina3on
based
on
race,
religion
or
gender.
5. According
to
the
ex-‐employee,
she
was
asked
to
behave
in
a
“more
masculine
way”
while
at
work,
and
was
ul3mately
terminated
because
she
“spoke
up
in
a
hos3le
work
environment.”
At
ques3on
in
the
case,
though,
is
Saks’
own
employee
handbook,
which
claims
not
to
discriminate
based
on
gender
iden3ty.
Saks
counters
that
handbooks
do
not
cons3tute
legal
contracts.
6. Factually
true,
perhaps,
but
that
perspec3ve
could
wreak
havoc
on
Saks’
public
percep3on.
The
message,
of
course,
is
that
the
law
is
the
law
and
the
employee
handbook
is
really
just
a
list
of
sugges3ons
Saks
can
violate
when
it
becomes
convenient
to
do
so.
At
least,
that’s
the
posi3on
some
are
taking
in
the
marketplace
of
ideas.
7. That
posi3on,
and
the
passionate
vitriol
behind
it,
will
no
doubt
move
this
case
out
of
the
courtroom
and
into
the
court
of
public
opinion,
where
Saks
will
have
a
much
more
difficult
3me
pleading
its
case.
Par3cularly
when
Saks
representa3ves
are
also
on
record
saying
no
discrimina3on
transpired
in
the
case.
8. Let’s
review…Saks
is
arguing
that
transgender
discrimina3on
is
not
condemned
under
the
Civil
Rights
Act,
and
it
is
arguing
that
the
employee
handbook,
which
does
say
transgender
persons
are
protected,
does
not
cons3tute
a
legally-‐binding
contract.
However,
company
spokespeople
are
also
arguing
that
no
discrimina3on
took
place
at
all.
9. So,
here’s
where
the
message
gets
mixed.
Was
there
discrimina3on
against
a
group
that
is
not
protected,
therefore
presen3ng
grounds
to
dismiss
the
case?
Or
was
there
no
ac3onable
discrimina3on
at
all?
From
a
legal
perspec3ve
it
is
possible
to
hold
both
posi3ons
at
the
same
3me.
But
as
countless
other
cases
have
shown,
the
public
has
liFle
tolerance
for
that
sort
of
“nuance.”
10. This
post
was
reformaFed
for
distribu3on.
To
read
more
content
from
Ronn
Torossian,
please
visit
hFp://ronntorossianupdate.com
