B. Scott was hired to be a fashion reporter on by a California TV network. But when he came to work wearing what they considered to be "women's clothes" they insisted first that he change into a blazer and slacks and pull his gorgeous long hair into a pony tail; then they terminated him.
Scott is filing a discrimination suit under California law which protects people from discrimination on the basis of gender, and his legal advisors say they expect he will succeed.
What would happen if that had happened to B.Scott in British Columbia?
It is hard to say.
B.C.'s Human Rights Code offers protection on the basis of 'sex', but there is no explicit protection on the basis of 'gender identity' or 'gender expression'. This has not been a problem for trans people in B.C. to date, all of whose claims have succeeded on the basis of 'sex' because 'sex' has been interpreted to cover protection for trans people.
The question is whether this genderqueer man - who identifies as male but presents in "women's" clothing, would be protected, or whether it is necessary to have 'gender expression' specifically listed as a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Because there hasn't been a case like this so far it is impossible to say. However on the positive side there is a rule that says that human rights law should be given a 'fair, large and liberal' interpretation to protect the most people. Certainly anyone in this situation should file a human rights complaint on the basis of sex.
For more on this story: http://www.chicagodefender.com/index.php/culture/22787-she-s-the-law-why-b-scott-has-the-right-to-sue-bet-network-for-gender-discrimination-damage-to-reputation
Scott is filing a discrimination suit under California law which protects people from discrimination on the basis of gender, and his legal advisors say they expect he will succeed.
What would happen if that had happened to B.Scott in British Columbia?
It is hard to say.
B.C.'s Human Rights Code offers protection on the basis of 'sex', but there is no explicit protection on the basis of 'gender identity' or 'gender expression'. This has not been a problem for trans people in B.C. to date, all of whose claims have succeeded on the basis of 'sex' because 'sex' has been interpreted to cover protection for trans people.
The question is whether this genderqueer man - who identifies as male but presents in "women's" clothing, would be protected, or whether it is necessary to have 'gender expression' specifically listed as a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Because there hasn't been a case like this so far it is impossible to say. However on the positive side there is a rule that says that human rights law should be given a 'fair, large and liberal' interpretation to protect the most people. Certainly anyone in this situation should file a human rights complaint on the basis of sex.
For more on this story: http://www.chicagodefender.com/index.php/culture/22787-she-s-the-law-why-b-scott-has-the-right-to-sue-bet-network-for-gender-discrimination-damage-to-reputation
RSS Feed
