Saks Claims a Legal Right to Discriminate Against Trans Employees

Status
Not open for further replies.

Viridian

local good boy
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Messages
3,076
Reaction score
557
Saks has claimed that it has a legal right to discriminate against trans employees based on their trans status. This tactic is quite odd, for two reasons. First, it is morally repulsive.

Saks misgenders Jamal throughout its filings, referring to her as “he” and “him.” Even worse, when Saks quotes Jamal’s own complaint, it adds a stinging “[sic]” after every reference to Jamal as female
Whoa, what the fuck. What a nasty and unnecessary move. What a kick to the face. What a cruel, immature joke. I can't imagine what that woman is going through.
 

auzerais

I like puppies.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
402
Reaction score
87
Location
Seattle, WA
This case just has my mind completely and thoroughly boggled. I mean, why not just a) lie or b) cover up? Why go for the "oh, we can discriminate, it's legal" angle? I even have this little fantasy going where Saks is doing this on purpose, as a political move to get anti-discrimination laws passed.
 

Fruitbat

.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
11,833
Reaction score
1,310
It sounds to me like their attorneys just latched onto a loophole hoping to get the case dismissed, because getting it dismissed in the first place is much easier and cheaper than having to fight it out in court and possibly lose. Bet they didn't consider the backlash they might get from what that particular loophole happened to be.
 
Last edited:

J.S.F.

Red fish, blue fish...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
5,365
Reaction score
793
Location
Osaka
What a bunch of a-holes.

Morons. I hope the judge throws the book at them...and then drops a one-ton fine on their sorry asses. This is just...wrong.
 

Ken

Banned
Kind Benefactor
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
11,478
Reaction score
6,198
Location
AW. A very nice place!
A store founded by a Jewish person should really not be in the habit of discriminating against others, being no stranger to discrimination themselves:

Andrew Saks was an American businessman.

He was born to a German Jewish family, in Baltimore, Maryland, Saks became a peddlar and paper boy who moved to Washington, D.C. to establish a men's clothing store.[1] He established a successful clothing business in 1867, and opened a store in New York on 34th Street in 1902 as Saks & Company. Andrew Saks ran the New York store as a family affair with his brother Isadore, and his sons Horace and William. Saks married Jennie Rohr and had two sons Horace and William Andrew and daughter Leila Saks.[2]
 

J.S.F.

Red fish, blue fish...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
5,365
Reaction score
793
Location
Osaka
Ken, if memory serves, BATUS bought out Saks a number of years ago. I don't know if the new owner is Jewish or not, and I have no idea if the manager of the store down Texas way is Jewish or not. Bringing religion into this, while understandable, is not pertinent, not totally to the conversation. If the owners were Christian, would this make the situation more nauseating or less?
 

Ken

Banned
Kind Benefactor
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
11,478
Reaction score
6,198
Location
AW. A very nice place!
One outta two. Not bad. ("understandable, but not pertinent")
Also more indefensible, imo. Just an observation.
Not a value call, even though the suggestion of that is there if sought.
I'm really just focusing on one aspect of the scenario.

As to the scenario in totality, that's a given.
Just plain cruel and mean, no matter what the specifics, based on one common denominator. Humanity. Yes, folks. We are humans. Not animals. Plz make a note of that !
 

Diana Hignutt

Very Tired
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
13,314
Reaction score
7,098
Location
Albany, NY
I'm getting tired of being discriminated by people who have never met me. Very tired of it.
 

Cyia

Rewriting My Destiny
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
18,618
Reaction score
4,031
Location
Brillig in the slithy toves...
Texas is a "work at will" state. They could have simply laid her off without reason. Pretty much the only way to contest a firing / lay off around here is IF you're given a reason beyond "downsizing."

Saks misgenders Jamal throughout its filings, referring to her as “he” and “him.” Even worse, when Saks quotes Jamal’s own complaint, it adds a stinging “[sic]” after every reference to Jamal as female, as if to assert that Jamal’s identification as a woman is factually incorrect. Saks, then, not only appears to condone discrimination against trans people; it also seems to refuse to accept the validity of a trans identity at all.

Maybe, based on this, someone could toss the case due to misfiling. If every mention of the woman is misgendered, that's a pretty big error for a legal filing.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,083
Reaction score
10,780
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
This case just has my mind completely and thoroughly boggled. I mean, why not just a) lie or b) cover up? Why go for the "oh, we can discriminate, it's legal" angle? I even have this little fantasy going where Saks is doing this on purpose, as a political move to get anti-discrimination laws passed.

Probably. Or to drum up "outrage" on their behalf from the peanut gallery. Or to play into someone's political agenda.

It's completely revolting.
 

Usher

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2015
Messages
932
Reaction score
107
Location
Scotland
I will never understand why a business places petty obstacles in the way of employing the best person for the job. Surely that shoots everyone in the foot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.