4 ms·

I don't know anything about the RMS incident -- but I work for a public university system in California, and last time I had the mandatory every-other-year sexu

I don't know anything about the RMS incident -- but I work for a public university system in California, and last time I had the mandatory every-other-year sexual harassment prevention training, it said it was un-lawful for me not to use a person's identified pronouns.

Hitton 7y ago
I guess that it could be seen as employer discriminating on employee on basis of sex or something which could make the company liable, but on personal level First Amendment still applies and there is no way you could be prosecuted for that.
- dekhn 7y ago
  https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/may/fired-for-refusing-to-use-a-students-preferred-pronoun-why-every-american-should-be-concerned https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/may/fired-for-refusing-... """We were referred to a statement released by the school's attorney, which says: "Mr. Vlaming insisted on treating a transgender student differently than other students in the classroom, singling out the student on the basis of gender identity. In addition, Mr. Vlaming refused to comply with administrators' directives to follow division policies. During the public hearing before the school board, Mr. Vlaming again stated that he would not comply with these directives. Accordingly, the school board voted unanimously to terminate his employment. """ The fired individual does not have the monetary resources to fight this in the courts.
- tingletech 7y ago
  When I am performing my duties as a supervisor employed by the state, what do my personal first amendment rights have to do with anything?
dekhn 7y ago
They're not being entirely honest with you. That's not what the law says. However, you are an at-will employee, and if they document that you make another employee uncomfortable for not respecting their preferred pronoun, you can be fired. It's not un-lawful however. If you asked them during the training for a specific law and a pointer to why they thought that it was un-lawful, you'd see pretty quickly they didn't actually have the force of law behind them. I've been through a lot of training both at UC and in industry and a bunch of what is said simply isn't true. WHen I challenged the instructors, it became pretty clear they were just reading a script without any understanding of the actual laws and rules behind what they were saying.
- tingletech 7y ago
  it is online training, and it does have lots of citations. I took it about 22 months ago. "The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has also addressed pronoun use with respect to transgender individuals in the workplace. In 2013, the EEOC held in Jameson v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120130992, 2013 WL 2368729 (May 21, 2013) that repeated, intentional misuse of a transgender employee’s new name and gender pronoun may constitute sex-based discrimination or harassment. It noted that “supervisors and coworkers should use the name and pronoun of the gender that the employee identifies with in employee records and in communications with and about the employee.” In its decision, the EEOC cited guidance from the Office of Personnel Management, which encourages federal employers to use pronouns appropriate to an employee’s expressed gender identity." -- https://www.natlawreview.com/article/he-saidshe-said-pronoun-use-and-evolving-landscape-transgender-rights-workplace https://www.natlawreview.com/article/he-saidshe-said-pronoun...
  - dekhn 7y ago
    that's definitely not enough to say that it's unlawful.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> and last time I had the mandatory every-other-year sexual harassment prevention training, it said it was un-lawful for me not to use a person's identified pronouns. The trainer probably wasn't a lawyer and certainly wasn't your lawyer and definitely wasn't being paid to give you legal advice. What they were telling you was what they expected you to internalize so that your behavior would keep your employer well on the safe side of the law, which includes avoiding behaviors which are not individually unlawful per se but which could easily, in combination with other factors, be part of a pattern that might support a claim of a hostile work environment.
- tingletech 7y ago
  on-line training. I'm pretty sure these are vetted by OGC. They usually do a good job of explaining all the new legislation and case law that have come up in the last two years. https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/insights/articles/prepared-californias-new-gender-identity-sexual-orientation-anti-harassment-training-requirement-sb-396 https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/insights/articles/prepar... https://ogletree.com/insights/2016-03-21/the-new-california-regulations-part-ii-the-transgender-workforce/ https://ogletree.com/insights/2016-03-21/the-new-california-...
soulofmischief 7y ago
In some places, people have been charged with hate speech crimes for this very thing. I am extremely opposed to this kind of authoritarian censorship masquerading as human decency. Why? Because of things like this: https://www.newsweek.com/gun-control-hate-crimes-house-bill-1458826 https://www.newsweek.com/gun-control-hate-crimes-house-bill-... People aren't seeing the forest for the trees, while one by one prerequisite precedents are being established for a new wave of authoritarian control. In any specific context, it seems laughable-- how could the RMS snafu and authoritarian power creep possibly be connected? But it's just one data point among many.

Hitton 7y ago

I guess that it could be seen as employer discriminating on employee on basis of sex or something which could make the company liable, but on personal level First Amendment still applies and there is no way you could be prosecuted for that.

dekhn 7y ago
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/may/fired-for-refusing-to-use-a-students-preferred-pronoun-why-every-american-should-be-concerned https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/may/fired-for-refusing-... """We were referred to a statement released by the school's attorney, which says: "Mr. Vlaming insisted on treating a transgender student differently than other students in the classroom, singling out the student on the basis of gender identity. In addition, Mr. Vlaming refused to comply with administrators' directives to follow division policies. During the public hearing before the school board, Mr. Vlaming again stated that he would not comply with these directives. Accordingly, the school board voted unanimously to terminate his employment. """ The fired individual does not have the monetary resources to fight this in the courts.
tingletech 7y ago
When I am performing my duties as a supervisor employed by the state, what do my personal first amendment rights have to do with anything?

dekhn 7y ago

They're not being entirely honest with you. That's not what the law says. However, you are an at-will employee, and if they document that you make another employee uncomfortable for not respecting their preferred pronoun, you can be fired. It's not un-lawful however. If you asked them during the training for a specific law and a pointer to why they thought that it was un-lawful, you'd see pretty quickly they didn't actually have the force of law behind them. I've been through a lot of training both at UC and in industry and a bunch of what is said simply isn't true. WHen I challenged the instructors, it became pretty clear they were just reading a script without any understanding of the actual laws and rules behind what they were saying.

tingletech 7y ago
it is online training, and it does have lots of citations. I took it about 22 months ago. "The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has also addressed pronoun use with respect to transgender individuals in the workplace. In 2013, the EEOC held in Jameson v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120130992, 2013 WL 2368729 (May 21, 2013) that repeated, intentional misuse of a transgender employee’s new name and gender pronoun may constitute sex-based discrimination or harassment. It noted that “supervisors and coworkers should use the name and pronoun of the gender that the employee identifies with in employee records and in communications with and about the employee.” In its decision, the EEOC cited guidance from the Office of Personnel Management, which encourages federal employers to use pronouns appropriate to an employee’s expressed gender identity." -- https://www.natlawreview.com/article/he-saidshe-said-pronoun-use-and-evolving-landscape-transgender-rights-workplace https://www.natlawreview.com/article/he-saidshe-said-pronoun...
- dekhn 7y ago
  that's definitely not enough to say that it's unlawful.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> and last time I had the mandatory every-other-year sexual harassment prevention training, it said it was un-lawful for me not to use a person's identified pronouns. The trainer probably wasn't a lawyer and certainly wasn't your lawyer and definitely wasn't being paid to give you legal advice. What they were telling you was what they expected you to internalize so that your behavior would keep your employer well on the safe side of the law, which includes avoiding behaviors which are not individually unlawful per se but which could easily, in combination with other factors, be part of a pattern that might support a claim of a hostile work environment.

tingletech 7y ago
on-line training. I'm pretty sure these are vetted by OGC. They usually do a good job of explaining all the new legislation and case law that have come up in the last two years. https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/insights/articles/prepared-californias-new-gender-identity-sexual-orientation-anti-harassment-training-requirement-sb-396 https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/insights/articles/prepar... https://ogletree.com/insights/2016-03-21/the-new-california-regulations-part-ii-the-transgender-workforce/ https://ogletree.com/insights/2016-03-21/the-new-california-...

soulofmischief 7y ago

In some places, people have been charged with hate speech crimes for this very thing. I am extremely opposed to this kind of authoritarian censorship masquerading as human decency. Why? Because of things like this: https://www.newsweek.com/gun-control-hate-crimes-house-bill-1458826 https://www.newsweek.com/gun-control-hate-crimes-house-bill-... People aren't seeing the forest for the trees, while one by one prerequisite precedents are being established for a new wave of authoritarian control. In any specific context, it seems laughable-- how could the RMS snafu and authoritarian power creep possibly be connected? But it's just one data point among many.