Go Figure! Get a Sex Change Operation and Get FIRED!

[ThankYouForNotSmoking]

A person's personal life is their own business, plain and simple, but when you sign a contract, it's binding:

Stanton can appeal the decision, though his contract says he can be fired without cause at any time.

I can sympathize with what he's going through, even disagree with the way he's being treated, but if he didn't agree with the terms of the contract, he shouldn't have signed it. You can't ignore the terms of a legal contract just because you don't like it anymore.

Regards - B.B.S.

bingo

Fair enough, but remember, if an at-will employee (can be fired at any time for any reason or NO reason) is fired, the employer must still not violate any state or government discrimination laws. Depending on the state AND MUNICIPALITY, there might be employement laws that protect based on sexual orientation and gender identity. There is a contract here, which usually speaks AGAINST being at-will, but the above language speaks to at-will status (you serve at the will of the employer).

I haven't looked into it deep enough to know if this is the case, nor what the exact claim is.

Boy, did they ever fire him in the wrong city:

"Transgender city employees in Wilton Manors, FL, and Largo, FL, have anti-discrimination protections due to city policies."

Source

 

[CasaSoho]

I almost always take that viewpoint, but there are circumstances where I won't and from just what CNN said (which they could be completely misrepresenting it - like they did with that NJ governor who came out of the closet and they tried to make it look like he was forced to resign because he said he was gay) this is one of those circumstances. There is a huge parallel to the race card here - what if you hired an Arab person, highly qualified, who, to your surprised, made the rest of your co-workers uncomfortable because he was Arab. Could you fire him with a clear conscious?

What if (god forbid) Hillary Clinton is elected President and people stop paying taxes because she's a woman (unlikely, I know), and they don't trust a woman to run the country? Should she be impeached?

IMHO, there is no parallel at all. He was born a man, is a man, and will always be a man no matter how badly he decides to mutilate his body. However, we probably shouldn't follow that road. I will add that he had already started on hormone therapy and originally intended to "come out" in June. He has made the claim that someone was set to "out him" to the media and in response he called an immediate news conference. I don't know the timing of his contract renewal as it related to his planned announcement. It does look like there is a possibility he was going to announce this while his signature was still wet on a new contract with Largo. His wife is reportedly "devastated".

Not necessarily. There is an academic and research consensus that transgendered people do not chose to be transgendered like I chose to eat roast beef over turkey at lunch. He may have been supressing it for a long time, but that never made him any less transgendered.

His decision to have a wife (and possibly kids, I don't know) is regrettable, however, it wouldn't be the first time someone took on a "beard" to appear more normal.

Could the same argument be made for pedophiles?

The way I understand it, not knowing a lot about or having a particular interest in genetics is: you are either XX or XY; end of story. At least as far as humans are concerned.

His decision to have a child (which he does) is far beyond regrettable.

 

[smokelaw1]

A person's personal life is their own business, plain and simple, but when you sign a contract, it's binding:

Stanton can appeal the decision, though his contract says he can be fired without cause at any time.

I can sympathize with what he's going through, even disagree with the way he's being treated, but if he didn't agree with the terms of the contract, he shouldn't have signed it. You can't ignore the terms of a legal contract just because you don't like it anymore.

Regards - B.B.S.

bingo

Fair enough, but remember, if an at-will employee (can be fired at any time for any reason or NO reason) is fired, the employer must still not violate any state or government discrimination laws. Depending on the state AND MUNICIPALITY, there might be employement laws that protect based on sexual orientation and gender identity. There is a contract here, which usually speaks AGAINST being at-will, but the above language speaks to at-will status (you serve at the will of the employer).

I haven't looked into it deep enough to know if this is the case, nor what the exact claim is.

Boy, did they ever fire him in the wrong city:

"Transgender city employees in Wilton Manors, FL, and Largo, FL, have anti-discrimination protections due to city policies."

Source

Interesting. Obviously, there is still the reason beyond the discharge that those pushing for his removal may rely on, but he has some help in that law, it would seem.

 

[smokelaw1]

Could the same argument be made for pedophiles?

The argument can be made, but I believe it is a poor one.

 

[CasaSoho]

Could the same argument be made for pedophiles?

The argument can be made, but I believe it is a poor one.

Agreed.

 

[ThankYouForNotSmoking]

I almost always take that viewpoint, but there are circumstances where I won't and from just what CNN said (which they could be completely misrepresenting it - like they did with that NJ governor who came out of the closet and they tried to make it look like he was forced to resign because he said he was gay) this is one of those circumstances. There is a huge parallel to the race card here - what if you hired an Arab person, highly qualified, who, to your surprised, made the rest of your co-workers uncomfortable because he was Arab. Could you fire him with a clear conscious?

What if (god forbid) Hillary Clinton is elected President and people stop paying taxes because she's a woman (unlikely, I know), and they don't trust a woman to run the country? Should she be impeached?

IMHO, there is no parallel at all. He was born a man, is a man, and will always be a man no matter how badly he decides to mutilate his body. However, we probably shouldn't follow that road. I will add that he had already started on hormone therapy and originally intended to "come out" in June. He has made the claim that someone was set to "out him" to the media and in response he called an immediate news conference. I don't know the timing of his contract renewal as it related to his planned announcement. It does look like there is a possibility he was going to announce this while his signature was still wet on a new contract with Largo. His wife is reportedly "devastated".

Not necessarily. There is an academic and research consensus that transgendered people do not chose to be transgendered like I chose to eat roast beef over turkey at lunch. He may have been supressing it for a long time, but that never made him any less transgendered.

His decision to have a wife (and possibly kids, I don't know) is regrettable, however, it wouldn't be the first time someone took on a "beard" to appear more normal.

Could the same argument be made for pedophiles?

The way I understand it, not knowing a lot about or having a particular interest in genetics is: you are either XX or XY; end of story. At least as far as humans are concerned.

His decision to have a child (which he does) is far beyond regrettable.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no consensus saying that pedophiles either chose or chose not to be pedophiles. There's probably not a whole lot of open research done on the topic. Besides, to the best of my knowledge, we prosecute pedophiles not for being pedophiles, but for the sexual assault on children; the City Manager here is being fired for being a transgendered individual.

As for the genetics thing, yes, most people have either XX or XY, most. There is a lot of variation, and even outside pure genotypic variation, phenotypic expression is again varied due to exposure to all sorts of things in vivo. It's not as clear cut as we would like to think.

And I agree, his decision to have a child is far beyond regrettable. I hope, hope, that he was severely confused when he married and had a child and was trying to convince himself he wasn't transgendered, an ultimately losing battle. Either way, I'm sure he doesn't love his child any less now than he ever did.

 

[MiamiCubano]

I don't know much of this story and, in fact, this was the first time I even read (or heard) about it. So, I won't pretend like I know the facts of this event.

But, as for having "legal" reasons to fire someone, Florida is an at-will state. You can fire someone for ANY reason, good, bad or indifferent here. There really has to be no "legal" reasons behind it, as, most of the time, any reason is sufficient. I'm sure the councilman's situation is no different, though I don't know the terms of his contract. Are there "supremacy clause" issues that might come into play to overturn such a firing? Possibly, but I don't think this gentlemen has yet to reach that point.

Secondly, I think there is something to be noted in the fact that the report indicates he only revealed his "transexualism" approximately a week ago. Thus, I don't think it was something anyone really knew about beforehand and just accepted. Maybe "everyone" knew about it, but I somehow sense that was not the case. Also, without knowing the facts of the case, anything could be possible, especially in this era of secondary gain motivated people. Why did he choose to reveal this now? Was there something else going on behind-the-scenes (contract issues, election issues, relationship issues with the full council and/or mayor, etc.)? Maybe not, but without knowing much about this, it is just as likely there's a sinister motivation as there is one that's just a "I gotta be me" motivation.

Also, it can't be dismissed that this man is an elected official. What about the platforms he ran on, principles he stood for, and, more importantly, the representations he made to his constituents? To reveal now, "oh, by the way..." can be understandably troubling to some.

The spokesperson or whatever that said the things she said about his intergity is a moron, to be sure. But, there are some bigger issues here. When your elected officials suddenly want to become Wendy instead of Walter (i.e., reference made to Walter Carlos - Clockwork Orange composer - who became, and is now, Wendy Carlos), there might need to be some serious considerations about how that might impact their leadership abilities, viewpoints, and reliability/representations to the constituency. Setting aside for a moment the psychological issues involved, there are also health issues that could seriously impact anyone going through it (i.e., the surgery, the hormone issues, adjusting afterwards, etc.), especially more important to consider when that person is in a position of the legislature.

 

[ThankYouForNotSmoking]

A person's personal life is their own business, plain and simple, but when you sign a contract, it's binding:

Stanton can appeal the decision, though his contract says he can be fired without cause at any time.

I can sympathize with what he's going through, even disagree with the way he's being treated, but if he didn't agree with the terms of the contract, he shouldn't have signed it. You can't ignore the terms of a legal contract just because you don't like it anymore.

Regards - B.B.S.

bingo

Fair enough, but remember, if an at-will employee (can be fired at any time for any reason or NO reason) is fired, the employer must still not violate any state or government discrimination laws. Depending on the state AND MUNICIPALITY, there might be employement laws that protect based on sexual orientation and gender identity. There is a contract here, which usually speaks AGAINST being at-will, but the above language speaks to at-will status (you serve at the will of the employer).

I haven't looked into it deep enough to know if this is the case, nor what the exact claim is.

Boy, did they ever fire him in the wrong city:

"Transgender city employees in Wilton Manors, FL, and Largo, FL, have anti-discrimination protections due to city policies."

Source

Interesting. Obviously, there is still the reason beyond the discharge that those pushing for his removal may rely on, but he has some help in that law, it would seem.

I think the public statements of the Council Commissioner are going to be the nail in that guy's coffin as well as the legs for Stanton's lawsuit. They can't back track now and say it was for other reasons after making it publicly clear that it was for the transgendered reason. If the Commissioner had a head on top of his neck, he would have given no reason for firing the Manager in question.

 

[smokelaw1]

But, as for having "legal" reasons to fire someone, Florida is an at-will state. You can fire someone for ANY reason, good, bad or indifferent here. There really has to be no "legal" reasons behind it, as, most of the time, any reason is sufficient. I'm sure the councilman's situation is no different, though I don't know the terms of his contract. Are there "supremacy clause" issues that might come into play to overturn such a firing? Possibly, but I don't think this gentlemen has yet to reach that point.

An at-will employer (the default in most states) still can not fire someone who is in a protected class. I'm an at will employee, but if my boss said "OK, no more Jews...you....get out," I would likely have a decent case.
It seems as if there is a statute protecting transgendered individuals. Again, there are issues surroiunding the "actual" cause to rebut the seeminlgy discrimanatory nature of this act, as well as the fact that he is an elected official. I do not know how either of these impact the case. My Sister in-law's brother is admitted in FL (I'm CT only), I'll get his opinion.

 

[MiamiCubano]

A person's personal life is their own business, plain and simple, but when you sign a contract, it's binding:

Stanton can appeal the decision, though his contract says he can be fired without cause at any time.

I can sympathize with what he's going through, even disagree with the way he's being treated, but if he didn't agree with the terms of the contract, he shouldn't have signed it. You can't ignore the terms of a legal contract just because you don't like it anymore.

Regards - B.B.S.

bingo

Fair enough, but remember, if an at-will employee (can be fired at any time for any reason or NO reason) is fired, the employer must still not violate any state or government discrimination laws. Depending on the state AND MUNICIPALITY, there might be employement laws that protect based on sexual orientation and gender identity. There is a contract here, which usually speaks AGAINST being at-will, but the above language speaks to at-will status (you serve at the will of the employer).

I haven't looked into it deep enough to know if this is the case, nor what the exact claim is.

Boy, did they ever fire him in the wrong city:

"Transgender city employees in Wilton Manors, FL, and Largo, FL, have anti-discrimination protections due to city policies."

Source

Interesting. Obviously, there is still the reason beyond the discharge that those pushing for his removal may rely on, but he has some help in that law, it would seem.

Not that I am anywhere near an expert on this issue, but I believe there may be a difference between "transgendered" vs. "transexual." Depending on the variations (if any) between the two terms, this may or may not work to his advantage in seeking protection (i.e., he might not yet be one of the two terms without the surgery).

 

[MiamiCubano]

But, as for having "legal" reasons to fire someone, Florida is an at-will state. You can fire someone for ANY reason, good, bad or indifferent here. There really has to be no "legal" reasons behind it, as, most of the time, any reason is sufficient. I'm sure the councilman's situation is no different, though I don't know the terms of his contract. Are there "supremacy clause" issues that might come into play to overturn such a firing? Possibly, but I don't think this gentlemen has yet to reach that point.

An at-will employer (the default in most states) still can not fire someone who is in a protected class. I'm an at will employee, but if my boss said "OK, no more Jews...you....get out," I would likely have a decent case.
It seems as if there is a statute protecting transgendered individuals. Again, there are issues surroiunding the "actual" cause to rebut the seeminlgy discrimanatory nature of this act, as well as the fact that he is an elected official. I do not know how either of these impact the case. My Sister in-law's brother is admitted in FL (I'm CT only), I'll get his opinion.

Hence my reference to the fact that there are "supremacy clause" issues (unless there are lower, state/local rules which protect him) which would help him out. I just don't know if he is truly in a protected class, nor if he qualifies as a "transgendered" individual. I am admitted in FL, as well as five other states, still, I don't know the full story here and any opining on this issue is pure conjecture at this point.

 

[ThankYouForNotSmoking]

I don't know much of this story and, in fact, this was the first time I even read (or heard) about it. So, I won't pretend like I know the facts of this event.

But, as for having "legal" reasons to fire someone, Florida is an at-will state. You can fire someone for ANY reason, good, bad or indifferent here. There really has to be no "legal" reasons behind it, as, most of the time, any reason is sufficient. I'm sure the councilman's situation is no different, though I don't know the terms of his contract. Are there "supremacy clause" issues that might come into play to overturn such a firing? Possibly, but I don't think this gentlemen has yet to reach that point.

Secondly, I think there is something to be noted in the fact that the report indicates he only revealed his "transexualism" approximately a week ago. Thus, I don't think it was something anyone really knew about beforehand and just accepted. Maybe "everyone" knew about it, but I somehow sense that was not the case. Also, without knowing the facts of the case, anything could be possible, especially in this era of secondary gain motivated people. Why did he choose to reveal this now? Was there something else going on behind-the-scenes (contract issues, election issues, relationship issues with the full council and/or mayor, etc.)? Maybe not, but without knowing much about this, it is just as likely there's a sinister motivation as there is one that's just a "I gotta be me" motivation.

Also, it can't be dismissed that this man is an elected official. What about the platforms he ran on, principles he stood for, and, more importantly, the representations he made to his constituents? To reveal now, "oh, by the way..." can be understandably troubling to some.

The spokesperson or whatever that said the things she said about his intergity is a moron, to be sure. But, there are some bigger issues here. When your elected officials suddenly want to become Wendy instead of Walter (i.e., reference made to Walter Carlos - Clockwork Orange composer - who became, and is now, Wendy Carlos), there might need to be some serious considerations about how that might impact their leadership abilities, viewpoints, and reliability/representations to the constituency. Setting aside for a moment the psychological issues involved, there are also health issues that could seriously impact anyone going through it (i.e., the surgery, the hormone issues, adjusting afterwards, etc.), especially more important to consider when that person is in a position of the legislature.

The City Manager seems to be contracted, not elected. Besides, I don't see how gender reassignment necessarily changes his position on any city policy. I agree that while he probably should have come out earlier, it's impossibly difficult for me to put myself in his shoes and say that he definitely should have come out earlier. He might have been struggling with the issue - that's an internal affair we can never know. And while I agree with you there may be some sinister motivation behind his timing of his announcement, I find it difficult to believe that someone would get a sex change to affect their professional life positively. While it's not completely impossible, I find it highly unlikely.

As for Florida being an at-will state, my understanding of at will contracts, is that you can fire someone for any reason or no reason, except those reasons which violate the law. It seems specifically in Largo, FL, it is illegal to fire a transgendered city employee for being transgendered, which is exactly what the City Commissioner made clear he was doing.

 

[smokelaw1]

A person's personal life is their own business, plain and simple, but when you sign a contract, it's binding:

Stanton can appeal the decision, though his contract says he can be fired without cause at any time.

I can sympathize with what he's going through, even disagree with the way he's being treated, but if he didn't agree with the terms of the contract, he shouldn't have signed it. You can't ignore the terms of a legal contract just because you don't like it anymore.

Regards - B.B.S.

bingo

Fair enough, but remember, if an at-will employee (can be fired at any time for any reason or NO reason) is fired, the employer must still not violate any state or government discrimination laws. Depending on the state AND MUNICIPALITY, there might be employement laws that protect based on sexual orientation and gender identity. There is a contract here, which usually speaks AGAINST being at-will, but the above language speaks to at-will status (you serve at the will of the employer).

I haven't looked into it deep enough to know if this is the case, nor what the exact claim is.

Boy, did they ever fire him in the wrong city:

"Transgender city employees in Wilton Manors, FL, and Largo, FL, have anti-discrimination protections due to city policies."

Source

Interesting. Obviously, there is still the reason beyond the discharge that those pushing for his removal may rely on, but he has some help in that law, it would seem.

Not that I am anywhere near an expert on this issue, but I believe there may be a difference between "transgendered" vs. "transexual." Depending on the variations (if any) between the two terms, this may or may not work to his advantage in seeking protection (i.e., he might not yet be one of the two terms without the surgery).

Absolutely, and I am in the same boat. I'm not an expert in the field either (I took ONE course my final semester in lawschool entitles Sexual Orientation and the Law" that touched on these subjects). I would be comfortable making the argument that the reason behind and spirit of the law was to protect a class of people born into the "wrong" body. I might lose, and it might have already been decided by the state's courts, or even specifically in the language of the statute, I'm just spouting thoughts.

 

[ThankYouForNotSmoking]

Also, transgendered people are people who believe that they are the wrong gender. He is transgendered. Transexual people are people who have changed their sex in their lifetime. So, a transexual person is always transgendered, whereas a transgendered person is not necessarily transexual.

A transexual person would be protected as would a transgendered person. I would say that the City Manager is definitely transgendered based on his claims and his seeking of hormone treatment (among other things).

 

[CasaSoho]

To the best of my knowledge, there is no consensus saying that pedophiles either chose or chose not to be pedophiles. There's probably not a whole lot of open research done on the topic. Besides, to the best of my knowledge, we prosecute pedophiles not for being pedophiles, but for the sexual assault on children; the City Manager here is being fired for being a transgendered individual.

My personal interest within this story is the right of the community to set there own standards. If this man is not a person the community sees fit to represent Largo, he should be let go. It is unlikely that any city policy referenced regarding this situation was set forth as a mandate of the people.

 

[smokelaw1]

Also, transgendered people are people who believe that they are the wrong gender. He is transgendered. Transexual people are people who have changed their sex in their lifetime. So, a transexual person is always transgendered, whereas a transgendered person is not necessarily transexual.

Thanks for the clarification.

I, for one, and amazed and pleased that our culture here seems to be one that is so matre that we are having this conversation without the snickering and macho-posturing that likely would have resulted if this topic was discussed elsewhere on the internet.
I hope that this story doesn't go away and we can follow it.

 

[ThankYouForNotSmoking]

To the best of my knowledge, there is no consensus saying that pedophiles either chose or chose not to be pedophiles. There's probably not a whole lot of open research done on the topic. Besides, to the best of my knowledge, we prosecute pedophiles not for being pedophiles, but for the sexual assault on children; the City Manager here is being fired for being a transgendered individual.

My personal interest within this story is the right of the community to set there own standards. If this man is not a person the community sees fit to represent Largo, he should be let go. It is unlikely that any city policy referenced regarding this situation was set forth as a mandate of the people.

I think it's very legitimate to call into question the motivation of the letting go. Of course the community has the right to set its own standards, and while sure it's not probably exactly true that a city policy always is a good representation of how people actually feel, that's how representative democracy works, and that's the system we have. What's for sure is that it's taken as law and functions as a mandate of the people.

 

[Mrepp]

Oh I don’t know, he’s an elected official isn’t he? Anytime an elected official causes a media circus there going to get the axe, especially when there contract it up soon. Besides since he is an elected official, chances are the counsel will hold a public vote to see if he should be reinstated. If they don’t reinstate him then he has nothing to sue about.

 

[CasaSoho]

To the best of my knowledge, there is no consensus saying that pedophiles either chose or chose not to be pedophiles. There's probably not a whole lot of open research done on the topic. Besides, to the best of my knowledge, we prosecute pedophiles not for being pedophiles, but for the sexual assault on children; the City Manager here is being fired for being a transgendered individual.

My personal interest within this story is the right of the community to set there own standards. If this man is not a person the community sees fit to represent Largo, he should be let go. It is unlikely that any city policy referenced regarding this situation was set forth as a mandate of the people.

I think it's very legitimate to call into question the motivation of the letting go. Of course the community has the right to set its own standards, and while sure it's not probably exactly true that a city policy always is a good representation of how people actually feel, that's how representative democracy works, and that's the system we have. What's for sure is that it's taken as law and functions as a mandate of the people.

We have discovered my problem with government! I'm off to watch the Redsox (ss) take on the Bluejays in Dunedin. I'll be sure to stop by Largo to get a grasp on their community standards. I'll report back later! :laugh:

 

[MiamiCubano]

To the best of my knowledge, there is no consensus saying that pedophiles either chose or chose not to be pedophiles. There's probably not a whole lot of open research done on the topic. Besides, to the best of my knowledge, we prosecute pedophiles not for being pedophiles, but for the sexual assault on children; the City Manager here is being fired for being a transgendered individual.

My personal interest within this story is the right of the community to set there own standards. If this man is not a person the community sees fit to represent Largo, he should be let go. It is unlikely that any city policy referenced regarding this situation was set forth as a mandate of the people.

Well said, and this touches on my point earlier about the interests and representations to his constituency. Sure, he may have a stellar 14 year track record, but after his epiphany and/or revelation, the situation has changed drastically, certainly in the minds of probably many of Largo. I did not know whether his position was purely hired or elected, but one would think there are still the interests of a community to bear in mind.

And ThankYouForNotSmoking, thanks for the clarification on transgendered v. transexual. It will be important how the statute defines it and if he truly falls into that class.