Minn. Court of Appeals Sends Trans Discrimination Case Back to District Court

AberroCreative on pixabay

On Monday the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed that discrimination against transgender people is against the law. It then sent Cooper vs. USA Powerlifting back to the district court so it could clarify why transgender woman JayCee Cooper was not allowed to compete.

"USA Powerlifting did not exclude JayCee Cooper because of her gender identity," the organization's lead attorney Ansis V. Viksnins told Fox News Digital in a statement. "USA Powerlifting excluded her from competing in the women’s division because of her physiology: she enjoys strength advantages over other women because she went through puberty as a man."

The APA defines a transgender person as: "Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth. Gender identity refers to a person’s internal sense of being male, female or something else; gender expression refers to the way a person communicates gender identity to others through behavior, clothing, hairstyles, voice or body characteristics."

The above video is from Feb 3, 2021 before USA Powerlifting appealed the district court ruling.

Gender Justice, the orgainization that represents JayCee Cooper said in a statement, "Today the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed that discrimination against athletes based on gender identity violates the Minnesota Human Rights Act, but sent the case of a transgender woman who was denied entry into USA Powerlifting (USAPL) competitions back to a district court to determine whether USAPL rejected her because she is transgender."

“The Court of Appeals affirmed that it is illegal to discriminate against transgender people in sports, but sent the case back down for trial to determine whether that is what happened here,” said Jess Braverman, legal director for Gender Justice. “We believe that it is crystal clear that JayCee Cooper experienced exactly this kind of discrimination, and we are confident that the courts will ultimately agree.

“We remain committed to vindicating Ms. Cooper’s rights and advocating for a future where everyone, regardless of gender identity, has equal access to a full range of opportunities in sports and every life pursuit. Our fight continues for fairness, equality, and the basic human rights of transgender people in Minnesota and beyond.”

Attorneys on the case are Jess Braverman, Christy Hall, and Sara Jane Baldwin of Gender Justice, David Schlesinger and Riley Palmer of Nichols Kaster, and Matt Frank of Premo Frank.

The Denver Wrangler threatens a drag queen with a lawsuit after denying him entrance

The Denver Wrangler has threatened Vito John Marzano with a lawsuit should he not remove all copies of the video of there staff harassing him on public property (the sidewalk) after they denied him entrance to the bar.  The video makes it very clear the Wrangler staff  bared him because of his gender expression telling him his feet were to big for him to be transgender.. It is unclear if the Denver Wrangler will likewise threaten  media sources but it would be safe to assume they will, given their history of intimidatory behaviour.

This is just the last of many attempts by the Denver Wrangler to coerce Marzano into removing all evidence of the occurrences on that August night.

The Denver Wrangler has also tried to intimidate myself and Cristan Williams who cross posted the original planetransgender article on the TransAdvocate. They have tried unsuccessfully to have blogger shut down planetransgender but they did succeed in getting facebook to censor the original article. Facebook sent me a message that the original article contained 'contaminated' links. I have published and posted most of the 2000 odd planetransgender articles on facebook, and that one, just that one post has a infected link? Not according to Norton safe site.

If the Denver Wrangler didn't discriminate against Vito John Marzano why are they so focused on removing the video evidence prior to the DORA hearing. If the Denver Wrangler is blameless as they claim, why are the so intent scouring the Internet clean of all evidence of that incident prior to the Civil rights hearing?

Wouldn't it be to there benefit if they were publicly exonerated by Colorado Civil Rights Division? Or is it that they know they are in the wrong and are attempting to get rid of the evidence?

The letter sent by a lawyer retained by the Denver Wrangler to Vito John Marzano:

"This is a clear intimidation tactic. The lawyer and I both know that I have not said anything which has not been backed up with screen shots or video. About the video, I encourage everyone to mute the sound (as to not get distracted) and look closely at the video. You will see that I am standing in front of the metal barricade, which ends right where the sidewalk begins. The video was filmed on a public sidewalk. Furthermore, my phone was up the entire time. It was quite obvious I was filming. Being as we were on a public sidewalk holding my phone up and saying things like "I cannot wait to post this on the internet" I can safely conclude there was no presumption of privacy. Moving on, if the Wrangler is so comfortable in their position, why are they trying to destroy the evidence?

There is a simple answer to all this- change your ID policy. Stop the discrimination. Treat all of your patrons equally and with dignity. Once that happens, I will gladly dismantle the website, video, and boycott. Until then, I have not done anything illegal and this will continue.

The video of the Wrangler staff denying Marzano access to public accommodations:

Source Denver post.com: Pete Meersman, president and CEO of the Colorado Restaurant Association, said he understands the liquor-license side of the law better than the discrimination laws but sees the conflict that businesses face.

"This was a new situation that I had not heard of before," Meersman said. "The ultimate dilemma is doing one thing to stay in compliance with the law that gets you out of compliance with another

Vito Marzano's driver's license ( | )

law."

Management at the Wrangler could not be reached for comment, but a video of the altercation posted by Marzano to YouTube — which has since been taken down — outlines the bar staff's reasoning: Gender identity must match a person's ID gender.

"The problem here is the application of a blanket rule that discriminates against a particular class of people based on their gender nonconformity," said Mari Newman, a Denver-based civil-rights attorney. "While I acknowledge the bar's legitimate interest in not running afoul of liquor licensing, this, by its term, is not a legal way to accomplish that goal."

Checking IDs is not required by law but is the only way bars and restaurants have to verify a customer's age. Subsequently, there is no standardized method for comparing a person's ID with their physical appearance — those policies are determined and set by the business owners.

The statement attached to Mr. Marzano's  DORA complaint

Update: Mia Macy The Trans Woman Who Won The Right To Fight Discrimination Under Title VII

With all of the despairing over the lack of movement of ENDA and a perception that without it trans people are powerless to fight workplace discrimination, just a reminder (to myself as well) we are protected.

Prior to transitioning Mia Macy, a veteran police officer, applied with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Agency in December 2010. She was told the job was hers pending a background check but when she contacted them again to inform them of her transition they first told her the job had been eliminated due to budget cuts. Unsatisfied with that response she pursued it again and they told her the job had already been taken.

On June 13, 2011 Ms. Macy filed a complaint with the EEOC.

In her complaint, Macy checked the box for "sex" as the basis of her discrimination claim. In addition, Macy typed onto her complaint form that "gender identity" and "sex stereotyping" also formed the basis of her complaint against the Agency. Macy further explained in her complaint that she had been discriminated against on the basis of her "sex, gender identity (transgender woman) and on the basis of sex stereotyping."



The EEOC sent her a number of replies indicating they would not process her complaint regarding gender identity stereotyping so Mia Appealed.

In a long and drawn out battle Mia finally won the right for transgender people to be included under Title VII because the EEOC ruled on appeal that the"...term “gender” encompasses not only a person’s biological sex but also the cultural and social aspects associated with masculinity and femininity.

Mia Macy,
Complainant,

v.

Eric Holder,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice,
(Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120120821

Agency No. ATF-2011-00751

DECISION

On December 9, 2011, Complainant filed an appeal concerning her equal
employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII),
as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. For the following reasons, the
Commission finds that the Complainant’s complaint of discrimination
based on gender identity, change of sex, and/or transgender status is
cognizable under Title VII and remands the complaint to the Agency for
further processing.

Further reading:

Cal employment blog

EEOC decision

Mia Macy Facebook


Find more music like this on Swirl Radio

Mia Macy is a veteran, police detective, loving wife and radio and television personality - she became an accidental activist with ground breaking Macy V. Holder case
catch her each Saturday night on Swirl Radio .

Texas District Judge Rules Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

District Judge Tena Callahan's ruling was immediately challenged by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott who maintains that Texas laws prohibiting same sex unions and marriages also deny same gender couples from dissolving these legal unions in Texas.

Judge Callahan believes that becuse federal law was written to protect all Americans it should pertain equally to all.

According to the the Dallas Morning News 'He [Judge Callahan] cited wording in the state Family Code that "the law of this state applies to persons married elsewhere who are domiciled in this state. And he noted that "Black's Law Dictionary defines a person as a 'human being.' "

on the web

Wall Street Journal Law Blog .Dallas Judge Shoots Down Texas’ Ban on Gay Marriage

AP Story Dallas judge clears way for gay divorce

by kelli Busey planetransgender