Thoughts, Comments on this American Eagle Outfitters ruling??

[milehiheels]

Please refer to below link for the article:

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2010/05/12/2010-05-12_transgenders_win_discriminmation_tiff_with_american_eagle_outfitters_.html

I know this not exactly hh related, but in a way it is. Choosing to wear what you want and appear how you want. Not my life style choice, but have no issues for those who do. However, I was wandering on your comments from a more enlightened group. Of course the comments on that page for the most part are par for the course, to be expected, etc. If this is posted elswhere on hhp, my apologies.

Thanks,

MHH

[Dr. Shoe]

The big problemis that a potential employer does not have to give a reason for your lack of success in getting the job...

[scrappycoco]

Ok so I read the article and some of the narrow minded comment's really ticked me off. So much that I had to leave a comment! Here is what I had to say! Ok I think I'm going to sound like a real prick, but I have to speak my mind on this!I work in the medical field and I see a lot of sick and mentally ill patient's every day! Just cause a guy likes to wear a skirt does not make him mentally I'll! That make's him diffrent. I work in a field where men and women have to wear the same uniform and look the same! I do feel that a bizz should be aloud to say what people should wear and what they shouldn't to an extent based on the type of bizz! But if someone is transsexual and present's as the opp. sex why should it matter? Why should they have to live there life's in shame and hiding cause of a few narrow minded people. I am a guy and I wear a skirt when I do so I look like a guy in a skirt! Just like when a women wear's pant's she look's like a women wearing pant's. Last time I checked clothing does NOT keep people from doing a job! Just my thoughts! What do you folks think did I hit the nail on the head so to speak?

[ShockQueen]

I applaud American Eagle Outfitters on their change. I have a feeling that the TG people, if they wish to dress feminine will be able to do so according to company guidelines - if it fits bio females, it fits TG people too. Clothing does not mean one cannot do a job, so anyone who says otherwise is (as has been said on here before) so narrow-minded that they can see through the keyhole with BOTH eyes. I appear as I do at my job, and no one gives me a second look. Why? Because I DO MY JOB WELL. :-) Just my $.02 plus tax.

[kneehighs]

All I can say is New York's laws on both a state and city level are like fine wine for the freestyler. Reminds me of a past post I wrote about on New York City's excellent gender expression laws.

[Bubba136]

The big problemis that a potential employer does not have to give a reason for your lack of success in getting the job...

Dr. Shoe is correct. But now that the "new" policy has been stated, it will be difficult to convince any transgendered person that the reason they weren't hired was based on other factors, such as qualifications, etc., and wassn't in any way related to their sexual identity.

It's analogous to hiring an employee of a majority race and not hiring another applicant belonging to a minority race. There isn't any way you will ever convince the applicant that your decision was based strictly on non-racial factors. It's a "no-win" situation that will eventually have to be sorted out in court. It's that "touchy."

[Dr. Shoe]

Actually here in the UK most employers state on the application that "No correspondence will be entered into" in other words they will not give a reason. When you think about it it is unfair to employ someone because they're TG when someone else has better qualifications.

I don't think it will make any difference at all.

You could test it though by sending 2 different applications, one that shows your TG status and one that makes you look "ordinary" and see which application gets you an interview.

[pussyinboots]

Actually here in the UK most employers state on the application that "No correspondence will be entered into" in other words they will not give a reason. When you think about it it is unfair to employ someone because they're TG when someone else has better qualifications.

I don't think it will make any difference at all.

You could test it though by sending 2 different applications, one that shows your TG status and one that makes you look "ordinary" and see which application gets you an interview.

Assuming that both of your applications would be considered for the shortlist in the first place of course. Remember, there may well be others more qualified than you, which might eliminate both your submissions. Then the experiment is up the creek, as you would receive no feedback at all - especially if there is a 'no correspondence will be entered into' caveat applied to the application process.

[William]

I'm not sure about this. American Outfitters has a certain image to convey. I think they have a right to choose an employee that fits their image. That's not to say that if a male employee shows up at a Christmas party in thigh high boots and a long pvc trench coat that he should be fired. But, at work, expecting a certain level of conformity and deemed "appropriateness" is okay with me. I would guess that this viewpoint might trample on the notion of workers' right, but what about employer rights? Shouldn't a company be allowed to set standards of their own choosing? Hey, if you work at McD's, your going to have to wear the outfit...

[Bubba136]

.... I would guess that this viewpoint might trample on the notion of workers' right, but what about employer rights? Shouldn't a company be allowed to set standards of their own choosing? Hey, if you work at McD's, your going to have to wear the outfit...

Employers do have rights and dress codes for safety and/or image are amongst them. Also, morality issues are also included -- to a point.

[johnieheel]

I work in a place where safety footwear is mandintory, but If I walk into work wearing heels , walk through the lunch room to the locker room and someone makes a dirocitive comment or "fun of", they will be suspended and possibly fired. We have a very strict NO GENDER or discrimination rule. As it should be anywhere.

[Puffer]

Two comments on the posts above: 1. Although a prospective employer may, understandably, refuse to give any reasons for rejection of an unsuccessful candidate, it is all to easy nowadays for someone with a perceived grievance to require the reasons to be revealed in legal proceedings. It only takes one element of being somehow 'different' to pave the way for a discrimination claim, however unsuccessful it might ultimately be. It seems almost impossible now for an employer to reject someone because it is genuinely thought that he or she will not 'fit in' (e.g. for reasons of appearance, sexuality, beliefs etc) even though nominally qualified for the work. Why should we have to go out of our way to accommodate those with whom we cannot identify and might feel uncomfortable? 2. What has happened to our sense of humour? If it is also now almost impossible to make any personal remark, joking or otherwise, about a fellow worker, we have come to a sad situation in the world. There is a difference between positive discrimination or intentional antagonism and friendly banter. And I am sure that most receipients of such comments take it in good part and most of the mischief is prompted or initiated by those who merely overhear or witness the 'insulting' remark or action and feel obliged to blow a whistle, primarily for reasons of self-importance rather than because they are themselves truly offended. Ronnie Barker (the late and much-loved British comedy actor) was right when he stated that the only group about whom it was still safe to make personal comments was that of the country bumpkin (aka yokel, hillbilly, etc). This was simply because they had no effective representation and, in any event, no-one would admit to being one! Is it so naiive to think that 'human rights' should be a two-way concept?

[Bubba136]

The issue about American Eagle Outfitters was talked about on Fox News yesterday. Two of the (female) legal analysts that regularly appear on Bill O'Reilly's "The Factor" discussed the legalities of this discrimination question. And, the result was that both agreed that businesses in New York City could not refuse to hire a person based upon their choice of dress.

[roniheels]

Let's say a man went in for an interview for an office position. At the interview he was wearing a suit, tie, and wing-tip oxfords. His qualifications are the best and he is hired. His first official day on the job he walks into the office wearing a brightly colored feminine blouse, skirt, nylons, and high heels. He tells everyone in the office, including the man that hired him, that he is more comfortable wearing outfits like this and he sees nothing in the company dress code against this attire on a man. He might have to put up with some "hassle," but there is no way they can terminate him for the way he is dressed.

[pussyinboots]

Let's say a man went in for an interview for an office position. At the interview he was wearing a suit, tie, and wing-tip oxfords. His qualifications are the best and he is hired. His first official day on the job he walks into the office wearing a brightly colored feminine blouse, skirt, nylons, and high heels. He tells everyone in the office, including the man that hired him, that he is more comfortable wearing outfits like this and he sees nothing in the company dress code against this attire on a man. He might have to put up with some "hassle," but there is no way they can terminate him for the way he is dressed.

Correct.

However, they COULD try to dismiss him on the grounds that he witheld vital information pertinent to his position, at the time of the interview. Most prospective employers are obliged ask the candidate these questions:

"Is there anything else that you feel we should know with regard to considering you for this job?"

"Is there anything we should be made aware of, that may affect your abilty to carry out this job?"

In the case of the second question, the reactions of other staff members, and the reactions of company clients, MAY affect his ability to perfom the job properly.

However, the Company SHOULD have a non-discrimination policy in any case!

[Guest]

In many cases and I'm sure all application forms ask for gender!

I think I have seen one recently (local gov) that did have a third box?

However this has got into full cross gender issues, should it be related to "full" or more for man in heels.

Al

[HappyinHeels]

Being more a liberty-loving Libertarian I wouldn't normally point to uber-regulated NYC as a beacon for how people should live or be governed but I believe that New York has it exactly right on this issue. Whether a country goes left or right at election time isn't as important as the nation that includes as many individuals as possible under fair and reasonable labor laws and forging a republic that values respect for individual differences as much as it does the rule of law. Isn't AEO trying to sell to as many different sections of society as possible?? The more people see that AEO is trying to reflect the ever-changing face of America the more varied their clientele will become. If people are happy at work this be evident in the positive image they will project of the company. I congratulate New York for doing the right and would wish the same elsewhere:smile: HappyinHeels

[Bubba136]

Like most everything else associated with this forum, there are a lot of discussions that border upon the "wouldn't be nice if' scenarios. There are discussions about society accepting men wearing heels and other items of feminine apparel. There are discussions about convincing wives, girlfriends, and woman in genera, to accept and "approve" of (or, at least not mind) men wearing these things both at home and in public. There is, also -- like in this thread -- discussions about the legalities and society's responsibilities in treating and dealing with people that are visually and mentally gender non-specific....or, visually and mentally "gender-blended," as the case may be. Although those of us that have been wearing our chosen footwear and/or clothing and circulating throughout the community for years, are fairly secure within our own minds and comfortable with ourselves as we appear in public, we are still acutely aware that there are people in our own communities and in societies all over the world that will never accept anyone or anything outside of the established constraints as to what is "normal, proper and acceptable," etc., regardless of how much pressure to modify these standards is applied. While members of the word's liberal community are doing their best to erase barriers and ease standards through legal covenants to prevent discrimination, "people that do not wish to conform to society's established and accepted criteria -- the status quo, so to speak -- there really isn't any legal action that can be implemented that would be 100% effective. For as good meaning as all of these laws, rules, policies, etc. are, nothing will ever change unless the hearts and minds are changed and people clearly see that no harm is being done or foul is being committed by allowing people to dress in the manner the makes them the most comfortable. As long as there are people that dislike the gender blending aspect of modern society, they will find ways around whatever permissions are set forth. And, as long as there are businesses own and managed by individuals, great care must be taken to not infringe upon their individual liberties and right to manage and operate their business as they see proper.

[HappyFeat]

I find this entire discussion fascinating. Discrimination is a funny thing and can be very difficult to prove. It is common practice to not hire somebody or fire them for that matter and give grounds that are totally unrelated to anything discriminatory. Also, if you don't have the money to hire an attorney, you have no rights - at least in the United States, so the merits of the case and the shoulds and oughts are simply academic. In my opinion, American Eagle is an overrated, overpriced low end brand. In fact, this policy surprises me not because they are based in my hometown - Pittsburgh, which I have found to be one of the more close minded places that I have ever been. Ironically, the person who checked me out at Wal-Mart the other day was a fairly obvious M2F transsexual. Its bad when your company lags behind Wal-Mart in progressive hiring practices. Also, I was waited on at JCrew by a guy wearing Capri pants, flip-flops and red toes. That being said, I have been offered jobs at retail stores while I have been heeling. In fact, Nine West, Lane Bryant, Aldo (2 different stores) the managers each told me that I could work there and dress however I wanted. Now, I am not a transgendered person, but as a guy wearing heels, there are instances when some people are accepting. Even in the intellectual and cultural backwaters, far from NYC.