Saks  and  the  Right  to  Discriminate  

Discrimina3on  is  no  new  topic  in  either  the  job  market  or  in  public  rela3ons.  If  anything,  in  recent  years  the  3de  has  certainly  turned  against  businesses  that  ac3vely  discriminate  against  certain  recognized  groups.  While  that’s  not  to  say  it  doesn’t  happen,  as  Ronn  Torossian  reveals,  companies  tend  to  pay  a  higher  price  than  they  once  did.  

S3ll,  there  are  those  who  want  this  debate  to  con3nue.  They  argue  that  employers  have  every  right  to  choose  who  they  want  working  for  them.  Even  if  that  choice  is  apparently  discriminatory.  Others  cau3on  more  covert  selec3on  processes  that  allow  the  companies  to  maintain  their  personal  standards  while  also  appearing  to  meet  the  leFer  of  the  law.  

Both  of  these  posi3ons  are  currently  being  challenged  by  Saks  &  Co.  According  to  a  mo3on  filed  in  federal  court,  Saks  is  asking  for  a  discrimina3on  lawsuit  filed  by  an  ex-­‐employee  to  be  dismissed,  “because  transsexuals  are  not  protected  under  Title  VII,”  a  sec3on  of  the  1964  Civil  Rights  Act  that  bans  employment  discrimina3on  based  on  race,  religion  or  gender.  

According  to  the  ex-­‐employee,  she  was  asked  to  behave  in  a  “more  masculine  way”  while  at  work,  and  was  ul3mately  terminated  because  she  “spoke  up  in  a  hos3le  work  environment.”  At  ques3on  in  the  case,  though,  is  Saks’  own  employee  handbook,  which  claims  not  to  discriminate  based  on  gender  iden3ty.  Saks  counters  that  handbooks  do  not  cons3tute  legal  contracts.  

Factually  true,  perhaps,  but  that  perspec3ve  could  wreak  havoc  on  Saks’  public  percep3on.  The  message,  of  course,  is  that  the  law  is  the  law  and  the  employee  handbook  is  really  just  a  list  of  sugges3ons  Saks  can  violate  when  it  becomes  convenient  to  do  so.  At  least,  that’s  the  posi3on  some  are  taking  in  the  marketplace  of  ideas.  

That  posi3on,  and  the  passionate  vitriol  behind  it,  will  no  doubt  move  this  case  out  of  the  courtroom  and  into  the  court  of  public  opinion,  where  Saks  will  have  a  much  more  difficult  3me  pleading  its  case.  Par3cularly  when  Saks  representa3ves  are  also  on  record  saying  no  discrimina3on  transpired  in  the  case.  

Let’s  review…Saks  is  arguing  that  transgender  discrimina3on  is  not  condemned  under  the  Civil  Rights  Act,  and  it  is  arguing  that  the  employee  handbook,  which  does  say  transgender  persons  are  protected,  does  not  cons3tute  a  legally-­‐binding  contract.  However,  company  spokespeople  are  also  arguing  that  no  discrimina3on  took  place  at  all.  

So,  here’s  where  the  message  gets  mixed.  Was  there  discrimina3on  against  a  group  that  is  not  protected,  therefore  presen3ng  grounds  to  dismiss  the  case?  Or  was  there  no  ac3onable  discrimina3on  at  all?  From  a  legal  perspec3ve  it  is  possible  to  hold  both  posi3ons  at  the  same  3me.  But  as  countless  other  cases  have  shown,  the  public  has  liFle  tolerance  for  that  sort  of  “nuance.”  

This  post  was  reformaFed  for  distribu3on.    To  read  more  content  from  Ronn  Torossian,  please  visit  hFp://ronntorossianupdate.com