So, heres how I want to start this post. I want to post what I know and what information there is out there for this subject. Then, I want to ask you your opinions and/or experiences with this matter. So here goes a little reading:

Leonard Link, USA

Anti-Transgender Discrimination by State Government Employer Found
Unconstitutional

In a significant ruling issued on July 2, 2010, U.S. District Judge
Richard W. Story granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on a
claim that a governmental employer had violated the Equal Protection
Clause of the 14th Amendment by discharging a transgender employee
because of her expressed intention to transition and begin presenting
as a woman on the job.  Glenn v. Brumby, Civil Action No.
1:08-CV-2360-RWS (N.D. Ga.).

Judge Story borrowed precedents under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and some other federal statutes to find that the plaintiff
had stated a sex discrimination claim using the sex stereotyping
theory, that the standard of judicial review for the claim is
"heightened scrutiny," and that the state failed to meet its burden of
articulating an "exceedingly persuasive justification" in order to
rebut the plaintiff's prima facie case.  Judge Story scheduled a
further hearing for July 13 to determine a remedy.  Lambda Legal
Supervising Senior Staff Attorney Greg Nevins of Lambda's Southern
Regional Office in Atlanta and Dru Levasseur, a Transgender Rights
Attorney on Lambda's staff, represent Glenn.

By agreeing with Vandiver Elizabeth Glenn (named Glenn Morrison at
birth) that her complaint stated a claim for sex discrimination, Judge
Story necessarily brought into play the requirement that the state
employer provide more than a theoretical or hypothetical justification
for its decision to discharge her.  Under the heightened scrutiny
approach that the Supreme Court has previously adopted in sex
discrimination cases, once the plaintiff has alleged uncontested facts
sufficient for the court to conclude that the employer discharged her
due to her sex, the employer's action will be presumed to violate the
constitutional requirement of Equal Protection of the Laws unless the
state can show that the action was necessary to achieve an important,
non-discriminatory state interest.

It is actually amazing to consider for how long such arguments have
persisted.  One of the first major gay rights federal court victories,
a decision issued in the same week as the Stonewall Riots in 1969,
involved the discharge of a federal employee in the District of
Columbia who had been arrested for soliciting an undercover police
officer.  The government argued that public confidence would be shaken
if it got out that a "homosexual" was employed in the agency.  The
U.S. Court of Appeals found that an inadequate ground upon which to
dismiss an employee of the government whose work was otherwise
acceptable.  That the same sort of reasoning is used forty years later
by phobic public officials is risible.

Judge Story concluded that Glenn was entitled to summary judgment on
her sex discrimination claim.

However, summary judgment was granted against Glenn on her claim of
discrimination based on her medical condition of gender identity
disorder.  Judge Story found that such a claim, if it could be
maintained, would not receive heightened scrutiny, but instead would
be evaluated using the "rational basis" test, under which hypothesized
justifications post hoc are perfectly acceptable, so Brumby's concerns
about potential privacy lawsuits arising from Glenn's possible use of
the women's restroom would suffice to defeat the claim -- thus
illustrating some of the crazy formalism that has grown up around
Equal Protection jurisprudence....

But the significance of the affirmative ruling on the sex
discrimination claim is that Judge Story's reasoning is broadly
transferable to any situation in which a government actor takes
adverse action due to an individual's gender expression, without
having an "exceedingly persuasive justification" grounded in
non-discriminatory public policy.  Of course, if the state of Georgia
decides to appeal this ruling to the 11th Circuit on Brumby's behalf,
it is difficult to predict what the outcome will be.  The federal
appellate precedents upon which Judge Story relied come from many
different parts of the country, but none from the 11th Circuit, so the
case would present a new question for that court as well, and the 11th
Circuit has hardly been in the vanguard of protecting sexual minority
rights.  Rejection of Judge Story's analysis would involve a sharp
departure from the growning body of case law supporting the use of sex
discrimination theory in transgender discrimination cases that focus
heavily on gender expression, which could set this case up for a
Supreme Court decision if the 11th Circuit were to reverse the
district court.  To date, the Supreme Court has never decided a
transgender workplace discrimination claim under either Title VII or
the Constitution.

Have you had any experiences like this in your job? What are the laws in your state regarding discrimination at the workplace? Do you have questions about your state? Post your responses and questions here.

Thanks to this google link for the reading above: http://groups.google.com/group/transgender-news/browse_thread/thread/9603f5d654fc6e7a/68287f4d68f1267f?pli=1