ODFL | ACLU Sues Old Dominion Freight Lines Over Firing Of Transgender Trucker (6/18/2008)

[DMT]

sorry but there is bias when two newspapers report the same story and two opinions are printed.what does having a deadline have to do with reporting the truth and not adding your OPINION to it.when the opinion is added it becomes biased.if newspapers would report the truth without bias though ,there would be less papers.the bias is what sells papers.

what will happen in court or before court will fall to what the lawyers tell OD as well as the sueing party.

and just remember what is said on the boards are opinions and not meant to make one mad.we learn from each other in what we say.

 

[larry retired]

sorry but there is bias when two newspapers report the same story and two opinions are printed.what does having a deadline have to do with reporting the truth and not adding your OPINION to it.when the opinion is added it becomes biased.if newspapers would report the truth without bias though ,there would be less papers.the bias is what sells papers.

what will happen in court or before court will fall to what the lawyers tell OD as well as the sueing party.

and just remember what is said on the boards are opinions and not meant to make one mad.we learn from each other in what we say.

Actually I have to disagree with you. Newspapers in this country are hurting big time. And the reason is, is because they are printing too much bias and not enough real news. They don't report a lot of news that is important to the public, because it doesn't fit their politically correct agenda. And they report a lot of insignificant bs, because it does fit their pc agenda.

 

[JIM BOB]

Keep it on the subject of the thread folks.The posts are beginning to wander off topic.

 

[Whistler]

Ok, I just read the article again just to make sure before I said anything else. If you apply for a job as a man, get hired as a man and work like a man, aren't you a man? If you want to change yourself so be it but why should a company be held responsible for what you personally wish to change about yourself. If the company says they hired you as a man and you want to change then you are no longer what you claimed to be in the first place are you? You can make the same argument about almost anything. We are picking sides on this issue and we don't have all of the facts and we probably never will. The article said a Dr. said this person had Gender Identity Disorder. How is that the fault of the company? Me personally, I could be diagnosed disable because of weight but I would rather earn my living instead of letting some Dr. say I am something else and let that be my standard.

 

[Mooresville Moose]

I think he was still a man when they let him go.May have been takeing hormones but still a man.Also was still useing birth-name.But I don't know much about it.I could be wrong.

 

[Echano]

Yes indeed

I can't say I'm comfortable with transgendered people. I can't say if I was OD, I'd be thrilled to find out one of my employees was transgendered. What I can say is this individual has the right to live their life as the Lord laid it out for them. The Lord makes us and lets us evolve in many ways. If OD is unhappy with the way this employee evolved, they should have tried to work out a reasonable accomodation with them. Performing their job function does not need to involve them with customers, if they are a road driver. Providing alternative lodging to a bunkhouse is already a standard accomodation for woman, so why is extending that, in this circumstance, so bad.
It seems a small price to pay for showing respect to someones disability. I wonder how many here would be saying the same cruel things, if it was a soldier returning to work with PTSD or facial disfigurement.

Very well said. I couldn't agree with you more.

 

[DMT]

first Larry,i think we agree not disagree,the bias(opinion) is too much and not enough plain spoken truth.and second like i said before the story is vague and for good reason to protect both sides of the dispute,but,like whistler said above the sticking points are was he still identified in records as a man,had he changed his name or sex legally or with the company,or did the management just feel uncomfortable with his "remodeling".if as said above in the quote OD was unhappy with the employee evolvement could that be a reason for release especially after a office meeting.

 

[itchyfeet]

Ok, I just read the article again just to make sure before I said anything else. If you apply for a job as a man, get hired as a man and work like a man, aren't you a man? If you want to change yourself so be it but why should a company be held responsible for what you personally wish to change about yourself. If the company says they hired you as a man and you want to change then you are no longer what you claimed to be in the first place are you? You can make the same argument about almost anything. We are picking sides on this issue and we don't have all of the facts and we probably never will. The article said a Dr. said this person had Gender Identity Disorder. How is that the fault of the company? Me personally, I could be diagnosed disable because of weight but I would rather earn my living instead of letting some Dr. say I am something else and let that be my standard.

Listen, if you bought a Beagle and it was a good rabbit hunter and one morning when you got up it was no longer a Beagle but rather a German Shepard but still performed up to par and was as good a rabbit hunter as before would you get rid of it? Moral is, if this person continued to perform their duties why would they be fired, unless it was for descrimination.

 

[Whistler]

itchyfeet i get your point but according to what you wrote it seems there is an assumption that there was no "choice to change"... clearly this person made a life changing choice and that alters any original contract such as an employment application... contract may be the wrong word but for this it fits... I'm not saying the person couldn't do the same job afterwards, I'm just saying if someone clearly makes a change this severe, then the company should have the same right of choice, simply because you become something other than what you presented in the beginning

 

[itchyfeet]

itchyfeet i get your point but according to what you wrote it seems there is an assumption that there was no "choice to change"... clearly this person made a life changing choice and that alters any original contract such as an employment application... contract may be the wrong word but for this it fits... I'm not saying the person couldn't do the same job afterwards, I'm just saying if someone clearly makes a change this severe, then the company should have the same right of choice, simply because you become something other than what you presented in the beginning

But what would be the difference if this person chose to change political parties, their hair color or some other significant personal attribute as long as the job they were doing was sufficient or as sufficient as they did before? I realize the employer, in this ODFL, may want their choice and that is fine for a non represented company as long as they make that choice within the confines of apllicable law. In this case I believe they did not make the correct choice according to the law and firmly believe that they would decide differently if they had a second chance.

 

[larry retired]

itchyfeet i get your point but according to what you wrote it seems there is an assumption that there was no "choice to change"... clearly this person made a life changing choice and that alters any original contract such as an employment application... contract may be the wrong word but for this it fits... I'm not saying the person couldn't do the same job afterwards, I'm just saying if someone clearly makes a change this severe, then the company should have the same right of choice, simply because you become something other than what you presented in the beginning

These jobs are open to human beings, regardless of sex. This person is still a human being.

 

[DMT]

in another story that showed up with a google search it identified the person's female name and that co-workers were harrassing her/him about her/his apperance and choice of clothing.it also identified that he/she told employers about the transition from man to woman.

 

[imported_Skywalker]

I think where the subject in the letter was (fraud) right? Well it's a deal in the JAX bunkroom that only male drivers are to stay in it. All females are givin a motel room. JAX dispatchers were probably not sure what gender (it) was so therefore they acted accordinally as to not cause a fuss. So the said individual was taking a motel voucher and going to the motel as (man) dressed as a (woman) but as the rule was wrong in (its) decision. So therefore in my opinion the said person had not gone through the proper procedures and notified the right people about (it's) condition as probably (it) should have. The said person could have paid for (it's) own motel room and nothing would have been said otherwise, you are allowed to do so if you do not wish to stay in the bunkhouse. So as my observation of the letter and of the said individual (it) was basically ripping off the company.

 

[Whistler]

leave it to a Jedi to speak that way... hahaha Skywalker I believe that we are all gonna be divided on this one so i'm tired of going on and on about the same issue

 

[johnnyonthespot]

if they just would have picked the motel 6 they would have LEFT THE LIGHT ON FOR THEM.. male or female..!

 

[Mooresville Moose]

This is not on the subject of law suit ,But is it not discrimination to allow one sex to go to the motel and the other to have to stay in that nasty bunk house.I have never saw it but I have had drivers tell me they would rather sleep in there truck.

 

[teamster elvis]

Listen, if you bought a Beagle and it was a good rabbit hunter and one morning when you got up it was no longer a Beagle but rather a German Shepard but still performed up to par and was as good a rabbit hunter as before would you get rid of it? Moral is, if this person continued to perform their duties why would they be fired, unless it was for descrimination.

It depends on whether or not the German Shepard hikes his leg and relieves himself on me. Teamster Elvis out....

 

[easttnhillbilly]

bottom line under tennessee law they can fire you for anything even if they just don't like you if this case was in another state maybe it would get somewhere but i think it will be thrown out of court because tn. law is on odfl's side. it's funny how this is only getting talked about on the message board and noone will talk about it in the term. and mentioned it in rto and they said they can't talk about topic's like that there maybe it's a califonia thing

 

[Electricfoot]

I don't need a reminder why I hate the ACLU

 

[44MAG]

Team Operations

I don't need a reminder why I hate the ACLU

Maybe we need a DROP YOUR PANTS RULE before leaving on a team run. I think your right to know, is being violated and the ACLU needs to address this also. At Roadway it is a crap shoot and puts a driver in undue stress. Maybe the Stewards can get on this asap.