- Audience members from the LGBT community deliver a standing ovation after DART’s Board of Directors gave final approval to transgender employment protections on Tuesday night.
After removing a one-word amendment that would have gutted the measure, DART’s Board of Directors voted uanimously Tuesday night to add transgender protections to the agency’s employment nondiscrimination policy.
About 50 people from the LGBT community packed the DART meeting, with roughly 10 of them addressing the board during a public comment period. They called on board members to approve the policy after first removing the word “except,” which was inserted by the board last week.
According to LGBT legal experts, the word would have nullified the proposed transgender protections and rescinded those for gay employees that were adopted by DART in 1995.
“A word is standing between us, and the word is ‘except,'” Stonewall Democrats of Dallas President Erin Moore told the DART board, adding that everyone has a sexual orientation and a gender identity. “All of these things also include you. Why not include us?”
Following the 30-minute public comment period, DART board member William Tsao made a motion to remove the word “except” and approve the new policy. The motion was seconded by board member Faye Wilkins before being approved unanimously.
The vote drew a standing ovation from the audience.
Later, however, some said they still had concerns about the final wording of the policy.
Cece Cox, associate executive director at Resource Center Dallas, sought clarification from the board following the vote. And Cox and others from the LGBT community huddled after the meeting to discuss the issue. They indicated they planned to work with DART on possible substitute language in the coming days.
“We moved the ball down the field,” RCD spokesman Rafael McDonnell said later. “We’re not at the goal line.”
Stay tuned to Instant Tea for video from the meeting, and for a full story, see Friday’s Voice.
“DART board member Claude Williams made a motion to remove the word “except” and approve the new policy.”
Are you sure that’s right? I thought it was William Tsao who made the motion.
Pretty sure it was Tsao that read it out….
@FoFenny: You are correct. I fixed this. I got mixed up because Williams was talking before Tsao cut him off and made the motion. Thanks.
AWESOME!!!! Wow, what we can do.
Those that spoke at the meeting did very well. Thanks y’all. Now we need to fix the language and get the reference to Federal and State laws that govern LGBT employment protections off of the amendment…since there aren’t any. THIS loophole is a bad loophole.
WE WIN! YOU ROCK!
I so appreciate the passion and eloquence of the speakers this evening. Yep, I too was confused when folks continually referred to a “one word” problem in the wording. Seemed clear to me that omitting simply one word would have no effect–the entire phrase (“except to the extent….”) needs to be removed.
I’d been told Mr. Noah was anti-LGBT employee protections, so I was pleased to see him change his vote. I’d expected to see Mr. Enoch and Mr. Carlson (who I’d been told are also anti-LGBT employee protections).
I’m not sure the language “to the extent consistent with law” is necessarily a loophole. I mean, it doesn’t say “ONLY to the extent consistent with law.” It’s ambiguous, and that was the point being made those who spoke afterwards.
I don’t know for sure, but if a DART manager were to conclude from that language that the policy has no teeth, and therefore fire employees like Ms. T Dart who manage to obtain a court ordered gender change from a a judge willing to enforce it, then I expect a court looking to resolve the ambiguity would refer to the record of the amendments and comments by the Board in order to determine thereir intent, and then enforce the policy in favor of the employeee. That is what Courts do when interpeting ambiguous statutes; they look to the Congressional committee comments to identify the legislative intent.
So while I’m not convinced that the ambiguos language is a problem for employees seeking to recover under the policy, I think it is a problem in that it might mislead DART management to think they can still discriminate against employees on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation. This ambiguity creates a perfect storm of circumstances that could lead to the worst case scenario in which DART employees are harmed by discrimination, while DART is then held legally liable for that discrimination under the policy. We all want to avoid this type of outcome, and that is a comnpelling reason for DART to further amend the policy to clear up the ambiguities that remain, and thereby send a clear message to management and nip future problems in the bud.
As I understand what I heard at the meeting, there is a disconnect between DART Board Members stated intentions as presented in the meeting and the wording. Here seems to be a few of the most important points to my neophyte mind:
— Cece did a great job of focusing the issue on seeing “unambiguous” language protecting gender identity and expression (as well as retaining protections for sexual orientation)
— Several board members either very explicitly stated or implied that they supported unambiguous protections for both, and that DART had a responsibility to provide both
— Board Member William Tsao provided a motion that seemed to remove the word “except” but referred to something called the “blue sheet,” but it was unclear what else the blue sheet text included
— the text of the blue sheet was approved unanimously
— Cece requested a copy of the blue sheet and saw that the only (or primary?) change was the removal of “except”, which leaves the text reading:
“DART is committed to hiring, promoting and retaining the best qualified persons in all positions and, to the extent permitted by federal and/or Texas law, DART will not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, disability, genetic information, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity or any other characteristic protected by law.”
— Although this text was acceptable as a step forward earlier, additional attention paid to this text, with the focus on it’s ambiguity heightened with the addition and removal of “except”, has indicated this text remains ambiguous and could easily be found in court to provide no protections. It certainly does not meet the spirit of being unambiguous communicated by the DART board last night.
A huge factor to the anti equality members vote last night was the Dallas City Council member’s interest and passion for equality. You can thank them at this link if you so desire,.
https://dallastaa.ning.com/events/thank-dallas-council-members