PROTECTIONS FOR TRANSGENDER AND GENDER-NONCONFORMING PEOPLE
Our Know Your Rights Guide for transgender and gender non-conforming New Yorkers has been updated and is now available in Spanish! It explains in plain language what discrimination might look like and how to access your rights under the New York State Human Rights Law. You’ll also find other helpful information, including facts about additional laws and regulations that protect transgender and gender-nonconforming people, and a list of legal advocates around New York State that may be able to advise you of your rights and help you navigate the legal process.
Please share this guide with your networks and anyone you think would find it helpful.
Legislators in South Carolina have moved a new bill which would make it illegal for a smartphone, tablet or computer to be sold in the state without a porn filter. The filter will render the device incapable of accessing online porn. However, those who want the ability to access adult content online will have to pay an additional $20 in order to purchase a smartphone, tablet or computer without a porn filter.
The sponsors of the bill haven’t really provided any technical details about how the porn filter is going to work, whether it’s going to be installed at the factory for the aforementioned devices or if sales representatives will install it at the point of sale. There’s also the question of this entire act infringing on First Amendment rights.
Immi helps immigrants in the U.S. understand their legal options. Their online screening tool, legal information, and referrals to nonprofit legal services organizations are always free to use. Immi was created by the Immigration Advocates Network and Pro Bono Net, two nonprofit organizations dedicated to increasing access to justice for low-income immigrants.
The Immi Process:
The tides turned with an EEOC ruling in 2015, in which the agency concluded that alleged discrimination against a gay man–because he was gay–constituted a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law banning employment discrimination on the basis of certain protected characteristics such as sex, race, ethnicity, and religion. The EEOC sparked a second look at this question, decades after several courts had dismissively, and with little reasoning, concluded that the law’s prohibition of sex discrimination is not broad enough to encompass sexual orientation discrimination. The new case from a federal district court in Pennsylvania, EEOC v. Scott Medical Health Center, builds on a more recent trend, in which courts (and the EEOC) draw on more contemporary thinking about the nature of sexual orientation discrimination and its relationship to gender.