Michael Baumgartner @SenBaumgartner & Washington (USA)

A bill to eliminate Washington’s new rule allowing transgender people to use bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity passed out of a Senate committee 4-3. Senate Commerce and Labor Committee Chairman Michael Baumgartner, R-Spokane, said anyone who would interpret repeal as “some kind of judgment or castigation of the transgender community” would be wrong. Baumgartner and many at an earlier hearing argued against the rule, saying some people could use the unquestioned access to facilities as a way to carry out sexual assaults.
A bill in the House that also seeks to eliminate the new rule takes a different approach. House Bill 2589 says nothing in Washington state civil-rights law prohibits a private or public place from limiting transgender people’s access to restrooms and other such facilities when someone is “preoperative, nonoperative” or doesn’t have the genitals of the gender for which the facility is set aside.
Senate Bill 6443.
State Senate panel votes to repeal new transgender bathroom rule _ The Seattle Times.

R. v. Elliott @amirightfolks @LadySnarksalot @greg_a_elliott (Canada)

Gregory Alan Elliott was cleared of two charges of criminal harassment that stemmed from his Twitter interactions with two Toronto women who believe transwomen are women.
Stephanie Guthrie and Heather Reilly accused Elliott of harassment partly based on his use of hashtags — a word, acronym or phrase after a number symbol used to create trackable conversations — they used. It was an assertion the judge found contrary to the open nature of Twitter. He said the pair may have felt harassed, but he couldn’t prove Elliott knew they felt that way, nor did the content of his tweets include explicitly threatening language.
The judge also noted a lack of “reasonableness” in Guthrie’s assertion she could expect to use Twitter to make negative comments about Elliott and not be exposed to his response or self defence.
This is a victory for freedom of expression. For the record, we think every person involved in this case is not worth following on social media.
R. v. Elliott
‘One man’s vulgarity is another man’s lyric’_ Toronto man found not guilty in Twitter harassment trial _ National Post

Kristen L. v. Benjamin W. (USA)

Kristen and Benjamin divorced in early 2012. Under the terms of their custody agreement, they shared legal custody of their two sons, one born in 2003 and one in 2005. Kristen, who lives in Anchorage, was to have primary physical custody of the children; Benjamin, who is in the Air Force and lives in California, was to have weekly Skype contact and the children were to travel to California for Christmas and summer visitations. Continue reading “Kristen L. v. Benjamin W. (USA)”

Jeune v. U.S. Attorney General (USA)

Yasmick-Jeune-mugshot-21834776.400x800
Yasmick Jeune is a Gay Man who apparently sometimes also claims to be a Woman. He is also a citizen of Haiti. He was convicted of several crimes and subsequently faced deportation proceedings. He objected to deportation because he would suffer “persecution countrywide in Haiti on account of his sexual preference and/or transgenderism.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit rejected his petition.
Jeune Decision
Man Robbed By Woman Impostor _ NBC 6 South Florida
 

Roberts v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. (USA)

The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has held that a transgender plaintiff asserting a claim for sex discrimination is not required to respond to requests from the defendant about the status of his genitals.
Bradley Roberts is a Woman who identifies as a Man currently employed by Clark County School District (“CCSD”) as a police officer. He started as a part-time campus monitor in 1992 and was hired as a school police officer in March 1994. Biologically female, Roberts began formally transitioning to male in 2009. Continue reading “Roberts v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. (USA)”

Justin Davis @MrJustinMDavis @HRC (USA)

wut
Justin Davis is a Gay Man who works for the Human Rights Campaign’s Religion and Faith program. He expresses his “religious compassion” on social media by mocking Women and Girls who establish boundaries based on sex, as apparently, Mr. Davis does not believe Women and Girls have valid reasons why we might establish such boundaries (cough*rape*cough*male violence). Mr. Davis holds the same views as fellow Men’s Rights Activists and HRC employees David Elizondo and David Salisbury.
Justin
Human Rights Campaign has a track record of Men’s Rights activism, most notably supporting a boycott of the Michigan Womyn’s Music Fesitval.

Cochran v. Aguirre (USA)

Billy Coy Cochran was convicted by a jury of assault with a semi-automatic firearm in California, being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm, criminal threats, and two counts of dissuading a witness by force or threat. These charges stem from his criminal behavior towards his mother:
In May of 2002 (Billy) came into Mrs. Cochran’s home after she refused to give his girlfriend a ride and was ‘yelling and carrying on.’ (Billy) began to throw things, including the telephone, computer and microwave and he punched two holes in the wall. He hit Mrs. Cochran on the arms, but eventually left. He returned to the home approximately 10 minutes later with a gun and threatened to kill Mrs. Cochran’s dogs. He then placed the gun to Mrs. Cochran’s forehead and threatened to kill both her and the dogs. He pulled the gun away from her forehead and as he pulled the top of the gun back a bullet fell out. Mrs. Cochran did not report the incident because he was her son and she did not want him to get in trouble; she asked him to vacate her property within two days.”
Billy now thinks he’s a woman, and he is suing the State of California. His lawsuit was dismissed with leave to refile, which he has done.
BILLY COY COCHRAN Docket
BILLY COY COCHRAN Opinion

Cooper v. Micros Sys. (USA)

William A. Cooper (“Cooper”) sued MICROS Systems, Inc.  for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., Maryland’s Fair Employment Practices Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 20-601 et seq., and Howard County law, Howard Cty., Md., Code of Ordinances § 12.208, alleging employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity.  At the time of his termination, Cooper had worked for MICROS for approximately twenty-five years, mostly as a business analyst. In 2010, Cooper was “diagnosed as a transgendered person.” Until 2013, Cooper had told only one co-worker, Heather Connor, about his diagnosis, although Cooper believes other co-workers suspected he was transgender. In 2013, Cooper told two other MICROS employees he was transgender. He informed his direct supervisor, Jason Looper (“Looper”), on February 2, 2013. Cooper asked Looper to keep the information confidential, and Looper said he would. ooper told Debra McIntyre (“McIntyre”), MICROS’s vice president of human resources, he was transgender on February 12, 2013, as she investigated an incident involving Cooper and a co-worker that ultimately would lead to Cooper’s termination. During this time period, Cooper grew out his hair,  but continued to dress as a man, used the men’s room, and “tried not to act like a girl.” Continue reading “Cooper v. Micros Sys. (USA)”

Adkins @dreanyc123 @glaze0101 v. City of New York (USA)

justin-shouts
Justin Adkins is a Woman who identifies as a Man. Adkins was arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge on October 1, 2011. Following arrest, Adkins was handcuffed to a wall for seven hours. Adkins alleges different treatment because of transgender status. Adkins sued the City of New York, former mayor Michael Bloomberg, and various other officials, claiming (1) deprivation of federal civil rights in violation of § 1983, based on defendants’ harassment and mistreatment of transgender arrestees; (2) excessive use of force in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment; (3) denial of equal protection in violation of § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment, based on sex and gender identity discrimination; (4) violation of § 1983 and the First Amendment, based on the punishing and chilling of plaintiff’s gender identity and expression; (5) unreasonable conditions of confinement under § 1983; (6) failure to intervene in violation of § 1983; (7) municipal liability under § 1983; and (8) supervisory liability under §§ 1981 and 1983.1 Defendants thereafter moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim. The Court granted defendants’ motion in most respects, but allows plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim against the City of New York to survive.
Adkins Opinion
Adkins Docket