YOU'RE FIRED: Leslie Rutledge wants no protection for transgender people.

Attorney General Leslie Rutledge continues her assault on human rights by joining other Republican attorneys general in support of the argument that it is legal under federal law to fire people for being transgender. UPDATE: It’s even worse than it first appeared.

The states, led by Nebraska Attorney General David Bydalek, asked the justices to overturn an appeals court decision against a Michigan funeral home that fired a transgender worker. They said Congress didn’t intend the ban on sex discrimination in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to cover bias against lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender employees.

“The States’ purpose is to note that ‘sex’ under the plain terms of Title VII does not mean anything other than biological status,” Bydalek wrote.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has said LGBT bias in employment is banned. The Trump Justice Department disagrees. Arkansas state law provides no legal protection in employment, housing or public accommodation for LGBT people. Indeed, it has a law that allows people to invoke religious beliefs as specific legal protection for discrimination.


To understand this case fully, you can read the 6th Circuit of Appeals ruling  against the funeral home that fired a funeral director after transitioning to being a woman. She also complained that the funeral home provided a clothing allowance for male funeral directors but jot female funeral directors.

Rutledge never issued a news release on this intervention. I asked for a comment and got this statement:


The Sixth Circuit’s ruling in R.G. & G.R. Funeral Homes v. EEOC allowed the federal government to compel the funeral home to allow a male employee to dress as a woman despite the funeral home’s clear sex-specific dress code. I joined a 16-state attorneys general and governors brief supporting Supreme Court breview to uphold the rule of law. The multistate brief explained that “sex” under the plain, unambiguous meaning of Title VII does not mean anything other than biological status. In determining otherwise, the Sixth Circuit rewrote the law in a way that Congress never intended in Title VII. 

This is dishonest unless you believe there is no such thing as a transgender person. The 6th Circuit ruled the funeral home couldn’t fire a woman who was identified as male at birth. It was certainly not a case about cross-dressing. The woman plans sex reassignment surgery, but must live as a woman for a year first. The funeral home owner also claimed having to employ the woman violated his religious freedom. He has now added a clothing allowance for women.

Nasty, dishonest stuff from Rutledge. I’ve asked if she rejects the existence of transgender people, which would seem to be the case. No response as yet. Medical science thinks gender dysphoria is real, even if Leslie Rutledge does not.


Update to response to my question if Rutledge accepts existence of transgender people:

“I would simply point you to our previous statement.”