Just one day after President Donald Trump banned transgender Americans from serving in the military, a Chinese court decided in favor of a transgender man who had been wrongfully terminated from his job for “looking like a lesbian” and wearing traditionally male clothing.

This is one of China’s most signifiant steps ever when it comes to protecting the legal rights of the LGBTQ community. The court awarded the plaintiff, “Mr. C,” the equivalent of $297. The decision states that workers cannot be discriminated against “based on their ethnicity, race, gender or religious beliefs,” according to the Washington Post.

“The defendant terminated the contract with the plaintiff without a legitimate reason” and “infringed on the plaintiff’s equal employment rights,” the ruling said.

The 29-year-old plaintiff, referred to as “Mr. C” to protect his identity and his family, worked at Ciming Checkup, a health services firm, and was fired last year for his appearance as a man despite legally being considered a female. Mr. C claims he was mocked by some co-workers, and was told that he could damage the company’s reputation before he was fired.

LGBTQ activists praised the court’s decision. For one, the case was China’s first on transgender identity, and it resulted in a victory for the transgender individual. The outcome paves the way for China to institute future anti-discrimination laws in the workplace since workers currently are at the mercy of their employers.

“Personally, I think that in terms of employment discrimination, this judicial precedent goes beyond [current] legislation,” Wang Yongmei, the winning lawyer, said.

The victory marks a seminal moment for those pursuing LGBTQ acceptance in a country that restricts free speech, LGBTQ rights, and human rights more broadly.

The Chinese court’s decision stands in stark contrast to the U.S. Department of Justice’s recent comments that workplace discrimination is perfectly legal. The DOJ released an amicus brief concerning a case between a company and a gay employee claiming that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act only covers sex discrimination, not discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Despite the court’s decision, the situation for the LGBTQ community in China is far from perfect. The gay and transgender communities in the country still feel silenced in public spaces. In the past year, Chinese police canceled an LGBTQ conference in the city of Xian, and a month after that internet regulators began to ban LGBTQ content online, according to the Washington Post.

Mr. C is proud that his lawsuit sets a precedent for future employees who may be wrongfully terminated, but also recognizes China–and the rest of the world–still has a long way to go.

“Although the case has ended, we still have a long way to go,” he said.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chinese Court Rules in Favor of Transgender Man for the First Time Ever appeared first on Law Street.

Two Chinese labor activists investigating a factory that produces shoes for Ivanka Trump’s brand have gone missing, and a third was recently arrested. The three men work for China Labor Watch and were looking into the alleged abuse of workers at the Huajian International shoe factory. The group is based in New York but focuses on workers’ rights in China.

According to the Associated Press, Hua Haifeng was arrested for illegal surveillance after working undercover at the factory since April. The group lost touch with the other two men, Li Zhao and Su Heng, over the weekend. The parent company of the particular factory, Huajian Group, produces between 10,000 and 20,000 shoes for Ivanka’s brand every year. It also makes shoes for brands like Coach and Nine West.

According to the director of China Labor Watch, Li Qiang, his employees found evidence that workers were forced to work overtime without pay, and that workers who left were fired. They also could be fired if they took sick leave, and were forced to sign false time sheets.

JUST IN: One arrested, two missing after investigating working conditions at Ivanka Trump shoe factory in China https://t.co/nB6f48k2eh pic.twitter.com/OzCQjJjIFF

— The Hill (@thehill) May 30, 2017

Chinese police claimed that the men had used illegal surveillance technology, but according to Li Qiang they just used their cellphones to shoot video. He said he thinks the police are protecting the factory since it is affiliated with the U.S. president’s daughter, considering he has investigated hundreds of Chinese factories before without any incident like this.

The wife of the man who was arrested said that she received a phone call from the police saying that Hua had been detained, and that she didn’t need to know anything more than that. “I understand and support my husband’s work,” she said. “I feel his work is legal and meaningful, so why should they arrest him?”

Li Qiang said that his company was planning on releasing a report on the factory next month. The Democratic National Committee responded to the news by releasing a statement calling for the White House to act on China’s human rights abuses:

We deeply hope that these detained or missing human rights workers are safe and can be reunited with their families as soon as possible. For years, Ivanka Trump has ignored public reports of awful labor conditions at a factory that makes her shoes. Now, she must decide whether she can ignore the Chinese government’s apparent attempt to silence an investigation into those worker abuses.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Activists Investigating Factory Used for Ivanka Trump’s Brand Are Missing appeared first on Law Street.

A new law recently implemented in New York City is a significant step in the right direction for improving the rights of workers.

On April 1, 2014, an updated paid sick leave law took effect. The measure requires businesses with five or more employees to provide sick leave to employees caring for themselves or their relatives. After taking office, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that paid sick leave would be extended to cover more employees in the city, and he was now fulfilled that promise. Because of the law, 1.2 million more workers in New York will have paid sick leave, many of whom work low to minimum wage jobs.

Skeptics worried about the possible negative effects the new policy would have on businesses. Some small business owners were worried that they wouldn’t be able to afford paying for their workers’ sick leave. Yet when the law took effect, it did so without a commotion. There were no voiced complaints or protests. This silence bodes well for the law’s success and sustainment, and can perhaps pave the way for more progressive labor legislation. And for Mayor de Blasio, who has already faced a setback in failing legislation to raise the minimum wage, granting more residents of the city paid sick leave is a substantial victory.

So what allowed for this measure to be successfully implemented without protest?

Businesses found the law to be reasonable.

Since the law did not take effect immediately, businesses had time to check their budgets to see how offering paid sick leave to employees will impact their profit. While businesses may lose a little money to offer five (or more) sick days a year for employees, the cost of this is not exorbitant. Moreover, business can take comfort in the fact that they do not have to allow an employee paid sick leave until after he or she has been on the job for more than three months. This provision of the law allows time for trust to develop between an employer and an employee, which will lower the risk of an employee’s taking advantage of paid sick leave.

Many people believe that extending paid sick leave to more employees is fair.

One small business owner, Shiv Puri, reflected on the importance of paid sick leave while he worked on Wall Street. He noted that his staff should receive the same benefits as employees as he has been given. Additionally, a poll by FindLaw found that 71% of respondents across the country were in support of extending paid sick leave. In New York and across the United States, the extension of benefits such as paid sick leave are gaining support for being fairer to all employees. Despite the people that had vocalized their concerns before the law took effect, there are many others who support the measure.

Businesses can also benefit from giving workers paid sick leave.

Employees who work low earning jobs know that money is hard to earn and therefore every shift is crucial to supporting themselves. Many have had to make the choice between going to work feeling ill or staying home to care for themselves. Employers don’t want sick workers on the job: they are less productive and can infect co-workers and even customers. Allowing a few days of paid leave will keep sick workers at home, which is ultimately good for business. Additionally, employees who receive more benefits from their employer will feel better treated and will translate how they feel about the job into their work ethic. Providing paid sick leave can also make workers more productive, another benefit to businesses.

It just makes sense.

People that earn low wages already have a harder time making ends’ meat. Why is it then that our system extends more benefits to the people that receive higher salaries? The point of benefits such as paid sick leave is to assist employees, but the people who need the most help are those who work low and minimum wage jobs, because they have a harder time as it is affording basic necessities. Of course, good benefits are a nice incentive for businesses to entice qualified candidates to work for their company. But these benefits can also be used to encourage those in minimum wage positions to stay on the job and to attract more workers to fill open positions.

The law makes New York, the most recent of more than twenty cities and states that have mandated paid sick leave for employees of certain businesses. With the success of the policy’s implementation in New York, perhaps more places in the US will adhere to this just principle.

[NY Times] [HRE Online] [In These Times]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Paid Sick Leave in NYC: It Just Makes Sense appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. military isn’t doing enough to protect the health and safety of the people who make their clothing, according to The International Labor Rights Forum (ILRF). In the ILRF’s recent report, Dangerous Silence, the organization asserts that the U.S. Military has not properly looked into the sources of the clothing sold in their over 1,100 base stores, much of which comes from outsourced factories in Bangladesh.

According to the ILRF, the military doesn’t gather  sufficient information about the safety conditions and treatment of workers in these factories, and in many cases, relies on audits by companies such as Walmart and Sears that have failed to properly protect workers in their own factories. In some cases the military exchanges were aware of safety violations but did not alert Bangladeshi authorities; for instance, the Army and Air Force Exchange failed to act when they learned that Green Fair Textiles workers were being submitted to 80-hour work weeks.

Considering the fact that it is legal for the military to use overseas suppliers, some believe that they do not need to protect the factory workers. Army and Air Force Exchange Service spokesman Judd Anstey stated that the agency abides by guidelines issued by the Department of Defense which necessitates that all local laws are followed and merchandise is not made by forced labor or children. But what about overworking those in factories that is illegal by American standards, if not locally?

The military exchanges’ failure to report and solve the problems with their clothing suppliers is all the more surprising in the wake of last years’ tragedies in Bangladesh. The Tazreen Fashions factory, which manufactured Marine Corps logo clothing, experienced a fire in which 112 workers died. In April 2013 at Rana Plaza an eight-story clothing factory collapsed, killing more than 1,134 people and leaving 200 people missing as of last December.

The U.S. military fights for freedom across the world and defends liberty at home, yet the message strikes some as hypocritical when their uniforms are made in places that condone human rights violations. Although the U.S. has no legal responsibility for the conditions in factories in other countries, government entities should not turn a blind eye to the safety and labor violations in the factories they patronize.

An interesting comparison is the nearly nonexistent criticism directed toward military exchanges with the public’s reaction to the 2012 U.S. Olympic uniform controversy; the difference is striking. Ralph Lauren received a significant amount of negative press during the London Olympics because the U.S. delegation’s uniforms were made in China rather than domestically. Perhaps the backlash to this outsourcing was due to the fact that the Olympics is a spectacle that attracts international attention, while the military exchanges lack public prominence. Nevertheless, the Ralph Lauren controversy shows how public outcry can stimulate change: in reaction to the negative press over their uniforms, Ralph Lauren made a point to use American sources and labor for the 2014 Sochi uniforms. If the military exchanges garnered the same level of attention, perhaps they would be compelled to act, too.

United States officials should take a stance against this abuse of workers and safety in outsourced factories in order to set an example for other retailers to follow when it comes to factory conditions. The ILRF’s report provides several suggestions as to how the United States military can help protect Bangladeshi workers, including requiring suppliers to comply with international labor standards, issuing mandatory repairs and inspections to ensure safety, organizing worker unions and committees, and publicly disclosing audit results. The Marine Corps appears to be taking the lead. The branch’s Trademark and Licensing Office issued a new policy mandating its retail suppliers be signatories to the Accord on Fire and Building Safety.
—

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post The U.S. Military & Bangladeshi Factories: Who’s Responsible for Safety? appeared first on Law Street.