According to a calculation by the Associated Press, the disputed “bathroom bill”–HB2–would cost North Carolina about $3.76 billion in lost business over twelve years. Over the past year, several companies have left the state. For example PayPal, which pulled out of North Carolina last year, would have contributed an estimated $2.66 billion to the local economy.

Artists like Bruce Springsteen and Ringo Starr have cancelled concerts in North Carolina and the NCAA is also avoiding the state–it is about to announce the locations of various championships through 2022 and has said that North Carolina will not be included as long as the controversial law is in place. This could result in losses of hundreds of millions more.

‘Bathroom bill’ to cost North Carolina $3.76B, AP analysis finds https://t.co/3vyxKpSHJT #HB2 #LGBTQ pic.twitter.com/tIKfCz4DNm

— NBC Out (@NBCOUT) March 27, 2017

The bathroom bill prohibits transgender people from using the public bathroom that corresponds with the gender they identify with. It used the argument that allowing transgender women–who were born male–into the women’s bathroom, would result in an increase in sexual assaults. As there is absolutely no evidence for this, and male predators don’t typically identify as women or care whether they are allowed in the women’s bathroom or not before attacking, that argument understandably caused a lot of criticism and outrage.

Former Governor Pat McCrory, who was very supportive of the bill, failed to win re-election in November and revealed in a recent interview that he has had trouble finding a new job. “People are reluctant to hire me, because, ‘oh my gosh, he’s a bigot’–which is the last thing I am,” he said.

-Gov signs anti-trans bathroom bill
-State loses $600M, reputation hurt
-Gov voted out, can’t get job https://t.co/ByEk5EWbTs #ncpol #hb2 pic.twitter.com/yPpGVodCGq

— Alex Kotch (@alexkotch) March 13, 2017

The AP put together its analysis through interviews and public records, but also said that the numbers probably are an underestimation. The data only includes businesses that the AP could confirm were relocating or canceling their business in the state because of the bill. That means there could be more that the AP couldn’t confirm and therefore didn’t include. There were also likely cancelled endeavors from other companies that the AP had no way to measure.

“Companies are moving to other places because they don’t face an issue that they face here,” said Brian Moynihan, CEO of Bank of America, which is based in North Carolina. He said he has talked to many business leaders who had spoken out about their choice to relocate, but that others are probably moving quietly. McCrory’s statement after signing the bill into law that it wouldn’t affect the state’s position as “one of the top states to do business in the country” seems to have been proven wrong.

But supporters of the bill have not admitted to any defeat; rather they are saying that the costs are worth it, as long as it keeps sexual predators out of women’s bathrooms, which is the main argument in favor of the bill. Lt. Gov. Dan Forest accused the media of creating a false image of the economic impact of the bill. “The effect is minimal to the state. Our economy is doing well. Don’t be fooled by the media,” he said when addressing Texas legislators who are considering adopting a similar law.

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 Looks Like the Bathroom Bill Will Cost North Carolina Billions appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court on Monday issued a landmark ruling on jury secrecy, while declining to hear what would have been its first case on transgender rights. In Peña Rodriguez v. Colorado, the court ruled that if racial bias is found to influence a juror’s opinion, an inquiry into the jury deliberations–a secret practice–could be launched. The transgender rights case involved Gavin Grimm, a high school student and transgender man whose school did not allow him to use the boys’ bathroom. Here’s what you need to know about each case: 

Peña Rodriguez v. Colorado

In 2010, a jury found Miguel Angel Peña Rodriguez guilty of sexually harassing two sisters in a racetrack bathroom. One of the jurors, a former police officer referred to as H.C., said he thought Peña Rodriguez was guilty “because he’s Mexican, and Mexican men take whatever they want,” according to sworn statements from his fellow jurors. H.C. said the defendant’s alibi witness was not credible because he was “an illegal,” the sworn statements said. 

On Monday, in a five-to-three decision, the Supreme Court found that racial bias on the part of a juror–like H.C. in the Peña Rodriguez case–warrants an inquiry into jury deliberations. “Racial bias implicates unique historical, constitutional and institutional concerns,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority opinion. He added that for an inquiry to be justified, “there must be a showing that one or more jurors made statements exhibiting overt racial bias that cast serious doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the jury’s deliberations and resulting verdict.”

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan agreed with Kennedy, while Justices Samuel Alito, John Roberts, and Clarence Thomas dissented. Writing for the dissenting opinion, Alito called the prevailing opinion “startling,” adding that “although the court tries to limit the degree of intrusion, it is doubtful that there are principled grounds for preventing the expansion of today’s holding.”

The Gavin Grimm Case

In 2015, a local school board in Virginia enacted a policy that students must use the bathroom that corresponds with the gender on their birth certificate. This was a blow to transgender students who, like Grimm, want to use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity. Grimm, represented by the ACLU,  challenged the policy in court. Last year, a federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, ruled that the policy is unlawful, concurring with the Obama Administration that Title IX, which protects students from sexual discrimination, also protects transgender rights.

But on Monday, the Supreme Court vacated the appeals court’s ruling, sending it back for further consideration. The case would have been the first transgender rights case to appear in the highest court. The decision to throw away the case for the time being was likely influenced by the Trump Administration’s repeal of an Obama Administration directive requiring public schools to allow students to use whichever bathroom matches their gender identity.

“Thousands of transgender students across the country will have to wait even longer for a final decision from our nation’s highest court affirming their basic rights,” Sarah Warbelow, the legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, told the New York Times.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Declines Hearing for Gavin Grimm Case, Issues Ruling on Jury Secrecy appeared first on Law Street.

Just in time for the first day of school for many kids, Federal Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas announced that he is blocking the Obama administration’s directive that allows transgender students to choose whichever bathroom is consistent with their gender identity.

This means schools will face no consequences if they do not accommodate bathroom or locker room options for transgender students. The blocking of the order will apply nationwide for the time being.

The government’s bathroom directive became official in May after the Justice Department sued North Carolina over its bathroom bill, HB2, which prohibited people from using bathrooms that do not correspond with the sex on their birth certificate. U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch compared North Carolina’s policies to racial segregation.

On August 12, Texas and 12 other states filed a lawsuit against the government at a hearing in Fort Worth, saying the bathroom rules are unconstitutional and complaining they would loose billions of dollars if they do not follow the rules. The Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, called Obama’s “illegal federal overreach” and said to Associated Press:

This president is attempting to rewrite the laws enacted by the elected representatives of the people, and is threatening to take away federal funding from schools to force them to conform. That cannot be allowed to continue, which is why we took action to protect states and school districts.

But the Obama administration disagreed and argued earlier this year that the bathroom guidelines are non-binding and have no legal consequences.

Even though the government never explicitly said that schools need to follow the bathroom rules to not lose their funding, it was implied in court documents that stated the schools that get federal funding ”are clearly on notice that anti-discrimination polices must be followed.”

Judge O’Connor also claimed that existing laws that require schools to not discriminate people on the basis of sex do not apply to transgender students since “the plain meaning of the term sex meant the biological and anatomical differences between male and female students as determined at their birth.”

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 Texas Judge Blocks Obama’s Directive on Transgender Student Bathroom Use appeared first on Law Street.

Last month, Saks Fifth Avenue took a page from the book of fellow upscale department store Barneys New York and attempted to justify its discriminative policies. But instead of partaking in racist actions against customers, Saks is discriminating against a transgender employee.

Former employee Leyth O. Jamal filed a sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit against a Texas Saks, claiming she was fired for being transgender. So instead of owning up to its mistakes and offering an apology, Saks tried to find a loophole to justify its actions. The company claimed that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not include trans* people. Meanwhile the Supreme Court has concluded that Title VII could qualify for discrimination “based on sex” in the past. And if that’s not convincing enough for you, both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Justice Department have also ruled that Title VII includes people of any trans* identity.

While these laws should definitely be properly amended to explicitly mention people on the trans* spectrum, that doesn’t get Saks off the hook. The company also insisted on using male pronouns to identify Jamal throughout its filings, even adding a “[sic]” every time it quoted Jamal referring to herself as female. Just as Leelah Alcorn’s parents continued to refer to her as male in their statements, referring to a person by anything other that the gender that he or she has chosen is ignorant and just plain disrespectful.

It is absolutely unacceptable for Saks to try to get away with such putrid behavior when the fashion industry is peppered with people who identify all across the LGBTQ spectrum. It shouldn’t be okay In any industry to mistreat trans* people, but it breaks my heart to hear that this is still happening in the progressive industry that I love. Both Saks and the government need to update their perspectives and become more inclusive of both trans* and LGBTQ people, so no one has to fall victim to discrimination, self-harm, and violence like Jamal, Alcorn, and Kimy Hartman all did.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Saks Defends Discrimination Against Transgender Employee appeared first on Law Street.

Usually, when a crime is committed, the person responsible for the illegal action goes to jail. Although, this is the correct sequence of events, it is not always what occurs in reality. This was recently proven by the Connecticut DCF system, which placed a 16 year old transgender teen in jail despite lacking one important aspect; technically, she has never been charged with a crime.

On April 8, 2014 a superior court judge ordered the girl, who will remain as Jane Doe to protect her identity, to be transferred from DCF custody to the woman’s prison, York Correctional Institution in East Lyme. This decision was made after the judge heard an overwhelming amount of evidence regarding the girl’s violent acts over the course of six days. The treatment of this youth is deemed appropriate by the Connecticut Department of Children and Families. DCF referred to a legal statute which has not been used in 14 years, granting them the right to transfer dangerous juveniles who cannot be held at a treatment facility. According to DCF, this transfer was necessary because of her past violence against both staff and fellow patients at a number of treatment facilities.

The Jane Doe is a transgender teen who was born as a male and identifies as a female. She has been living within the DCF system since the age of 5, and when discussing her time with DCF explains, “I feel that DCF has failed to protect me from harm and I am thrown into prison because they have refused to help me.”

This has becomes a battle between DCF and the girl’s lawyer, Aaron J. Romano. DCF has made it clear that this youth is uniquely dangerous to both staff and patients alike, making it hard to provide her with proper support within the facility. On the other hand, Romano explains that the girl’s aggression is the result of the sexual abuse that she has faced in the DCF system and should not be the cause of her jail time. Instead, her attorney explains that the girl spends around 22 hours a day in solitary confinement and her condition is deteriorating due to a lack of counseling.

Here are the issues at play:

1. Gender

This case caused a wide spread legal debate, questioning the rights available to not only minors, but individuals who identify as transgender. Historically, the Department of Correction has chosen to place individuals with the inmate population that correlates to their biological gender. However, the court regarded the 2011 bill which makes it illegal to discriminate against an individual based on their gender and identity expression. This caused Jane Doe to be placed in a woman’s prison. While her rights have been granted, this becomes a double edged sword, allowing her to be in a woman’s prison, but forcing her into isolation. This is due to the fact that she is not only considered to be a violent inmate, but one with a male organ, calling into play the issue of rape.

2. No crime was committed.

Another issue is that this youth was never charged with a crime, but moved to an adult prison due to the lack of resources to support her treatment within an alternative facility. Many activists question, if this individual identified with her biological, male identity, would she have ended up in jail? Many agree that she would most likely have been placed into a treatment facility with other males, and much of this stems from DCF’s lack of transgender options.

Romano has filed a legal complaint against DCF and its commissioner, Joetter Katz as well as the State Department and its commissioner, James Duzrenda. The youth’s lawyer charged that the state law used to transfer the teen is illegal because it violates two federal laws. The Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 which provides funds to states in order to follow core protections for youth in the justice system and the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 dealing with the sexual assault of prisoners. Romano is hoping to overturn the “unconstitutional” transfer. The complaint further requires DCF to create programming and treatment specific to transgender children and youth.

While this youth has committed acts of violence, an adult prison facility is not the place for her. I would think that it would be more beneficial for a troubled youth to be working through her emotional turmoil rather than sitting in solitary confinement, where nothing can be done. This is partially the fault of the court system, which opted to place this youth in jail due to DCF’s lack of options. There are not many treatment options for transgender youth or even high risk individuals but changes need to be made. DCF should create new programming to accommodate such circumstances.

[The Huffington Post] [The CT Mirror]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013)

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Transgender Teen is Imprisoned, But is it Constitutional? appeared first on Law Street.