Kia Franklin

Woman Settles Gender Stereotyping Discrimination Case

A woman who was ousted from the Village restaurant Caliente Cab Company for looking too masculine has settled her discrimination case against the restaurant. According to the Village Voice, the restaurant:

has agreed to add gender, including gender identity and expression, to its corporate non-discrimination policy; amend its employee handbook to state "persons patronizing or employed at Caliente have the right to use the bathroom facilities consistent with their gender identity and expression”; adopt a gender-neutral dress code for its employees; institute personnel training programs regarding its new policies; and pay $35,000 in damages to plaintiff Farmer.

Tip to Gothamist for covering this story.

Kia Franklin: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 10:04 AM, May 14, 2008 in Discrimination
Permalink | Email to Friend


And all because a customer complained that a man was in the womens' bathroom, and promptly threaten to sue the restaurant. The restaurant gets sued if they do, and get sued if they don't.

Hat tip to TortDeform for pointing out the Hobson's Choices inherent in our legal system.

Posted by: Lawyer | May 15, 2008 6:45 PM

She wasn't kicked out for "looking too masculine," she was kicked out for looking like a man in the women's restroom.

Tortdeform supports litigation-mandated unisex restrooms?

Posted by: Joe Bingham | May 16, 2008 11:01 AM

She wasn't kicked out for "looking like a man in a women's bathroom." She was kicked out because the bouncer wouldn't take the government issued i.d. that proved she wasn't a man in a women's bathroom. Fine, she looked like a man--so that's what her i.d. is for.

Yep, it is sued if you do, sued if you don't: sued if you DO discriminate, sued if you DON'T take necessary steps (like check the i.d. a person is offering as proof that she is where she belongs) to make sure you're not discriminating. Such a difficult thing to do, check i.d.'s. Let's get rid of people's right not to be discriminated against, because clearly that's much less difficult than requiring people to take cursory steps to make sure they're not humiliating people for no good reason.

Posted by: Kia | May 22, 2008 10:15 AM

Kia, you throw around "discrimination" like it's Halloween candy. Bouncers are told not to accept any I.D.'s that have any chance of looking fake. Of course, this too is because of lawsuits (big surprise). So here, at worst, we have a dumb bouncer. Kia, meet Earth.

So can we please drop the "won't someone think of the children" routine when a bouncer mistakenly doesn't accept an I.D.?

And it wasn't for "no good reason." Women complain that their privacy rights in bathrooms are invaded ALL THE TIME. For these women it's a perfectly "good reason."

Posted by: Lawyer | May 22, 2008 6:54 PM