Don’t let fear tactics undermine the Maine Human Rights Act’s vital protections
This morning I argued for summary judgment in GLAD’s transgender discrimination case against a Maine Denny’s restaurant. I argued that our client Brianna Freeman - and all Maine transgender residents - deserves fair and equal access to the appropriate restroom. In my closing statement, I reminded the Court that the purpose of the Maine Human Rights Act is to allow individuals the same opportunity to prove themselves in work and in public life, without barriers imposed by discrimination and prejudice:
“I want to end by urging this Court not to let Defendant’s various fear tactics about safety in the restrooms undermine the Maine Human Rights Act’s protections, particularly when they have not produced any evidence whatsoever to support them. Instead, Defendant’s arguments actually invoke the very stereotypes and fears about transgender individuals that the Maine law is intended to eradicate.
This Court should not allow some hypothetical case that is not in front of the court today and is not rooted in the reality of transgender people’s lives, to prevent it from making the right decision in this case, which presents such a clear-cut violation. Here, it is undisputed that Defendant knew that Ms. Freeman was transgender, and that it based its decision on that knowledge by requiring Ms. Freeman to undergo surgery before being able to access the women’s restroom.
Finally, while this case may seem unique or unusual for this Court or for Defendants, the challenge of finding a safe and appropriate restroom to use in public and at work is sadly a daily challenge for the many transgender individuals that live in Maine. And without the ability to access safe and appropriate restrooms at work and in public, transgender individuals, who are already a highly vulnerable and marginalized population, simply cannot participate in society on the same level as all other individuals.
And that is ultimately the purpose of the Maine Human Rights Act - to allow individuals the same opportunity to prove themselves in work and in public life, without barriers imposed by discrimination and prejudice.
This court should not undermine these vital protections by writing an exception excluding protections for transgender individuals to use the gender-appropriate restroom into the statute that simply does not exist, that has been explicitly rejected by the legislature, and that would effectively prevent countless number of transgender individuals from accessing the protections they so desperately need.”