SHOULD POLICE OFFICERS WHO UNDERGO A SEX CHANGE BE ALLOWED TO MAINTAIN THEIR EMPLOYMENT?

Should Police Officers Who Undergo a Sex Change Be Allowed to Maintain Their Employment?

Amanda Moon-Thomas

Over the past several years gender reassignment has become a more prevalent issue in the workplace. As a result, discrimination has also become an issue; especially in the field of law enforcement. This was the case in the fall of 2005, when a Cincinnati, Ohio police officer, Philecia Barnes, decided to undergo a gender reassignment surgery to become a female. The officer had worked on the force for nearly two decades; moreover the officer had been a sergeant in the Marine Corps. In 1998 the officer was working as a male, but living as a female when she applied to take a sergeant’s exam. She ranked 18th out of 105 on her exam and then was placed on a three-month probationary period during which she was monitored on a daily basis. During this period she was required to wear a microphone and was rated on a six-page form designated specifically for her. I wonder if they use a different form for African Americans or Asians or White females. At the end of the probation Officer Barnes was failed due to her “lack of command presence”, according to court papers. It is worthy noting that this officer was the first officer to fail probation in 7 years.

The officer sued, citing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The question at hand was whether this portion of the Civil Rights Act protects transgender workers against discrimination. The words “transgender” or “sexual orientation” do not appear in the text of Title VII, which prevents job bias because of race, religion, sex, gender, and other factors. However a Supreme Court ruling in 1989 found that an employer who punishes a worker because of gender stereotyping is guilty of sex discrimination under Title VII. A federal jury agreed with the Cincinnati officer and, on appeal, the Sixth Circuit Supreme Court encompassing Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee, upheld the original decision and awarded the officer over $30,000 in back pay and $150,000 in compensatory damages. The officer returned to work as a sergeant a few months after the court ruling and is reported to be doing well in her new capacity.

To say that this officer lacked a “command presence” is a sexist remark not only against transgender persons, but could also be interpreted as sexist against homosexuals and females on the force as well. Do female or homosexual officers on the force get less respect or do less than their heterosexual male counterparts? Apparently only big burley men can exhibit command presence, which must be the only job requirement for advancing through that department! However, as in other cases around the United States, officers who have undergone gender reassignment surgery or are homosexual are being valued as “outreach officers” to positively impact the department and the community by teaching and demonstrating tolerance and sensitivity to those who are either ignorant or adverse to this circumstance. They are still performing all the duties of other officers but are being utilized to enhance the department’s relationship with the community. Law enforcement officers are sworn to “serve and protect” all citizens; not just ones who are like them. Having diversity in any field of work, reflective of the “real world”, is an asset to that agency.

This particular officer, Philecia Barnes, worked on the police force for 23 years before deciding to undergo the gender reassignment surgery. She was able to satisfactorily perform her job in that amount of time as a man. Does her choice to become a woman at the end of her career negatively impact her ability to perform her job after having done it for over two decades? What difference does it make if the person is a man or woman if the job performance is the same?

According to the 1989 ruling by the Supreme Court, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does protect persons from being discriminated against at work based on their sexual orientation. Because of this ruling, gay and transgender workers are able to legitimately sue for their rights to be treated as any other employee and cannot have their sexual orientation used against them when being considered for promotion or during routine job evaluations.

According to research conducted by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, there is no federal law that protects people from bias and discrimination based on their sexual orientation or identity. However, since the 1970’s many states and local agencies have enacted laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. Many employers have been modifying their non-discrimination polices to extend protections for gay, lesbian and bi-sexual workers. At present three-quarters of Fortune 500 companies include sexual orientation in their written non-discrimination policies.

In a country that embraces a multitude of races, religions, cultures and equality among sexes; gays, lesbians and transgender people should be afforded the same tolerance and sensitivity. As in the case of this Cincinnati police officer, when a person proves him or herself capable of performing the duties of a chosen field, they should not be subjected to gender stereotyping. Such persons can be valuable assets for companies who wish to advocate for non-discrimination among their employees, organizations and within the community they are a part of.

References:
http://gender-reassignment-therapy.mindbit.com/

Rostow, A (2005, November 7). The advocate. Retrieved October 2, 2006, from Planetout.com Web site: http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2005/11/07/1

http://gendertree.com/Smith%20V.%20Salem%20Ohio.htm

Human Rights Campaign. (2004). Transgender Issues in the Workplace.