I don’t give a flying fuck that bouncers screw people over in every demographic all the time. And I don’t give a flying fuck if people are sick and tired of having to worry about “sensitivity awareness” with respect to people who are different.
Just because it is “how things are” does not mean it is how things should stay. A boycott/protest campaign is fine and dandy. More power to them. But there comes a time when you lawyer up and take a stand in the hopes that the publicity and inertia of a legal precedent can help to elevate humanity to a higher level of tolerance.
Anyone want to wager that her ID would’ve been more than sufficient if she’d wanted to buy a few expensive rounds of drinks? But tweak the situation a bit, and she’s forced to leave or perhaps commit a crime such as lewd behavior or assault in an attempt to either prove that she should be able to take a fucking piss in peace, or that sometimes you just have to take a swing and stand up for yourself?
What’s her cause of action? Which court would have jurisdiction, State or Fed? What are her damages? Can punitive damages apply? If so can they be imputed to the bouncers employer? Why does everybody always want to sue somebody? Sometimes I just say fuck it and don’t go back when someone is an asshole.
I can’t say I blame the bouncer. She does look a lot like a dude, and it sounds like it was a honest mistake. An apology ought to be sufficient, but of course it’s not going to be. She’s probably seeing dollar signs and a chance to be famous. The LGBT crowd is going to make this an ‘issue’ about discrimination or whatever, when in fact it is nothing more than a mistake.
I blame the hell out of the bouncer. Even if it was a mistake, the guy works in Greenwich Village restaurant, during a Pride festival, and he doesn’t know what a butch lesbian is? That kind of stupid deserves litigation. The restaurant should have put him out on his ass as soon as they heard about it.
Plus, the bouncer apparently violated a law about bathroom access. “Oops” doesn’t get you out of that. Fuck that guy, mistake or not, and fuck the restaurant for standing behind him.
A few months ago, a former regular in my neighborhood bar was at the place across the street and got in an argument with a waitress. He has Tourette’s and one of his tics made him bump the waitress with his arm. Three bouncers beat the shit out of him all in the name of “defending a lady”. Having just been in a conversation about that incident, I find it really hard to put a very high dollar value on this woman’s trauma, even if the bar does need a little shaming.
Yes, it could have started as a legit mistake. The Bouncer should have/could have said Politiely “Pardon me, this is the ladies room.” She would have explained her gender. Now, if it had stopped there, his simple mistake certainly would have deserved nothing more than an apology. But even though she did ID herself, he threw her out anyway. That’s when it went from a simple mistake to being rude and antagonistic.
As a hypothetical, let’s say instead of being accused of being a man this tattler woman had instead said “I heard her sniffing coke” to the bouncer. The bouncer believes tattler and, despite offers to let him search her purse or take a drug test, he kicks her out anyway. Would Farmer have a right to sue then?
I don’t know that people should be able to sue for just any old thing. Yeah, the woman was wronged. Yeah, it was a stupid mistake. How much should she be paid for stupidity?
The restaurant should apologize and give her a bunch of coupons for free drinks. And take steps so this doesn’t happen to anyone again.
Litigation is an expense and a burden, and many years of being a litigious society have not notably reduced the supply of stupid. If I was ever on a jury that got a case like this I would consider it a total waste of my time.
I feel I should explain what kind of irked me about the OP. IANAL but this bit:
seems in the first half a bit of an abuse of process. IMHO, lawsuits should be used to recover direct damages - not publicize political campaigns. In the second half, maybe a misunderstanding of precedent? While a successful civil lawsuit may put the fear of god into some establishments, it’s not like you can now call the cops on them if they kick a transsexual out of the bathroom.
Sure, but rude and antagonistic is miles away from discriminatory behavior. This lady deserved an apology, but now that she’s chasing dollar signs and celebrity she ought to be chastised.
Suing doesn’t always have to be about the size of the settlement. We are rapidly moving in a direction where gender identity is not functionally going to fit in the same boxes we’ve crammed it in in the past. As someone said in the other thread, imho unisex bathrooms are inevitable, and it is going to take some paradigm shifting to get there. There are times (and this is one of them) when I would rather see the legal process engaged when the situation is at the milder end of the spectrum, and that is the variety of precedent that I was referring to in the OP. Businesses that serve the public need to be aware of how to avoid situations like this, and to adapt. Unfortunately the attitude is often “make me”. I think the legal system is the best way of mitigating the risks associated with clashes of the "make me"s and the increasing number of individuals who bend and break gender roles.
Hand in hand with our litigious society comes a backlash when every suit is assumed to be about the money. I would sue if I were her, and it would not be about the money. What would she and her lawyers (or anyone who seeks to involve the legal process out of principle) have to do with any settled or awarded amount in order for people to consider motives other than greed?
No, we’re not. 99.99% of people are perfectly served by the traditional male/female bathrooms. The entire system is not going to change for a tiny fraction of people at the detriment of almost everyone else.
She was offered a free dinner at the restaurant. Asking for anything more than that and an apology is money grubbing. Sticking your face in front of every camera you can find is attention whoring. This woman should not be praised as an activist. She should be scorned as the menace she is.
Well, what does she want? The ability to go to the bathroom she pleases? It seems to me that with the apology and offer of free dinner, the restaurant is going to do just that. One can only assume they’ll be more careful in the future.* What motives other than greed or free publicity are left?
edited to ask: Why is it that no Lesbian defense fund of some sort back her up? I understand the strategic value of the lawsuit for the Trans-gender group, but seems weird for them to be forefront.
*Especially seeing as how they apparently were already flying a rainbow flag. What a boner move this was on their part.
I disagree. Impact litigation can be a very important way to protect rights and force an issue to public awareness, and particularly when we are dealing with the vulnerable and with controversial areas of social policy. In some areas – environmental protection, civil rights, education law, disability law, poverty law, elder law, and immigration law, impact litigation is an important part of a society’s internal dialogue.
I guess I have to give you that to some degree. I suppose I was just blinded by how much that doesn’t seem to apply here. This was a woman that was denied access to the women’s room and I think it’s a big reach to make it a precedent for anything like what I assume the Transsexual Defense Fund wants to make it. It was just a somewhat understandable, but an obnoxiously and far too followed-through-on, mistake. IMHO, IANAL.
Come on, Miller. Did you see how she dresses? She is* trying *to look like a guy and does a damn good job at it. When this story appeared on TV and she first appeared on the screen walking down the street, I thouhgt it was simply a guy walkiing down the street as an establishing shot and they were going to then cut or pan to the woman in the story. When it turned out to be her I was quite surprised.