Reading and answer questions 3 - Assignment Example
Smith’s fellow employees affirmed their perception of the increased manifestation of his feminity characteristics.
Smith’s first case was dismissed as a feeble attempt to use stereotyping and sex discrimination as a conduit around his claim, which the statute did not proscribe (378 F 3d 566, 486). The second appeal granted support, holding that Smith had an actionable say for gender stereotyping based on his masculinity non-conforming demeanor and his transsexualism.
Gender prejudice based on sex is equated with insupportable discrimination on the bias of sex stereotypes, which requires one to display prominent femininity or masculinity qualities. The court ruling concluded that Smith’s inadequacy to match typical male characteristics was the main intent behind his discrimination (378 F 3d 566, 487).
The ruling exemplified that an employers rights should not be hinged on their sex-specific dressing.
