If you are an employer in New York and you “misgender” people, require people to use the proper bathroom facilities, or have “discriminatory” dress codes, prepare to be fined from $125,000 to $250,000 for each offense.
The Daily Wire Reports:
New York City’s race toward outright leftist tyranny just took another massive leap forward with its newly revamped law on “discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression,” which announces devastating fines against employers and housing and public accommodations providers who “misgender” people, require people to use the proper bathroom facilities, or have “discriminatory” dress codes.
Threatening fines from $125,000 to $250,000 for offenses, the NYC Commission on Human Rights, at the leadership of far-left Mayor Bill de Blasio and Commissioner Carmelyn P. Malalis, is now forbidding all employers, providers of public accommodations, and housing providers to discriminate on the basis of someone’s self-determined gender identity.
One of the ways one can violate the law is the improper use of a person’s preferred pronouns, including newly invented ones like “ze” and “hir,” and titles, like Mr, Mrs, or Mx. Here are two examples of violations of using someone’s preferred pronoun or title provided in the new law:
a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses.
b. Refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun, or title because they do not conform to gender stereotypes. For example, calling a woman “Mr.” because her appearance is aligned with traditional gender-based stereotypes of masculinity.
Assuming all of the latest terminology pushed by LGBT activists, the NYC commission provides a set of proper definitions for its gender codes, like “cisgender,” “gender nonconforming,” and “gender expression” (how one chooses to express one’s gender, including clothing, preferred pronouns, haircut, etc.). The gender expression definition is key, as it effectively establishes all the ways in which an employer cannot require an employee to alter clothing, hairstyle, or behavior. By prohibiting any “discrimination” on “gender expression,” the city is prohibiting employers and housing providers from having any standards potentially deemed “discriminatory” on dress, behavior, or expression.
The NYCHRL underscores that though federal law allows for much leeway on dress code requirements, the city sees those standards as “a floor rather than a ceiling” and is thus heightening restrictions. “Under the NYCHRL, employers and covered entities may not require dress codes or uniforms, or apply grooming or appearance standards, that impose different requirements for individuals based on sex or gender,” it declares. Here are some examples of violations:
a. Maintaining grooming and appearance standards that apply differently to individuals who identify as men or women or which have gender-based distinctions. For example, requiring different uniforms for men and women, or requiring that female bartenders wear makeup.
b. Requiring employees of one gender to wear a uniform specific to that gender.
c. Permitting only individuals who identify as women to wear jewelry or requiring only individuals who identify as male to have short hair. Requiring all servers, for example, to always have long hair tied back in a ponytail or away from their face is not a violation unless it is applied unequally based on gender.
d. Permitting female but not male residents at a drug treatment facility to wear wigs and high heels.
e. Requiring all men to wear ties in order to dine at a restaurant.
The law also prohibits refusing people the use of the opposite sex’s bathrooms. “The NYCHRL requires that individuals be permitted to use single-sex facilities, such as bathrooms or locker rooms, and participate in single-sex programs, consistent with their gender, regardless of their sex assigned at birth, anatomy, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on their identification,” the law states.
While the commission does not require the building of additional “all-gender” restrooms, it does require that all covered entities with single-occupancy restrooms “make clear that they can be used by people of all genders.” A few examples of violations:
a. Prohibiting an individual from using a particular program or facility because they do not conform to sex stereotypes. For example, a women’s shelter may not turn away a woman because she looks too masculine nor may a men’s shelter deny service to a man because he does not look masculine enough.
b. Prohibiting a transgender or gender non-conforming person from using the single-sex program or facility consistent with their gender identity or expression. For example, it is an unlawful discriminatory practice to prohibit a transgender woman from using the women’s bathroom.