"The City remains constrained from providing these additional protections to applicants for employment.
The City may not require other entities who contract with the City or who rent City facilities to adopt these additional protections."
So if a Trans female dressed and looking like a male goes to the men's bathroom at a City Council meeting, it's illegal?
If a Trans male dressed and looking like a female goes into the men's bathroom at a City Council meeting to follow the law, and is then outed and humiliated for being a Trans by anyone who sees or hears of him using the men's room in a dress, it's ok, because that's the law?
A 'girl' who looks like a guy goes to a Taylor Swift concert at Greensboro's Coliseum. 'She' gets in line with women to go to the restroom. People start looking. Some tell 'her' she is in the wrong line. S/he tells them she's a girl, and has to use the women's bathroom. They don't believe her. A crowd forms. A girl's father or a mom cold cocks 'her', either for being a Trans or a guy trying to get into the girls bathroom.
How would the advocates of HB2 not be responsible?
A Trans guy who is a 'girl' goes to a nightclub, goes into the men's bathroom and when asked, tells them he's a guy and has to use the men's bathroom.
He returns to the dance floor while the news spreads and is bludgeoned a half hour later by a few drunk bigots who heard about it while many others figure out why. Some watch the Trans get his ass kicked and applaud.
How can the consequences of the legislation be justified?;
"The legislation pushed through North Carolina’s General Assembly last week, ...eliminates a key legal right for workers that has been in place in the state for three decades
Although most of the focus has been on the law’s impact on protections for transgender individuals and the preemption of local non-discrimination laws, other sections of the bill altered state law on employee protections.
One provision added a single sentence to a longstanding legislative public policy declaration, a change that experts say unravels North Carolina workers’ right to bring action in state court for workplace discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex or disabilities.
The addition to the legislative declaration passed Wednesday reads: “This Article does not create, and shall not be construed to create or support, a statutory or common law private right of action, and no person may bring any civil action based upon the public policy expressed herein.”
...that effectively wipes out using the policy declaration as a source to back up the right to sue in a state court.
...[the] majority of cases in the state are over discrimination because of age, sex and disabilities.
In federal cases a plaintiff must file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with 180 days while the state allowed three years.
...there are only a handful of federal courts in the state, which adds travel, time and financial barriers to bringing a case."
"...for the first time in decades, North Carolina courts closed their doors to those fired because of their race, sex, age, disability, national origin, or religion. Those wrongfully terminated are left with only federal discrimination laws, which are largely inferior to the now defunct state discrimination claims. North Carolina joins Mississippi as the only two states that do not offer their citizens state law protection against the most basic forms of discrimination."
"North Carolina is an “at-will” employment state, meaning that employers can sack employees for any reason or no reason at all—unless the discharge would violate some tenet of public policy. (For instance, companies can’t fire workers for refusing a boss’s order to commit a crime.)
...“It would be like if the Legislature said it’s against the law to drive over 65, but if you do, there will be no repercussions, and we won’t give you a ticket or anything like that. A lot of people would probably consistently drive over 65 in that scenario. The Legislature has said companies shouldn’t discriminate, but if you do, we won’t do anything about it.”
...Federal court also tends to be a more time-consuming and expensive process than state court. Unlike state court, it does allow workers to recoup attorneys’ fees, although punitive and compensatory damages, excluding back wages, are capped at $300,000 or less, depending on the size of the defendant company. State law has no cap.
By having to take a workplace discrimination case to Federal Court,
if the employee loses, the company who fired them can recoup attorney's fee,
meaning there is much more risk involved for someone who just lost a job.
...The sparse language of the amendment does not make clear whether it was intended to apply retroactively. Attorneys said they were unsure whether it would apply based on the date when the alleged discrimination occurred, or the date the lawsuit was filed, or whether the new law might lead to the dismissal of discrimination suits that had already been filed.
...the law’s ostensible core might prove short-lived while the employment law provisions survive."