Bobbie posted a reason why I can't-I don't exist at all!
"Saks could have fought Jamal’s suit by insisting that her claims of harassment are false, or that she was terminated for reasons unrelated to her gender. But instead, Saks has claimed that it has a legal right to discriminate against trans employees based on their trans status.
This tactic is quite odd, for two reasons. First, it is morally repulsive. Saks mis-genders Jamal throughout its filings, referring to her as “he” and “him.” Even worse, when Saks quotes Jamal’s own complaint, it adds a stinging “[sic]” after every reference to Jamal as female, as if to assert that Jamal’s identification as a woman is factually incorrect. Saks, then, not only appears to condone discrimination against trans people; it also seems to refuse to accept the validity of a trans identity at all."
This story seems so out of sync to me for a couple reasons. First, why would Saks let this happen at all and two, why would they hire (or retaining) such an ignorant out of touch legal team? Saks' sales must be way up since they don't need any additional dollars from the transgender community? Or maybe they called Chick Fil-A for ideas?