From the New York Times. I'm like above all, this, today, the story. In the previous Supreme Court case of the year, it's Thursday November seventh, my name is Amy Stevens, fifty eight years old and I live in Redford Michigan ever since I was a little kid. I've been fascinated with the feel of industry, I was hired in is a funeral director and environment. It was a chance to be able to comfort people

There will probably one of the worst damned their lives, which was losing Lovejoy and for me it was calling it was. My chance to be able to help people and what about the particular funeral home where you worked. What would you describe as your relationship to it and the culture of it? I thought we had a pretty good relationship. I'd been there for over six years. I had some ideas about things I could do to improve it practices step around the table home. They took those cigarettes didn't and ran with interact. I just got no rather substantial pay in Greece. So I cannot Wharton expecting this to go south the way it did any. I want, if you can.

Read from the letter that you handed your boss, you, dear friends, in color, I have no many of you for some time now and I count you all my friends what I must tell you is very difficult for me and you're taking all the Kurds I can muster. I'm writing this both to inform you of a significant change in my life and to ask for your patient understanding and support. We can were treasure greatly I have a gender identity disorder that I have struggled with my entire life. I have managed it I did very well all the hears it all started when I was about, five years old. I knew something was different about me, but I could not have told you what it was. Then

I have been in therapy for nearly four years now and I have been diagnosed as it transsexual. I have felt imprisoned in a body that does not match my mind, and this has caused a great despair and law with the support of my loving, why I've decided to become the person that my mind already is. I cannot begin to describe the shame and suffering at. I have lived here too To that end, I intend to have sex reassignment surgery. The first step must take is to live and work full time. As a woman for one year at the end of March. Education on August, twenty six, two thousand and thirteen returning to work is my true self Amy, Australia, Stevens, inappropriate business attire I realise that some of you may have trouble understanding this. In truth, I've

delay with it. Every day of my life and even I do not fully understand it myself. I have tried hard all my life to please everyone around me to do the right thing and not rock the boat ass distressing? Is this issue to be did I friend and some of my family. I need to do this for myself. To end the agony and myself. It is my wish that I can, continued my work and our g endear Harris Funeral homes doing what I have always done, which is my best That is a really powerful utter. It. Took a long time to ride it somewhere between six and eight months. Well, all this started

back in two thousand and toil I've been living basically to live, it home in public, word, and I got to the point I couldn't go on living to separate lives. It was tearing me pardon me. I can't The feeling that if I couldn't go forward and I couldn't go backwards, what was it what's going on at all so in November, two thousand and twelve I stood, the back yard was going to my chest or an hour and in an hour I came to realize that I really liked me and, I wanted to live so I chose lie and then doing that there was only one place to go and I was born I started. Writing a letter and

in July. Two thousand and thirteen I gave it to the boss He didn't really have any reaction at all. As he was reading the letter himself. I was like pins and needles waiting for him to finish it and then, when he did vanish in here, it out and put it in his pocket and said I have to think about it and then too, later he came back his own letter, which was my letter of this so you had just been fired. Yes, and so what did you do I went home on Friday afternoon. I talk to my wife and It made me mad mad enough to the point on Monday morning. Weight to the

c o you- and I talk to Mr Cameron- and he put me in contact with the EU to show the equal opportunity, employment, commission, the federal agency career After I talked to the Eu Sea- and I did the investigation, they ask me a question and that question was. You are going to see this through to the end, Tell them, then, that I was raised in a form that I was used to hard work and it I didn't give up so easily. And yes, I would see this. The end, however long back to I had in my mind what I needed to do wasn't too really settled out of court. It wasn t just give up and walk away after This was not only happening to me or to thousands of others,

at that point. I knew I had to do something. Only thing I knew to do was basically to to court, and that's what you did I do all right back the distance between Washington in Wall Street gets shorter all the time. Our finances, portfolios and the markets are affected daily by the policies in politics coming out of the nation's capital, MIKE Townsend Charles Schwab's, vice president Four legislative and regulatory affairs hosts the original podcast Washington wise investor, where he takes a nun, Edison. Let the stories that matter most to investors down The latest episode in subscribe at swapped out palm Slash, Washington, wise or wherever you listen, funeral direct or fired for being transgender shaking her years long court battle,

an hour slap want to turn. Now to that historic day at the Supreme Supreme Court is set to consider transgender rights for the first time, so its October is the second day of the Supreme Court. Remembering the courtroom, along with Amy, Adam live TAT covers the Supreme Court for the times I'm sitting in the press box or by the bench, and will your argument next encase eighteen when I was seven Argius Gr Harris Funeral homes versus the equal employment opportunity? Commission, chief Justice Roberts announces the case. Mr Call, Mr Chief justice in May where's the court. David called illegal director of the American Civil Liberties Union representing, Miss Stevens gets up to argue and there's a charge since in the courtroom. This is probably the biggest case of the year and it turns out it's going to be very hard fought, one, an animal What exactly is the question before the court in Amy? Stevens case,

bottom. It's very simple question its can: an employer fire you based on gender identity. We know that you can't be fired because your religion, because of your sex, because. Of your raised? But the question which the court has never addressed before it can one be fired based on the gender identity and that's day in a companion gazed. Addressing the related question of cancer be fired based on their sexual orientation and all of these cases turn on how the court is going to interpret a particular law and what law is that the law is for one thousand nine hundred and sixty four its title. Seven of the Civil Rights act

It says that private employers cannot discriminate based on race, religion and sex, and the question for the justices is: how do you read the phrase in the law because of six? You can't fire someone because of sex. What is the exact question about that word? Sex? Well, nobody thinks that in nineteen sixty four when Congress enacted at law, the particular lawmakers. They were addressing sexual orientation or gender identity? If you ask them they'd probably say they were referring to what they would call biological sex and what other people might call sex assigned at birth, but none the less logic of the words Amy Stevens. His lawyer, David calls as in other lawyers say, is that in all

to fire, Amy Stevens. You have to take account of her sex and therefore this nineteen sixty four law squarely applies to her. So how exactly are the plaintiff lawyers making this argument before justices? Were they use? Various hypotheticals imagined employer had six aims. David Cold gives an example of examine five of them assigned at birth as one gender one. The other in one sense was assigned mail it worth in many fires, the one who says I was signed. Male members. Have you silly that person is fired because of her sex society person as we saw that shores? like discrimination because of sex, similarly in the sexual orientation, setting if a worker a man and wants to date, women and is left alone, but is a man and wants to date, men and is fired. That sounds like discrimination because of sex. Naturally, lifting the lawyer seems to be saying if you,

signed a sex at birth, and you somehow don't live up to that from a sign sex at birth and something happens to fire from your job. Because of that expectation, wasn't men that's sex discrimination, that's right in their picks up a second stream of Supreme Court jurisprudence. They have said it six discrimination. If you don't live up to a gender stereotypes and at the end of the day, the objection to someone for being transgender is the ultimate SEC. Stereotypes is saying I object to you, because you fail to conform to the stereotype, the stereotype, that if you are assigned a male sex at birth, you must live and identify for your entire life as a man that is true generalization for most of us, but it is not true. For one point: five million transgender America that separate ground on which Amy Stevens can win and also a fairly powerful ground in the world. As in the sexual orientation case, make a similar point that a man

once the data man is not living up to some conventional sick stereotypes and therefore their two on that separate ground. They should win, and what's that, arguments from the lawyers for the government who, on the other side of Amy Stevens and her lawyer, whether two basic points, one, is the nobody in nineteen. Sixty four was thinking this. So that's not what the means, but the second is that these are distinct traits, sex and gender Kennedy like section. Sexual orientation are different tricks, their defined. They have different definitions and it may well be that Congress should protect. The second thing to the government says but it has- and there is a reason why, when Congress wants to prohibit discrimination based on the traits of sexual orientation and gender identity, it list them separately. It doesn't define sexes, including these traits. So as long as you treat men and women exactly the same, regardless of their sex, you're not discriminate against

because of their sex? So I'm? How did the justices respond to these doing arguments? while some of them say it's up to Congress. May I ask you to respond to what some people will say about this court? If we walk in your favour and what they will say is that whether title seven should prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a big policy issue, and it is a different policy issue from the one that Congress thought it was addressing in nineteen. Sixty four,

Congress has been asked repeatedly in the years since nineteen sixty four to address this question: the equality actors before Congress right now, Congress has declined or failed to act on these requests sign. If the court takes this up and interprets this nineteen sixty four statute to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, we will be acting exactly like a legislature. We, they may well be a good idea for Congress to protect gay people drinking. Your people, but they didn't do it in nineteen sixty four, it's not our job to do it and people will lose faith in the court if they think were acting as legislators, not judges, Mr Co, let's not avoid the difference. Fischer. Ok. The second thing that was going out of the argument was barely legal. It was more cultural

There- was a lot of talk about the supposed social upheaval that would follow by a ruling, in particular in favour of Amy Stephen there's, a lot of talk about sports teams and dress codes and especially and endlessly about restrooms an end. Want to use the woman's bath, but they are other women who are made on comfortable and not merely uncomfortable, but who would feel intruded upon if someone who still had male characteristics walked into their back? That's why we have different bastard, so the. The question is: how do we deal with them that they wanted to know basically

a ruling in favour of Aimee Stevens would result in a free for all the nations bathrooms and whether that's gonna cause the world to go visit. It does an argument hold up when you get to specific, requirements. In other words, if the objection of a transgender man, transitioning woman, is that he should be allowed to use he or she should be allowed to use the women's bathroom How do you analyze there? Is that something like this rolling? What actually impact it's a question not presented in any of the cases, the holy my question, is a question that one day they may have to decide, but the fixation restrooms was really extraordinary. So why are the justices and it feels like both from the left and the right fixated on this? Why guess? It's the case that lots of people are made deeply

comfortable by the idea that they would have to share restroom with someone they perceived to be of the opposite sex and I guess those it blue, green cultural norms and people on board. Sides of the ideological while on the court really were troubled by and we're trying to figure out how to deal with the question that not in this case, but in some future ass, they might have to decide whether not letting a transgender person use a bathroom is the kind of adverse employment action that could give rise to a lawsuit. So what do you make of these questions and these reactions from the justices at this point in the hearing? What does that tell you about their thinking, so I walk into this argument, thinking what are usually think, the typically the fibre That point is the five conservatives are gonna, be on one side, ruling against the gay and transgender people on the Ford Democratic

point used for liberals on the other side: that's you going in proposition, not an unreasonable place to start, but something's got scrambled. There are questions from the left side of the cord, deeply sceptical of what will happen to nations bathrooms. Questions from the right side of the court, which seem very sympathetic to the argument that listen, the words in what they mean and is our job to interpret the words and they may well protects gay people and transgender people and the person who really captures this best is one of the court's ordinarily. Most serving members, but sometimes a bit of wildcard Neil Gorse, which president trumps first step. Pointy, who is an avowed textual, is to really

here, is about the words and looking at the words in isolation, and he just about says, listen when cases really cloaks really. Clubs, on the actual evidence- and I soon for the moment- I am waiting on the actual evidence- is cloaks. Ok, we're not talking about extra textual stuff for some of the text is clubs, adjudged finds it very close. If that were the only question the case, the word seem to protect these people. The nineteen sixty four times Evan Yard sex. Yes, that because of sex, does seem to apply and nanny pauses forbidden, says at the end today. Should he or she take into consideration the man Some social upheaval that would be entailed in such a decision, but what about the social upheaval that would result which, by the way, is not a particularly legitimate question for courts to take account of if their job

miss to interpret the law. Congress makes the law and the consequences of the law are for Congress to worry about, not courts. So I walk out thinking. What do you know? The for liberal votes? Are probably locked in in favour of uneasiness? Yes, but Amy Stevens needs a fifth vote doing who's that fifth mode. It might well be Neil Gorse it I mean we we'll find out for a few months. It may be yet another five four case along the usual lines, but it did seem that gorse, which in particular, really struggling with his intuition that the word mean what the plaintiffs, when Amy Stevens save they mean if, as the central tension

it is not about whether the text of the nineteen sixty four law applies to Amy Stevens, it's like in many cases they think it does. The tension here seems to be around these justices fears of some kind of practical consequence that they're, not even sure will happen if They agree with Amy Siemens Layers exactly right. It's usually the conservatives who say all we care about is the text You don't care about intent, we don't care about purpose, we don't care about consequences when a drill down and look at the Semi Collins and figure out what the text means and it's usually left side of the court. It says no, we take account of legislative history in conference reports and floor reports and we try to figure out what Congress meant to do. And here they kind of websites and a little more broadly. I think the court has basically reconciled itself to the fact that

they made for major gay rights decisions and that gay people ought to be protected. But it's a new frontier to talk about transgender people, and these two cases arrive at the court at the same time- and this is, feeling via the rise or fall together. But there's a disconnected transgender case really does sound like because of sex. The sexual orient asian cases a little further away from because of sex. But culturally the court seems ok with protecting gay people. But still a little uncomfortable with this concept, which seems new to some of the justices that there are people in the world who are transgender so there's a mix of things that are a consequence of the fact that their hearing the two cases together, so Adam, knowing everything you know about this court now, having sat through all this, what do you think is going to happen in this case? It's an appeal for it for EMU Stevens the five more conservative members of the court

Are likely to rule in like step against her she's got some shot. Picking up one of those votes mix up one votes, he wins walking out of the court room. I thought it was a little closer than you might have thought, but if he had to put money on it, this is in this kind of big culture, wars kind of case, a five fortunes. However, if court, which would mean that, in the case of a judge like corset, if he joined the conservatives against Amy Stevens, he will have been prioritizing these fears of societal up people that he thinks would result over. Perhaps the kind of ST legal textual arguments. If you take him,

his word and, of course it arguments. People were musing and offering up devils advocate ideas. But yes, if you look at what he said, it argument, what you say is right Thank you Michael so any it's been seven year scrapped since you're fired from the funeral home vertical I wonder if you have any interactions with your boss, he's on the other side of this case, I'm sure he's tracking it. Just as closely as you are, I am spoke, to him centre. Left me, I did. Keeping contact when someone- my close friends at work, but the ones were closer to me- have sent past stone

So I really don't have anything to do with few home at all now days, I have been there for visitation to friends and things that have died, impair stone. You ve been there for four funerals me out there must be a strange experience, it makes me wonder they even knew who I was running well, we used to go to particular care he's restaurant. When I was presenting his mail and we were in their eating one weekend. In the manager the place asked power. It says: where is your husband and she turned? and she looked at me and he says he is now she and she said, were very happy together, and you gotta go Affright dream in his mouth County jail adopt, he could

believe what he was see. I've had people from the church we used to attend, have stood in front of me in a restaurant and had no cause who is the who I was so unhappy at the point where I met and I'm sorry had. They don't understand it, but to me I was more important than die. I'm happy being me, I don't think, there's any thing, I'd rather be except me. And it would be nice to be able to work a job that truly loved that I was good it by now Candide denied the chance to where we are now. I am really grateful for your time, glad to have met you, and I wish you the best. Thank you very much

oh very back, have one, you know a lot of things are changing and our professional lives so and learning wants to give you a hand with skills that can help you and your career may have oversight. Ten thousand courses top by industry experts- it's great- you can learn. How to stay engaged while working from home or get tips on finding a job from a career strategist. So keep learning skills. You need to rise to any moment and try one month free linked in learning dot com, slash the daily use. Else. You needn't hundred, I to let you know, as you may know, already, that we will begin the hearings in the impeachment inquiry. Next week we

beginning with the testimony of Ambassador Taylor and a bastard can't on Wednesday House. Impeachment investigators said that the public these of their inquiry would begin next week with levice testimony from three senior officials from the State Department who layer their case against president truck, and I You will see throughout the course of the test, will not only their testament but many others. The most important are largely not contested. All three officials said they. Witness or were victims of the president's campaign, to pressure Ukraine, to investigate the president's including Marie Ivanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine, who was fired after Trump, and his allies concluded that she was an suitable to their plan. We are getting an increasing appreciation for just what took place under the course of the last year and the degree to which the president

still the whole departments of government The illicit aim of trying to get you frame to dig up dirt on a political opponent in Kentucky republican governor met them has formally work wasted o recount of votes from Tuesday's election, in which huge ass to his democratic. Why Andy Bashir? By about five thousand votes? we simply want to ensure that there is tag ready in the process. We owe this to the people, of Kentucky was a closely watched test of the politics of impeachment. With Beth and unpopular combat all mining himself with President Trump and claiming that Bashir represented the forces threatening the president That's it

come about cinema. This episode of the daily is supported by the new Showtime original series- penny dreadful city of angels when a gruesome are shocks. Nineteen, thirty eight LOS Angeles detected Tioga again his partner Louis mentioned, or find themselves grappling with nazi spies, crooked politicians and powerful supernatural forces, Natalie Dormer Daniels of Otto and Nathan Lane STAR in penny, dreadful city of angels. Now streaming only on Showtime, the daily listeners contrive shouting free for thirty days go to show timed out come now and intricate daily offer expires, may twenty fourth, twenty twenty