Posted on 06/20/2002 9:21:15 AM PDT by NYer
NEW YORK (AP) _ The trouble started in the Barbie aisle at a Toys ``R'' Us in Brooklyn.
While shopping, Donna McGrath and two other self-described transsexuals, Tanya Jinks and Tara Lopez, claim employees greeted them with a chorus of laughter and insults. On a second excursion a week later, they say, it got worse: Two employees threatened them with baseball bats. The experience ``made me feel like I was garbage,'' McGrath, 28, told a jury in Brooklyn federal court.
McGrath was testifying in support of a sexual discrimination lawsuit brought by herself, Jinks and Lopez seeking $300,000 each in damages from Toys ``R'' Us. The toy giant denies any wrongdoing. The trial, which began Monday in federal court in Brooklyn, was expected to last about a week.
In opening statements, plaintiff attorney Tom Shanahan described the dispute as a ``very, very important case'' mixing issues of sexual identity, civil rights and corporate responsibility. The customers were not mere cross-dressers, but victims of a tormented fate, the lawyer explained. Each ``were born males and during those formative years when they were growing up, they came to understand that their outward gender we know as male or female was not in conformity with their psychological gender,'' he said.
The lawyer accused Toys ``R'' Us _ the country's second-largest seller of toys _ of ignoring its own anti-discrimination policies by not disciplining any workers. Employees are required to sign an internal policy stating that Toys ``R'' Us, as a ``worldwide authority on kids, families and fun,'' strictly prohibits harassment of employees and customers, Shanahan said.
Despite the policy, the plaintiffs ``were chased out of that store by those employees who mocked them, demeaned them, threatened them,'' Shanahan said. Toys ``R'' Us attorney Nicholas Goodman accused the plaintiffs of distorting the facts. He insisted there were not threats of violence. The plaintiffs ``were free to shop in that store and no one ever asked them to leave,'' Goodman said.
Wearing heels, a short skirt and her blond hair in a bun, McGrath told the jury that she considers herself a woman. She said she has undergone hormonal therapy, gotten breast implants and married a soft drink delivery man.
McGrath testified that in December 2000, while shopping for a life-size ``Butterfly Barbie'' with the other plaintiffs at Toys ``R'' Us in the Bensonhurst section, a female employee referred to them as ``faggots'' and ``transvestites.'' ``I felt humiliated,'' she said. ``I am not a transvestite.'' The plaintiffs complained to the manager. He apologized and gave McGrath half off on her purchase of a Barbie Bungalow Beach House and other toys, she said.
A week later, with the plaintiffs back in the store to finish up some Christmas shopping, two male employees appeared carrying bats, the plaintiffs said. The employees allegedly blocked their way, and ``offered to meet them outside,'' Shanahan said. McGrath testified she overheard one worker say to the other, ``If one of them passes me, I'm going to hit them with the bat.''
The plaintiffs later filed a written complaint with the store, and also with the city Human Rights Commission. Their lawyer said they decided to sue after rejecting a proposed settlement from the Toys ``R'' Us: 100 ``Geoffrey Dollars'' _ a gift certificate named for the toy store mascot _ for each plaintiff.
Goodman has countered the accusations by citing an employee report alleging the plaintiffs ``came into the store loud and boisterous ... flirting with employees, giggling at employees and laughing at employees.''
The lawyer also suggested that the plaintiffs' appearance invited scorn, however unfortunate. ``It's not the way things should be in the world, but given who they are and what they look like, comments get passed to them in the rough-and-tumble world of walking around the streets of New York and going about their business,'' he said.
AP-ES-06-20-02 1205EDT
And then?!?!?
Would that be "soft drink" delivery man, or soft "drink delivery man?"
Considering the circumstances of the marriage, I couldn't rule out the latter....
According to liberal ideology, you are what you feel.
These "people" went to the store trying to provoke an incident. They were after the money from the get-go, just like Jesse the blackmailer IMHO.
Given that no employees were fired, I would bet they were extremely provoked into saying or doing whatever they did. I worked retail when I was younger, and NO place would put up with what the freaks claim. If something an employee did or said to a customer was so egregious that the store gave the customer half off, then later offered an additional $100 gift certificate, you can bet someone is getting fired.
Maybe it was the adams apple and facial hair on a person wearing a dress that confused them. I think this person would have more to things to worry about than being called a transvestite.
I do not know if I would go as far as to say I think they planned this, but I wouldn't be surprised if the freaks were purposely obnoxious and were intentionaly trying to make the employees feel uncomfortable.
They must be some real freaks for someone to even realize they were "transvestites", unless they made a point to inform everyone.
The next question is: are they married or "married"? What state would issue a marriage license to a "female" when that person's whose birth certificate identifies them as "male"?
Maybe it was with those inflatable toy baseball bats; not that that's OK.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.