46
Can your employer legally ask for your deadname? (qnews.com.au)
submitted 4 days ago by to c/australia@quokk.au
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

trans social worker was awarded $35,000 after a workplace hiring process required him to share his deadname. So what does your employer legally have a right to know?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 19 points 4 days ago (10 children)

A police check can do that. Your employer doesn’t need to know.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 days ago (9 children)

    Doesn't need to know what? The deadname or that there's a criminal record?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 4 days ago (8 children)

    You don't need somebody's dead name to do a background check. Not a legal one at least. Now if you're trying to dig into things that you probably don't have a legal right to dig into you might want that information but there doesn't seem to be a legitimate need for your employer to have it, and asking for it is suspicious because there's no legitimate need for it which indicates that the only reason it's being asked for is probably an unscrupulous reason.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 4 days ago (7 children)

    That fully depends on whether the current name is legal/official or not. If the government doesn't know you by your new name, then the name on your government ID will be necessary to declare taxes, maybe even transfer to your bank account.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 4 days ago (6 children)

    That isn't the situation though. The person's new name was legal.

    No one is saying you can use whatever name during hiring without the legal process.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 days ago (5 children)

    Yes, I am aware, I read the article. We aren't talking about that though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    We aren't talking about the situation in the article?

    Are we just making up a situation?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    Yes. Please read the initial comment. It has the context.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    Right, just making sure you know that you are making up a situation to argue about when the other people are talking about real life as portrayed in the article.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    🙄 you jump into a discussion without understanding the context, told that you're not understanding the context, and you get insulted. If you don't understand what's going on, maybe read before you respond instead making yourself look like a fool.

    Good day sir.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 days ago*

    It feels weird that you are so adamant about saying "but this wouldn't work if it was a fake name!". Everyone knows this? What's your point? As if it's an issue, and people are using their new name in job interviews and official paperwork before it's legally changed.

    No one here is saying your employer can't push back if the name you give them doesnt show up in governmental systems. Who are you having this convo with?

    I'm sure you mean well but it felt you were trying to be purposefully obtuse.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent