Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register

Transgender Teenager Not Qualified to Flip McDonald’s Hamburgers

Tiger Woods’ mistress voicemails have nothing on these McDonald’s managers in Orlando, who refused to hire a one Zikerria Bellamy, 17, because she’s transgender. Bellamy, who filled out a job app online, was denied the job after managers discovered her trans status — and left this voicemail, which we hope gets the remix treatment.

Now guess who will be hearing from the Florida Commission on Human Relations?

Are you there, Congress? It’s mean, ENDA.

UPDATE: Even though the box next to “gender” on the McDonald’s job application was listed as “optional” information, and information Bellamy opted not to disclose, the application noted “failure to respond will not subject you to adverse treatment.” Except that’s exactly what happened. Except now the adverse treatment has been aimed at the manager — who’s been fired. In a statement, the company says: “Sand Lake Road McDonald’s has a strict policy prohibiting any form of discrimination or harassment in hiring, termination, or any other aspect of employment in the organization. The restaurant requires all employees to comply with local, state and federal employment laws. The behavior of the individual in question is not reflective of the employment policies in the organization. Further, this individual acted outside the scope of his authority and was not responsible for hiring. The individual in question is no longer employed by the restaurant.” Bellamy is still weighing whether to file a lawsuit. Meanwhile, is this manager’s name being released anywhere? We couldn’t find it.

On:           Dec 7, 2009
Tagged: , ,
    • Qjersey

      This happens all the time, this idiot just did it by voicemail! See ya in court sucker!

      Dec 7, 2009 at 11:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Attmay

      If she speaks English and can read, write and do basic math, she’s overqualified.

      Dec 7, 2009 at 11:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill

      Geez…….with some of the wackadoos I have seen behind
      the counters at Mickey D’s I thought they
      would hire anyone!!! :-P

      Dec 7, 2009 at 12:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FakeName

      If only refusing to hire someone for being gay or trans were illegal in Florida.

      Dec 7, 2009 at 12:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Miss Understood

      There is so much job discrimination in the US against transgender people that it just seems normal not to see them working anywhere. I’ve spent a lot of time in Thailand where , while some discrimination surely exists, transgender people are generally accepted in everyday life. On a busy day I’d see as many as 10 transsexuals working as salespeople, waitresses, desk clerks, etc. I’ve lived in New York City for 22 years and have known hundreds of transgender people through working and socializing in nightclubs. By day I almost never spot them in everyday jobs. It is just assumed by employers that it’s okay to deny transgender people the basic dignity of working at a job. It’s outrageous and unacceptable.

      Dec 7, 2009 at 1:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tina

      A friend got the same story here in montana – they told her that until the M on her driver’s license was changed, she wouldn’t be allowed to dress or do her hair in a feminine fashion.

      1) trying to get the license changed is impossible in 3 states, very difficult in others
      2) trying to afford “irreversible surgery” is an absurd demand for most people, let alone ones who are discriminated against & experience high jobless rates

      Dec 7, 2009 at 1:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé

      Another example of how not having legal protections becomes a license to blatantly discriinmate and even harm LGBT Americans. I hope Zikerria gets paid big time!!

      Dec 7, 2009 at 2:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • melody

      there is no reason for people to be against gay people coming from a gay person it makes the rest of the world look bad. plus what did we do to deserve to be jobless and not able to find one so again what did we do to you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Dec 7, 2009 at 3:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Letterman

      I fail to find anything wrong with this. If it is perfectly acceptable for someone to change their gender why it is not also perfectly acceptable for someone to not wish to deal with them.

      If a person underwent elective surgery to add a third eye in their forehead McDonald’s would not hire them either. I for one would walk out of a place where any such monstrosity would be handling my food. While I rarely go to McDonald’s for other reasons I fully support them in this decision.

      Dec 7, 2009 at 5:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Warren


      If you don’t see anything wrong with this, there is something wrong with you.

      Regardless of whether this manager has the legal right to discriminate against her for her lifestyle choices, leaving someone a voicemail like that is wrong and completely unprofessional.

      I have no doubt in my mind that he will be let go.

      Dec 7, 2009 at 8:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Letterman

      Warren: While I completely agree the delivery of the message was both cowardly and wrong the message itself is valid. I did not mean to say I did not find fault with the delivery I was saying that I did not see what was wrong with the concept of not hiring someone who was not wanted.

      Dec 7, 2009 at 9:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Keith Kimmel

      McDonalds will take care of this one all by itself, I think. A simple calling campaign to corporate will take care of the clearly stupid decision of one of its franchisees. Is this a corporate store or a franchise store?

      Dec 7, 2009 at 9:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Quake

      I’d love to see the slogan change from “We love to see you smile”, to “We love to see you queers die”.

      At least be truthful about your hate, its more comfortable.

      Dec 7, 2009 at 11:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jayme

      Go get ’em, kid. Sue them. Michael fails to understand that we have many laws that prevent not hiring someone on the base of race, class, gender religion, etc. Discrimination is not ok and I, for one, love to see transgender youth stand up for themselves and their rights. 100% supportive, Zikerria!

      Dec 7, 2009 at 11:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nicholas

      I was kicked out of a fundraiser i was doing for free because a mom of 1 of the kids who was there said i was gay.

      8 Years i spent voluntering and they kicked me out for being gay. I hope she gets the justice she deserves.

      Dec 7, 2009 at 11:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Keith Kimmel

      Update: The manager has since been fired. Good riddance.

      “The McDonald’s on International Drive and Sand Lake Road issued a statement Monday evening saying, “Sand Lake Road McDonald’s has a strict policy prohibiting any form of discrimination or harassment in hiring, termination, or any other aspect of employment in the organization. The restaurant requires all employees to comply with local, state and federal employment laws.”

      “The behavior of the individual in question is not reflective of the employment policies in the organization. Further, this individual acted outside the scope of his authority and was not responsible for hiring. The individual in question is no longer employed by the restaurant,” the statement said.”


      Dec 7, 2009 at 11:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt

      #2: As someone who hasn’t found any job since leaving McDonald’s, thanks… (thus the user name)

      I only know two transgendered people, and one is (or at least was when I left) a McDonald’s employee. (The other is his spouse; they were going through it together in opposite directions. Which left me wondering about whether their marriage remained legal or not, but I figured it wasn’t my business to ask)

      Dec 8, 2009 at 1:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Christine

      Great that McD left significant evidence (this persons IQ must be an all time low). :-)

      Dec 8, 2009 at 5:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill

      Guess the manager slept in the day they taught voice mail techniques at McDonald’s U……………

      Dec 8, 2009 at 9:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Letterman

      Jayme: You’ll have to excuse me and my extensive legal background but I assure you that you are incorrect. There is no law on the books that bans hiring based on gender. Further more there is no recognized gender as “trans” the laws regarding gender are related to Male and Female. So they do not apply.

      Discrimination against abomination is just fine.

      Nicholas: she did get the justice she deserved, you got kicked out.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 1:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Laconic Coil

      Thus, Michael, one wonders for the sake of argument if you believe it’s perfectly acceptable to discriminate against someone for their race or sexual orientation? There are many who would say I’m an “abomination” for being half-black/half-white, and by the same token i’m a dyke.

      Though discrimination on both matters is illegal in my state, and race is obviously protected under Federally mandated non-discrimination laws in the States, i’m all ears as to your reply.

      (And, uh, incidentally, i think, whether or not this was legal, what happened to that poor girl is what my people call a ‘low down dirty shame’.)

      Dec 8, 2009 at 1:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kevin F.

      Michael Letterman, quick what is that shirt you are wearing made of? Is it a cotton/poly blend? If it is, then you too are an abomination. Have you eaten any crab, shrimp, or lobster even once in your life? If so, then you too are an abomination. Look it up, it is right in your Bible. Since Jesus say to treat others as you would be treated, I can only assume that you LIKE being called an abomination.

      Furthermore, (not further more) Michael, some folks are born Male and Female, about 1% of all births has internal and external organs of BOTH sexes. Even God said, “male AND female made I them”, not “male OR female made I them”.

      In short, get your head out of your ass, and get back to us when you have your facts in order.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 1:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ken S

      While I’m all for the manager being fired for his wrong-doing, can I make a suggestion to that McDonalds? You might want to erect bullet-proof dividers in front of your cashiers ASAP… and maybe b-p the windows… and probably some bullet-proof partitions throughout the restaurant to prevent customers being picked off from across the dining room. Because I’d bet money that the kind of person who would deny her employment and then call her up to harass her about it probably feels like that store was his personal little fiefdom. And now that he’s been de-throned, I wouldn’t be one bit surprised if he and his sense of entitlement got a gun (which I hear isn’t impossible in Florida) and went back to shoot the place up. He’ll be thinking “better to burn it down than suffer the humiliation of having it taken away from me.”

      Fragile egos often inflate themselves to compensate for shortcomings, and when challenged often lash out violently for lack of imagination. This is a *classic* case just waiting to recur, I hope someone appreciates the similarity to countless incidents in the past and takes proactive steps to prevent it.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 3:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Letterman

      Laconic: Then yes you are an abomination. Your lifestyle choice is what makes you so. And while it is illegal to discriminate based on your GENDER which in your case is female and your race which is african american/white it is NOT illegal to discriminate due to your SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

      Much like it one can discriminate against pedophiles and other perverse sexual groups.

      Kevin: Sorry checked “my bible” no mention of Jesus anywhere in it. And in no way do I derive my belief in the perverseness of queers from any religion. So kindly quit your fascination with “ass” and get back to me when you are ready to rejoin humanity as a normal person.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 3:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B

      No. 20 · Michael Letterman wrote, “Jayme: You’ll have to excuse me and my extensive legal background but I assure you that you are incorrect. There is no law on the books that bans hiring based on gender.” Really?

      Explain http://finduslaw.com/california_employment_law and

      From the latter:

      12920. It is hereby declared as the public policy of this state
      that it is necessary to protect and safeguard the right and
      opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain, and hold employment
      without discrimination or abridgment on account of race,religious
      creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, age, or sexual orientation.

      If you follow the link to http://deskinlawfirm.com/sex_and_gender_discrimination you’ll read, “It is also illegal to discriminate against you because you do not fit into gender stereotypes. Therefore, transsexuals cannot be discriminated against.”

      The only exceptions are when some characteristic prevents a person from performing the job in question – i.e., a movie studio does not have to hire a woman to play Abraham Lincoln in a civil-war movie unless the woman actually can realistically pass as Abraham Lincoln (which is highly unlikely).

      According to http://articles.directorym.com/Sexual_Orientation_Discrimination_in_the_Workplace_Florida-r951701-Florida.html

      “Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have laws that currently prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in private employment: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Some of these states also specifically prohibit discrimination based on gender identity. (In addition, six states have laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in public workplaces only: Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Michigan, Montana, and Pennsylvania.)”


      “If you have an employee who feels that he or she has been treated unfairly and/or injured because of his or her sexual orientation, that employee can still sue you under a number of legal theories that have nothing to do with discrimination.

      “These theories include the following:

      * “intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress
      * “harassment
      * “assault
      * “battery
      * “invasion of privacy
      * “defamation
      * “interference with employment contract, and
      * “termination in violation of public policy.”

      So, even in Florida, which does not explicitly forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, there are still grounds to sue an employer who discriminates.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 9:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Letterman

      B: then thank the stars I live in a saner state. I also refuse to work with, shop at or deal with in any way transgendered people. They weird me out and therfore I refuse to associate with them.

      One of those freaks moved into our subdivision and I assure you the ink didn’t dry on their mortgage before they “decided” to live elsewhere.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 9:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ian

      Michael Letterman is just pissed that he’s ugly and old and when he tried to pass off as a woman, he got his ass beat.

      Let it go, dear. It’s okay to be an abomination.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 9:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B

      No. 26 · Michael Letterman wrote, “B: then thank the stars I live in a saner state.”

      We’re thankful you don’t live here!

      And “One of those freaks moved into our subdivision and I assure you the ink didn’t dry on their mortgage before they ‘decided’ to live elsewhere.”

      It appears that your subdivision is infested with criminals. However, thanks for posting a very good reason for covering all LGBT people by anti-discrimination and hate-crime laws. Maybe you’d care to say exactly what you know about this obviously forced “decision”. If you won’t tell us, would you be willing to tell the police or FBI? After all, what you described sounds like criminal activity. Are you by any chance an accessory after the fact? Inquiring minds want to know.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 10:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Christian Messer

      I’m here late to the party, although we tweeted this entry – I agree with Terrwill – I thought McDonalds would hire practically anyone.

      On another note – Michael Letterman, wow…I fear that you are one of many, many voices, which is a shame…because, if you hadn’t noticed, the President signed into law the Mathew Shepard Act…on on October 28, 2009 making sexual orientation part of the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law.

      As such, eventually every state will have an law in place where sexual orientation discrimination will be illegal. Whether you or anyone like you would like to admit, time is on our side.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 3:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Letterman

      Messer: Being a in the law enforcement field I am well aware of the Shepard Act.

      So now tell me is it worse to beat a homosexual then a disabled man?

      Is it worse to attack a homosexual then an infant?

      So why is one a hate crime and the other just a crime?

      Sanity will prevail shortly after 2012 and this and other ridiculous laws and amendments will be retracted or recinded.

      Until then no one can tell me who I have to work with or live near. I assure you no crime has been committed by myself or others on my behalf. However there are many ways to get ones point accross that are indeed perfectly legal.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 4:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Letterman

      Ian: Et tu? another ignorant queer? Is it inherent or do you need work at it. It is not ok to be an abomination it is against nature and is odd in every way.

      B: Actually every home in my subdivision is owned and lived in by either a Judge, Law Enforcement personnel, and business owners. It is a small community of only 64 houses and every neighbor knows the entire community. Quite a nice place to live actually.

      I’m thankful I don’t live where you do as well. I’d no sooner want you for a neighbor then you would want me.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 4:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé

      @ Michael Letterman–

      Even in your cozy little neighborhood, when karma comes, I doubt it’ll knock.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 4:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Letterman

      Siluwe: In my cozy little neighborhood karma is what caused them to move out so I’ll agree it didn’t knock it just flit in and worked.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 5:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B

      No. 31 · Michael Letterman wrote, “Actually every home in my subdivision is owned and lived in by either a Judge, Law Enforcement personnel, and business owners. It is a small community of only 64 houses and every neighbor knows the entire community. Quite a nice place to live actually.”

      Do you think anyone believes you? You wrote, “One of those freaks moved into our subdivision and I assure you the ink didn’t dry on their mortgage before they ‘decided’ to live elsewhere.” Nobody is going to move out of a house they just bought that quickly unless something catastrophic happened.

      So, let’s see you explain what got this person to “decide” and how a “judge” or “law enforcement personnel” would turn a blind eye to whatever was going on. That should be interesting. It will be a good indication of how slimy you and your neighbors are (and for all we know, you could easily be making it all up, a pattern you’ve showed in any number of comments).

      Dec 9, 2009 at 10:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Letterman

      B: Since I’m in law enforcement myself what laws do you think I overlooked that were broken? The person in question was told quite frankly that the rest of the neighborhood would have nothing to do with him/her/it. We invited the person to a community meeting and explained our discomfort and unwillingness to deal with this situation. The person in question was a business owner who was also having problems with their store and decided that they would rather live where they would be more accepted.

      This is not against any law and in fact if more communities did as such we’d have a lot less problems in this country.

      Dec 10, 2009 at 5:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tim

      Dude, Michael, if you are so happy where you live, why are you on the internet picking fights with people who clearly want nothing to do with you? You’re on a QUEER website.

      You’re clearly a pretty unhappy person; I suggest you go deal with your problems and resolve whatever personal problems are making you so unfulfilled, instead of taking your unhappiness on all of us here.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 1:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt

      Tim: it’s that generic site name again; how could anyone be expected to know Queerty’s target audience from the URL and logo?

      Dec 11, 2009 at 2:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Letterman

      tim: the answer is simple. Why should I be the only one happy where I live why not ensure all people are happy where they live too. I pick fights with no one, in addition I back down from fights with no one too.

      If someone cannot counter me without becoming beligerant and insultive then they are the ones with a problem and I will be forced to deal with them in the only ways they understand.

      For those capable of polite discourse I can take a place in the comversation. There are two points of view one of which is sorely lacking in this venue.

      My life is quite grand and I’m a fairly happy person however I see too much pain and perversity in the world and think that only by joining groups and taking my turn at dealing out the truth is the only way to deal with that.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 8:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gal

      Michael, you say you see too much pain in the world. But tell me, how exactly are LGBTQ people causing it?

      And another question- what is your definition of “perversity”?

      Dec 11, 2009 at 10:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Letterman

      Gal: I do not say that LGBTQ people are the sole cause of pain in fact I think the pain those people go through far exceeds the pain of having to deal with them. However this said, I feel far too much is being done to single out the homosexual community putting them above the common law and creating almost a new gender category for them. This is something I cannot abide as it goes against what I (and others like me) accpet as normal.

      Which brings me to your other question, I define normal as that which is commonly accepted or what is deemed decent and acceptable by a majority of others. This is not to say people do not have the right to do as they please within the confines of their home. What you or anyone does behind your walls is your buisness alone, with the provision that it is consentual of course, other than that anything goes. It is when it is brought outside and thrust upon others that I have a problem with it and when it demands special laws or regulations to enable it I am against that as well.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 3:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gal

      If that is your definition of normal, how do you avoid a majority tyranny? It wasn’t that long ago that left handed people were considered deviants and forced to change their wicked ways. Do you think that was justified? Or would it have been justified to ask lefties to avoid writing in public? Or Jews to take off their yarmulke?
      You can’t contain homosexuality behind walls, because it’s not just a choice of who you share your bed with, but also a choice of who you share your life with. So I’m not going to start shagging my partner in the middle of the street (or generally participate in PDA simply because I find it crass, gay or straight), but I would like for her to be able to visit me in a hospital if something happens to me. I don’t want to be singled out as above the law, but I would like the law to be written in a way where nobody is singled out, and not according to the latest social fashions of discrimination.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 4:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Letterman

      Gal: Actually you can contain homosexuality but I am not advocating that, whole nother convo.

      I actually think that the situation could be well served by making a “domestic partnership” which could be entered into by any two consenting adults, not exculding male/female.

      This could contain the same laws, protections, supposed tax breaks (which exipre next year and I doubt will be brought back anyway) and every other benefit including insurance and hospital visits, heck throw in adoption (I’m on the fence on that one but open to additional thinking on it).

      But that doesn’t seem to cut it for homosexuals and so the battle wages on.

      I’l be honest with you, you make the most sense to me and have the best frigging argument of anyone I’ve conversed with here. You are someone I can actually enjoy discussing the issue with.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 9:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gal

      Michael, I’d be perfectly happy with a domestic partnership (and luckily, that is an option for me since my partner is British and my own country recognizes the legal status of such a partnership that was legally done outside its borders). I’ll admit to not being a part of the American LGBTQ community, so I might not be entirely informed on the matter, but I think a main part of the problem is people that are not religious authorities are preforming “weddings” – the US is supposed to have a separation of state and church. The recognition of two adults that choose to be considered a “family unit” should be done through two possible routes- either a religious route (that is, a wedding performed by a religious authority) or a state route (a domestic partnership ceremony performed by a state official), and both should result in the same pack of legal rights a married couple possesses nowadays. The state route should be allowed to any two consenting adults in their right mind. The religious route would be allowed to any two consenting adults that the religious authority would agree to marry (and that includes, for instance, a same sex couple that is married by a reform rabbi). It’s just my two cents, but I really believe that is the most logical way to go on the matter.

      Thanks for the compliment, I feel the same way about you- it’s much more enjoyable to debate the matter with people that are actually open to discussion!

      Dec 12, 2009 at 1:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hotgirl

      michael letterman Iam a beautiful transsexual women who lives in nj where this is supposed to be laws against discrimination who is an EMT with years of experience and can not get a job anyplace or even rent an apartment my drivers license and birth certificate says female on it.I went to a job interview in a mcdonalds in wall nj and was told by the owner he would not hire people like me.how are transsexuals suppose to pay their bills if no one will hire them.it is wrong to discriminate against people.you would not say you were uncomfortable around blacks and they couldnt have a job or live in your neighborhood but want to discriminate against transsexuals what law enforcement agency would hire a bigot like you.

      Oct 9, 2010 at 2:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ruhlmann

      @Michael Letterman: You mention “polite discourse” after using slurs like “those freaks”. In your nice neighbourhood of 64 the odds are 6 of them are queer. They may be looking over the fence when you are bent over in your garden. You won’t hold us back much longer Michael. We are coming Michael, to a neighbourhood near you…we are probably there now. We are everywhere Michael, as we have always been.

      May 10, 2011 at 5:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • claudia hillman

      you are obviously no lawyer there are laws against transsexual discrimination in nj and mn.I am a very beauty woman who cant get a job or place to live is this fair

      Mar 14, 2012 at 4:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • Copyright 2016 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.