A biological male shop teacher in Canada who identifies as Kayla Lemieux and wears women’s clothing that many view as a distraction to students, has received permission from the local school board to continue teaching and making wardrobe choices without restriction.
The decision overrules the concerns of many parents.
According to The Post Millennial, Lemieux’s preferred wardrobe includes a blonde wig, tight spandex shorts and “extremely large prosthetic breasts with protruding nipples.”
After considering the matter, the Halton District School Board (HDSB) determined that Lemieux would not receive a reprimand or be directed to make any wardrobe changes.
HDSB released the following statement:
“It is important to recognize the impact that dress code policies can have on members of the transgender community. Most notably, it is important for employers to make allowances to ensure that these employees are able to express themselves in accordance with their lived gender.”
HDSB also noted that “imposing rules to prevent a male teacher from wearing obscenely large prosthetic breasts with protruding nipples to work would result in ‘considerable liability,’” according to The Post Millennial.
In September, Curtis Ennis, director of education at HDSB, requested a review of the school board’s dress code after the Oakville Trafalgar High School received unwelcomed attention following a viral video of Lemieux teaching a shop class.
In September, Ontario Education Minister Stephen Lecce seemed to side with the concerned parents, requesting the Ontario College of Teachers review and “consider strengthening” provisions regarding professional conduct “in the interest of all kids in Ontario.” That review is ongoing.
The school board, however, sided with Lemieux and ignored parents and teachers who protested what they termed is “inappropriate” dress and behavior.
The Post Millennial noted that some parents “demanded that the teacher be forced to leave the fetish wear at home.”
HDSB determined: “If an employer’s dress code and grooming standards place more difficult requirements on female employees relative to those placed on male employees, or require female employees to dress in a manner with is more conventional, such standards could form the basis of a discrimination claim under the Code.”
HDSB’s statement continued:
“It is clear from the above analysis that the implementation of a formal staff dress code or grooming standards would likely expose the Board to considerable liability. Even if a dress code is implemented for non-discriminatory reasons, it would likely be found to be discriminatory where it adversely affects an employee or group of employers on the basis of their Code-protected rights.”
Scroll down to leave a comment and share your thoughts.