[GN] GLBT Employment Discrimination
Richard
responses to an inquiring customer regarding the reasons the company
does NOT add glbt descriptions to its no discrimination policy.
The spokesperson said the company's policy reflected the federal law.
In those jurisdictions that protected glbt's from discrimination, the
company observed the local law. She added, the company operates the
same in all jurisdictions. AND no complaint of GLBT discrimination has
been reported in the last several years EVEN in those jurisdictions with
legal prohibitions to same. Therefore, the spokesperson implies, there
is no discrimination against GLBT at Cracker Barrel (since the media
highlighted case) and therefore no change to the general policy is
necessary.
I call it the "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" argument.
I have heard this same argument at labor union bargaining tables for
public employee contracts. Both sides at the table hated discrimination
against GLBT persons, though policy and contract did not prohibit such.
However the workers could not come up with a single incidence of
anti-glbt discrimination that was NOT handled by the worker saying
"stop" to the discriminator or "stop him/her" to the discriminator's
boss.
With a policy in place, the workers want and the boss fears class action
law suits or grievances for arbitration where numerically the class of
glbt workers is shown to have suffered unfair pay, policy, or promotion
implementation.
As a worker advocate, I found it extremely (!!!) difficult to win class
action grievances based on sex and race/ethnic origins - though we did.
But in those cases, at least you can define the class pretty easily by
observing the workers and surveying the workers. I would find it
difficult if not impossible to advocate a class action grievance for
glbt's in a workforce. The hardest part would be defining the class and
locating the individuals - lots of closets, especially the "don't rock
the boat" type of closet.
In response to the call for ideas on a Maryland referendum regarding
glbt discrimination, I posted that the best weapon we could possibly
have is a (a) a worker who (b) lost a job clearly based on sexual
orientation, and (c) who is willing to be a poster child. The problem
is that such a "poster child" is increasingly harder to find.
Living in Fairbanks, Alaska for 19 years (where these is no glbt
protection and the is anti-glbt sentiment) I "heard of" one and only one
instance of such discrimination (a waiter fired simply because the boss
learned he was gay). I could never get a name concerning the
individual, which struck me as odd with a small glbt community.
My last two employers have had anti-glbt-discrimination policies. They
also had DP Benefits. I guess the first is necessary to the second, but
an anit-glbt-discrimination policy alone in the USA may well fall into
the generic "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" category.
Even in the glbt discussion lists I subscribe to, I have never heard of
a single instance of discrimination against glbt person(s) for credit,
housing, restaurants, hotels, or other public accommodations. I have
heard of discrimination based on glbt combined with marital status
(family memberships at clubs, Social Security benefits, health
insurance, tax rates, etc.) But for the decades I have been "out" I
have never heard of a car loan refused, or a credit card not issued or a
hotel reservation suddenly canceled at the front desk, or other glbt
discrimination based solely on sexual orientation of the
applicant-customer.
That does NOT mean such has not occurred. It does mean that such has
not occurred in sufficient instances to gain either media attention
(such as the Asst. DA (1 lesbian) in Georgia or the Cracker Barrel case
(1 lesbian in the South) or the Chrysler glbt harassment of the 1990's
(1 lesbian and one gay man in the north)) OR to raise the ire of the
glbt community in the USA. Thinking about it, it surprises me that I
have heard of exactly four cases of employment discrimination in the
last decade in the USA.
So I ask, do any of you know first hand or with reliable information of
instances where a glbt person has refused hire, denied promotion, paid
less actual wage (not "family" benefits, or suffered harassment on the
job that was not stopped when the victim asked that it be stopped? so
any of you know of instances of discrimination in credit, housing, or
public accommodations?
Just curious,
Richard Seward
**********
If you receive GayNet via direct email:
To post, send mail to gay...@queernet.org.
To unsubscribe, send mail to majo...@queernet.org; put a line saying
unsubscribe gaynet
in the body. (This may fail if your address has changed since you signed
up; if so, or for other assistance, contact gaynet-...@queernet.org.)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
www.usQueers.com
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 10:17 PM
Subject: [LGBTWilmingtonNews] No Room at the Inn: Local Inn Discriminates
Against
Same Sex Couples
>
> The Curran House, located at 312 South 3rd Street, Wilmington, North
> Carolina, was reported this afternoon as having refused a woman a room
> because she was going to share the room with another woman. The
> Innkeeper, Vickie Stringer reportedly said that her husband "would not
> like that" and refused the room reservation.
>
> In order to verify this story, a call was placed at around 8:40p.m. on
> Sunday February 4, 2001 to the Inn, and Innkeeper Greg Stringer
> answered the phone. The caller, a male, tried to make a reservation
> for next weekend and was asked if he would be bringing his wife. When
> he said "no", that he would be bringing his boyfriend, Mr. Stringer
> said he was completely full. The male then asked when the first
> opportunity would be to stay at the Inn, and Mr. Stringer said that if
> it was for "two gentlemen" he would "not have them under his roof."
>
> The caller asked if he was aware that his Inn was a public
> establishment advertised by the visitor's center here in Wilmington,
> and Mr. Stringer said yes, but that did not matter. He repeated that
> he would not have two men under his roof staying together.
>
> The link below is to the site for the Inn, and it contains the phone
> numbers and contact information to register protest for these
> discriminatory actions.
>
> http://www.bedandbreakfast.com/bbc/p240924.asp
>
> Send a message that this type of discrimination will not be tolerated.
>
> (1-800-763-6603 toll free number to the Curran House)
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard" <sep...@pacbell.net>
To: "Gaynet" <gay...@QueerNet.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 6:31 AM
Subject: [GN] GLBT Employment Discrimination
Cracker Barrel's spokesperson threw in a good argument in one of her
responses to an inquiring customer regarding the reasons the company
does NOT add glbt descriptions to its no discrimination policy.
The spokesperson said the company's policy reflected the federal law.
In those jurisdictions that protected glbt's from discrimination, the
company observed the local law. She added, the company operates the
same in all jurisdictions. AND no complaint of GLBT discrimination has
been reported in the last several years EVEN in those jurisdictions with
legal prohibitions to same. Therefore, the spokesperson implies, there
is no discrimination against GLBT at Cracker Barrel (since the media
highlighted case) and therefore no change to the general policy is
necessary.
I call it the "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" argument.
<snipped>
www.usQueers.com
From: "Richard" <sep...@pacbell.net>
To: "Gaynet" <gay...@QueerNet.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 6:31 AM
Subject: [GN] GLBT Employment Discrimination
Cracker Barrel's spokesperson threw in a good argument in one of her
responses to an inquiring customer regarding the reasons the company
does NOT add glbt descriptions to its no discrimination policy.
The spokesperson said the company's policy reflected the federal law.
In those jurisdictions that protected glbt's from discrimination, the
company observed the local law. She added, the company operates the
same in all jurisdictions. AND no complaint of GLBT discrimination has
been reported in the last several years EVEN in those jurisdictions with
legal prohibitions to same. Therefore, the spokesperson implies, there
is no discrimination against GLBT at Cracker Barrel (since the media
highlighted case) and therefore no change to the general policy is
necessary.
I call it the "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" argument.
-----------------
NEW YORK TIMES, June 17, 1999
229 W. 43rd Street, New York,NY,10036
(Fax 212-556-3622 ) (E-MAIL: let...@nytimes.com )
( http://www.nytimes.com )
Gay Ex-Police Officer Is Awarded $380,000 in Harassment Suit
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER
ARDEN CITY, N.Y. -- A former Nassau County police officer who said he
was subjected to nine years of incessant and often vicious harassment after
his colleagues and supervisors learned he was gay was awarded $380,000 in
damages on Wednesday by a Federal jury.
Experts on discrimination law said the verdict marked the first time
in New York State and one of the few times elsewhere in the United States
that a jury has held the government liable for a campaign of anti-gay
harassment.
Advocates for gay men and lesbians said they believed the verdict
would encourage other police officers, who rarely file such complaints
because they fear reprisals, to come forward.
The former Nassau officer, James M. Quinn, who joined the force in
1986, charged that after his sexual orientation was revealed to officers at
his precinct in 1987, he increasingly became the subject of humiliating
pranks, with pornographic pictures and doctored records hung around the
station house referring to him as a child molester or a transvestite. In one
instance, a nightstick labeled as a sexual device belonging to him was left
in his patrol car.
Quinn, 38, said his supervisors ignored his repeated complaints about
his treatment. He retired in 1996 because of a back injury and now receives
disability pay. He said he moved from Middle Island, on Long Island, to
upstate New York because the abuse did not stop when he left the force.
The jury deliberated for a day and a half before finding that the
harassment of Quinn constituted an "ongoing practice of sexual-orientation
discrimination." The jury ruled that Nassau's Police Commissioner, Donald
Kane, was unaware of the harassment, but found that a lieutenant, Joseph
Allen, and a sergeant, John Ryan, knew of it but did nothing to stop it.
The jury also found that the two supervisors and another police
officer, Phillip Rice, motivated "by a disliking or hateful discriminatory
attitude toward homosexual men," had conspired to harass Quinn.
Quinn was awarded $250,000 in compensatory damages for emotional
distress, and $60,000 in disputed back pay. The jury also assessed $30,000
in
punitive damages against Officer Rice, $20,000 against Lieutenant Allen and
$20,000 against Sergeant Ryan.
Proving a government entity liable for harassment of gay men and
lesbians has been extremely difficult under existing state and Federal laws,
legal experts said. In October, two gay New York City police officers sued
the department in state court, alleging that they had been subjected to
years
of harassment. But they sued under a city human rights ordinance, not under
Federal law, as Quinn did. No law similar to the New York City statute
applies in Nassau County or in many other areas around the state.
As recently as last week, a Federal judge in Suffolk County dismissed
an employment discrimination lawsuit by a gay postal worker who said he was
repeatedly harassed.
In that case, the worker had sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, but Judge Leonard D. Wexler ruled that the statute covered only
discrimination "based upon sex," not upon sexual orientation.
Quinn's lawyers, Leonard Leeds and Rick Ostrove, pursued a different
strategy: They sued under a civil rights statute that bars a law enforcement
officer from violating a citizen's constitutional rights, and argued that
gay
people were entitled to protection from harassment under that statute
through
the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
Judge Arthur D. Spatt of Federal District Court in Uniondale, N.Y.,
agreed, according to Ostrove, in a decision handed down from the bench last
week which he is expected to put in writing soon. "This judge said
homosexuality is protected," Ostrove said. "He's giving them the same exact
level of protection as blacks and women. He said this was the worst
harassment he'd ever seen on the bench, and called it a classic case of
supervisory liability."
A lawyer for Nassau County, Chris P. Termini, said he was considering
whether to appeal. "The judge indicated his belief that the 14th Amendment
protected homosexuals as a class," he said. "We find no foundation for that
statement."
Leaders of advocacy groups praised the verdict, saying that while
discrimination against gay or lesbian police officers is commonplace,
plaintiffs have been exceedingly hard to come by. "We all owe Quinn a debt
for having the courage to file this suit," said Donald Jirak, a New York
City
police lieutenant who heads the 1,000-member Gay Officers Action League.
Beatrice Dohrn, legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and
Education Fund, said Quinn's victory could eventually force police officials
in Nassau and elsewhere to crack down on harassment.
"What's excellent about this is that traditionally, law enforcement
jobs have been very, very difficult for openly gay or lesbian people to
hold,
because they are subjected to these kinds of campaigns of harassment, and
they have no place to turn," she said. "The message is, if you want to
survive, remain in the closet or don't take a job here in the first place.
This case sends a new message: that kind of harassment is going to cost you.
And putting a price tag on it is what ultimately will turn the tide against
it."
www.usQueers.com
From: "Richard" <sep...@pacbell.net>
To: "Gaynet" <gay...@QueerNet.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 6:31 AM
Subject: [GN] GLBT Employment Discrimination
Cracker Barrel's spokesperson threw in a good argument in one of her
responses to an inquiring customer regarding the reasons the company
does NOT add glbt descriptions to its no discrimination policy.
The spokesperson said the company's policy reflected the federal law.
In those jurisdictions that protected glbt's from discrimination, the
company observed the local law. She added, the company operates the
same in all jurisdictions. AND no complaint of GLBT discrimination has
been reported in the last several years EVEN in those jurisdictions with
legal prohibitions to same. Therefore, the spokesperson implies, there
is no discrimination against GLBT at Cracker Barrel (since the media
highlighted case) and therefore no change to the general policy is
necessary.
I call it the "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" argument.
----------------------------------
GenderPAC National News
Gender Emerges as Gay Legal Issue
March 14, 2001
Interview with Rick Ostrove, plaintiff's attorney in Simonton v.
Runyon ==================================================
[New York : 28 Feb 01] Current rulings in gender law continue to
grow in important ways -- and none more so than the recent case of
gay postal worker Dwayne Simonton, whom all parties agree was
repeatedly gay-bashed and gender-baited on the job, including being
punched.
Yet a US District Court judge, while agreeing Simonton suffered
"appalling persecution," was "constrained" to rule against him in
Simonton v. Runyon on the grounds that discrimination based on
sexual orientation is not discrimination based on sex.
However in a remarkable aside, the court signaled that future
plaintiffs who present such claims may well succeed -- if they argue
that discrimination against men perceived as effeminate or women
perceived as masculine is sex discrimination.
The Court's remarks open the possibility for gays, lesbians, and
bisexuals to argue that they are discriminated against based on
their gender under Title VII -- the law that forbids discrimination
based on sex, including sex stereotypes. In effect the Court pointed
to a possible Title VII "sex stereotyping" bridge across which sex,
gender transgression, and sexual orientation bias could potentially
connect.
Unfortunately, Mr. Simonton's attorney at the lower court level did
not plead the facts to make such a claim, so the District Court was
unable to consider the argument.
Mr. Simonton was represented in his appeal to the US District by
Mr. Rick Ostrove, an attorney at the New York-based firm of Leeds,
Morelli & Brown. Newsday has called Leeds, Morelli "one of the top
civil rights law firms in the country." GenderPAC National News
interviewed Mr. Ostrove about the case, as well as his thoughts on
its meaning for the future of sexual and gender orientation law.
- - - - -
Richard
research and post a few great examples of what discrimination still
occurs regularly around the USA against GLBT and their partners!
Thanks!
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<sep...@pacbell.net said:
<<
So I ask, do any of you know first hand or with reliable
information of instances where a glbt person has
refused hire, denied promotion, paid less actual wage
(not "family" benefits, or suffered harassment on the
job that was not stopped when the victim asked that it
be stopped? so any of you know of instances of
discrimination in credit, housing, or public
accommodations?
>>
I think it's a matter of perceiving everyone as
heterosexual...and anyone who is upfront "gay" is
then a target. IOW, if you remain in the closet, you are
usually not harassed. (It has been my observation that
gays are more readily accepted in the workplace here
in "gay mecca", if they act out a stereotype, rather
than just be an everyday gal or guy who nonetheless
makes it clear s/he's gay.)
I'd love to see the following experiment performed by
dozens, if not hundreds, of employed gays, and then
have the data fed through statistical analysis:
Wear a "gay pride" button on one's shirt or other
clearly visible piece of clothing, all day long, for six
months...and never remove it except when sleeping.
Keep a record of all reactions that ensue as a result of
refusing to remove this button. Of course, those who
perform such an experiment must be willing to lose
their jobs, experience harassment, and so on.
This is similar to an experiment done by a white guy,
John Griffin, who posed as an African American...then
produced his results in a best-seller of 1961called
"Black Like Me" (see reference below). It exposed all
the rampant and tacit racism still going on in our
society...that would otherwise remain unspoken and
unconfronted.
If you think this may be too much to expect of
anyone...then isn't your perception a clear statement
of how homophobic the workplace remains? (Hey, not
just workplace, but everywhere!) So how about
GLAAD or other group doing a "Gay Like Me" project?
We badly need it.
=
Reference:
'Black Like Me' celebrates 40th anniversary
http://www.cnn.com/2001/books/news/01/11/black.like
.me/
---
Lavender-Velvet Revolution
http://surf.to/gaybible
www.usQueers.com
Your idea is a really great one.
If anyone would like to let others know how it went for them, usQueers.com
is willing to put anybody's journal online who follows through with the
project Zeke suggests.
The button would have to be explicit, but fairly neutral (in other words,
not intentionally provocative or sexual). Something along the lines of "Gay
Pride," or "Lesbian Pride," or "Bisexual Pride" or "Transgender Pride," but
not something like "Fuck Hets!" or "That's Mr. Fag To You!" (one of my
T-shirts).
It would of course be on the honor system that you never took the button off
or intentionally hid it. We would be willing to put your journal online if
you choose and stick with the following time periods: one week, one month,
or six months. We would prefer to include a picture of the button you wore
during the test period, but a good description of it would be okay. We only
want the truth, please. Just the facts, Ma'am.
Since we would expect journal entries for almost every day, whether
something meaningful happens or not, we might need to edit down what you
submit for size and easy reading, but we promise not to change the meaning,
etc., of what you submit. We will need your permission stated to put it
online on usQueers.com, but you will retain all rights to your material
except for that.
You can include personal information, links, email address, for inclusion on
the website or none for inclusion online.
Allan
your...@usQueers.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ezekiel J. Krahlin" <ezek...@runbox.com>
To: <gay...@QueerNet.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 4:18 PM
Subject: [GN] GLBT Employment Discrimination
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
<fer...@biosgi.wustl.edu> wrote:
<<
Seems to me there were articles on being constantly out written in the gay
press of the gay lib period. A search through some of the compilations from
that period might be productive.
>>
Thanks for the tip; that would be useful. I'm wondering how many of these
pink-triangle-wearing progressive types lived outside of major cities. These
days, I wonder how many would wind up being bludgeoned to death or near-
death, merely for wearing a pink triangle in most any small city or town
across Amerika.
<<
I certainly knew people in that period who always seemed to have a pink
triangle (or such) on.
>>
Where were you living at the time?
<<
I had a postcard of the Homomonument on my office door for years (it said
Homomonument on it). It got no reaction, whatsoever (I was already out in
any case). It did eventually disappear, however.
>>
How long did it stay up? What city or town was this? What line of work were
you in?
<<
Of course some people don't need a pink triangle. They set off the weak
gaydar of even the most oblivious straights. I'm thinking of, for example,"The
Naked Civil Servant".
>>
Patrick, you don't *need any gaydar when it comes to flaming queens. You
need a fire extinguisher.