LA County Settles Police Brutality Case For $650K

The 5-member Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a settlement of $650,000 to Erick Hoxey and his girlfriend Shatwan Smith in response to a civil lawsuit which charged outrageous behavior by Los Angeles County Sherriff officials during an April 2008 incident in Compton.

The Los Angeles Times covers the story:

On trial for allegedly assaulting two Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies, Erick Hoxey took the witness stand in his own defense and told jurors it was the other way around.

He said he was waiting in his car outside a Compton apartment building where his girlfriend was making an appointment to braid a little girl's hair, when deputies pulled up. After asking him a few questions, Hoxey said they inexplicably yanked him out of the car, punched him and struck him with a flashlight before pepper-spraying his eyes and inside his mouth.


Then, he said, one grabbed him by the hair and slammed his head twice against the pavement.

The prosecutor, troubled by the young man's testimony, cut him off suddenly and asked the judge for a recess. When he returned an hour and a half later, the prosecutor announced that all charges were being dropped.

On Tuesday, two years after the criminal case fizzled, the county agreed to pay Hoxey, now 24, and his girlfriend $650,000.

The payout comes despite the Sheriff's Department defending the deputies' conduct in arresting Hoxey, his girlfriend, Shatwan Smith, and a bystander who came to their aid during the April 2008 altercation.

According to Deputies Samuel Orozco and Scott Giles, they were on patrol when they spotted Hoxey driving with his seatbelt off. The deputies said Hoxey was immediately aggressive, cursing at them, before reaching under his leg for what they believed was a handgun. The deputies unlocked the car door and pulled Hoxey out of the vehicle. The young man then spun around and took a swing at them, according to the deputies' account. Hoxey continued to fight back, the deputies said, while his girlfriend ran out from the apartment building and began hitting them too.

Although the deputies said they believed Hoxey was armed with a gun, no weapon was recovered. Deputy Orozco testified that a woman at the scene, who did not identify herself because she feared retribution, told him that she saw a man run and grab something from the car, presumably the weapon.

The couple, and the bystander who interceded and pleaded with the deputies to stop, denied the deputies were assaulted.

After hearing the conflicting testimony about the incident, the L.A. County district attorney's office abandoned its prosecution of Hoxey and Smith.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Eric Siddall said in a deposition that Hoxey's testimony "made me think that there was reasonable doubt in the case."

The couple's civil attorney, Glen Jonas, accused the deputies of framing Hoxey on charges of resisting arrest and drug possession and Smith of resisting arrest and assault. Giles said he found a cocaine rock in Hoxey's car, while he and other deputies were searching the vehicle.

"It ruined their lives," Jonas said of the ordeal. He said Smith, who was a student at UC San Diego at the time, "was so distraught over being falsely prosecuted that she couldn't concentrate in school…her grades fell and ultimately she wasn't able to stay in school."

During the trial, Orozco's past on-duty behavior was also scrutinized in testimony from residents in the area who said they had run-ins with him. One woman said he used the N-word against her. Another testified that she'd also been roughed up by Orozco, booked and was eventually acquitted.

Sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore declined to comment on specific allegations but said the department maintains the couple was resisting arrest. "This settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing," he said. "Deputies don't make stuff up, the hope is, and we contend they did not fabricate anything."

I don't usually include such an extensive excerpt from a newspaper story but one really needs to see all the paragraphs that I have included in order to draw your own conclusions about what really happened*. Two Sheriff deputies see a Black guy sitting in a car and decide to rough him up for some bizarre reason only known to themselves. They start beating the crap out of him, then his girlfriend and a bystander come to the guy's defense.  Then the deputies have the gall to claim that the person that they assaulted was "resisting arrest" AND they claim the existence of a gun which is not found AND attempt to plant drugs in the vehicle. It reads like something out of FX's The Shield!
(That was a show starring Michael Chiklis as a rogue cop who basically takes the law into his own hands.)

The real hero of the piece is the Deputy District Attorney Eric Siddall who refused to condone the cops lying and when he realized what was going on, declined to perpetrate a fraud upon the court. I'm not convinced that $650,000 is enough money for the two people who were attacked by the very same people their own taxes pay to protect them and keep them safe. What is a reasonable price for violation of the public trust?

Another question is why do Samuel Orozco and Scott Giles still have jobs with Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and why hasn't the Los Angeles County District Attorney charged them with perjury?
Even the Sheriff's Department spokesperson says "Deputies don't make stuff up, the hope is." Really? Do you think this is some kind of joke?

 It is incredibly damaging to how all police officers are viewed and public safety overall if it appears that some officers of the court are getting away with activities that if they were just regular people would result in jail time. Police officers and sheriff's deputies (and elected officials) who are presumed to have the public trust should be held to a higher ethical standard than the general public. Even the appearance of hypocrisy is unacceptable.

*DISCLAIMER: Nothing in this blog posting should be construed as claiming any individual of having committed any criminal or civil offense.

CA Sup Ct Sets Prop 8 Case Oral Arguments Date: 9/6/2011

Good news! The California Supreme Court has finally set a date of September 6 at 10:00am for the oral arguments in the Perry v. Brown lawsuit (informally known as "The Proposition 8 case") in which the question at hand is a very limited one. Namely,

Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative's validity or the authority to assert the State's interest in the initiative's validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.

Although the question is limited, the stakes are not. If the state Supreme Court rules, most likely within 90 days of oral arguments, that the heterosexual supremacists who drafted and promulgated Proposition 8 now have no legal standing to defend its constitutionality, it is very likely a 3-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will follow that decision and rule that the Proposition 8 proponents have no standing to defend the measure in federal court, either.

In that case, the lower court's decision would go into effect and federal Judge Vaughn Walker's brilliant ruling determining that Proposition 8 violates the United States Constitution would go into effect. Of course the bad guys would probably appeal to the Suprem Court but since the case would only be about California (and California law) it is unlikely that SCOTUS would take the case. There is a possibility that SCOTUS would take the appeal to try to clarify once and for all whether proponents of state ballot measures who are not named plaintiffs in lawsuits have a right to continue appeals when the named plaintiffs fail to appeal but there's already a decision called Arizona for Official English vs Arizona in which SCOTUS basically says you need a particularized interest under state law in order to pursue a federal appeal. And it is precisely that question of whether a particularized interest exists under California law that the California Supreme Court will decided, by the end of 2011.

Another wrinkle is that the 7-member Supreme Court has recently lost its most pro-gay member, Carlos Moreno, and Governor Brown only announced his replacement, Goodwin Liu, who is probably as similarly pro-equality as Moreno, this week. If Liu is not on the court by September 6th, the court will probably name a state appellate judge to hear oral arguments and participate in the decision.

Hang on to your hats, folks, it's gonna be a bumpy ride!

GLAD Files For Summary Judgment In DOMA Case

GLAD Files Motion for Summary Judgment in 2nd Circuit DOMA Challenge, Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management

Plaintiffs Ask Court for Heightened Scrutiny

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) filed a motion for summary judgment in Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, its 2^nd Circuit challenge to the federal so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

GLAD argues that the equal protection claims of the plaintiffs, six married couples and one widower fromConnecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire, require heightened scrutiny from the court. The brief shows how DOMA fails heightened scrutiny, or even a rational basis review.

“No interest advanced to defend DOMA can in fact withstand any level of scrutiny,” the brief reads.  “The reasons offered by Congress at the time of DOMA’s passage are either nonsensical or just another way of saying that Congress wanted to denounce and harm those gay men and lesbians who form long-term relationships and seek to have those relationships recognized and respected through civil marriage.”

GLAD also filed supporting affidavits from experts Michael Lamb, Ph.D, Gary Segura, Ph.D, Lititia Anne Peplau, Ph.D, George Chauncey, Ph.D, and Nancy F. Cott, Ph.D.

The next step is for Congress to respond to GLAD’s motion for summary judgment on or by August 15, 2011.

GLAD filed Pedersen v. OPM in Hartford, CT on November 8, 2010.  GLAD’s DOMA challenge Gill v. OPM won a July 8, 2010 ruling in Massachusetts federal district court that DOMA is unconstitutional.  That case is now on appeal. 

Co-operating counsel on Pedersen are Jenner & Block LLP (Washington, DC), Horton, Shields & Knox (Hartford), and Sullivan & Worcester LLP (Boston).  Co-counsel in the Gill case are Foley Hoag LLP, Sullivan & Worcester LLP, Jenner & Block LLP, and Kator, Parks & Weiser, PLLC.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England’s leading legal organization dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression.

# # #

FFRF Sues Rick Perry Over Prayer Rally

Good news! There is an organization willing to stand up to Governor Rick Perry (R-Texas) and his dangerous entanglement of his official office with religious extremist, heterosexual supremacist organizations like the American Family Association. It's called the Freedom from Religion Foundation and they are suing the governor over Perry's proposed prayer rally called "The Response" where he has invited all the nation's governors to join him in praying to Jesus to help our country.

USA Today has the details:

The Freedom from Religion Foundation argues in its lawsuit filed in Houston that Republican Gov. Rick Perry's day of prayer and fasting would violate the constitutional ban on the government endorsing a religion. The event, which is called The Response and is billed as Christian-only, is scheduled for Aug. 6 at Houston's Reliant Stadium.

The complaint alleges Perry violated the First Amendment's establishment clause by organizing, promoting and participating in the event.

"The answers for America's problems won't be found on our knees or in heaven, but by using our brains, our reason and in compassionate action," said Dan Barker, a co-director of the foundation. "Gov. Perry's distasteful use of his civil office to plan and dictate a religious course of action to 'all citizens' is deeply offensive to many citizens, as well as to our secular form of government."

There are some complicated issues here. Clearly, Rick Perry has the right to pray (or not) to who or what ever he wants to. The question is, can he, in his official capacity as Governor of a state, issue a call to prayer without overstepping the bounds of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. If he was doing so as a private citizen there would be no constitutional question. Then the question would be a political one: is it possible for a governor (or any high elected official) to act in a whole private capacity?

As an atheist/agnostic myself anything that challenges the arrogance of believers that everyone has to believe the way they do I will support. I immediately donated money to FFRF upon hearing their lawsuit, which they will inevitably lose, but their point is an important one. Not everyone believes in Rick Perry's god and it is hubris to declare that all citizens must join him on our knees to find solutions to our nation's problems.

TN Groups File Lawsuit Against Anti-Gay Law

Excellent news! A coalition of LGBT Tennesseans have joined together to file a lawsuit challenging a recently enacted anti-gay law passed by the state Legislature which would repeal all existing local LGBT civil rights ordinances and prohibit the establishment of any ordinances which protect groups which are not currently protected in state law.

From the press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Tennesseans Challenge Discriminatory State Law
Councilmembers, Residents, Organizations File Suit Calling HB600 Unconstitutional

(Nashville, TN, June 13, 2011)—A group of local elected officials, individuals, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights organizations filed a lawsuit today in Davidson County Chancery Court, challenging the state’s recent passage of House Bill 600, which prohibits local municipalities and counties, including local school districts, from enacting local laws or school policies that protect gay and transgender people against discrimination. The bill was passed earlier this year, just weeks after Nashville added sexual orientation and gender identity to an existing local anti-discrimination law.  The new law also prohibits localities from protecting any other group that is not already protected under state law, which would include veterans and people with disabilities, among others.  

According to the complaint filed today: “HB600 embodies an animus toward gay and transgender people so strong that the Tennessee legislature was willing to repeal policies protecting students against bullying and harassment and to make other groups suffer as well, merely to prevent gay and transgender citizens from obtaining needed protections.”   

“This law is contrary to core Tennessee values,” said Abby R. Rubenfeld, the suit’s lead attorney. “Tennessee is the volunteer state—we help each other, we don’t single out certain Tennesseans who are deemed unworthy of help. Our legislators abused their power by preventing localities from assisting their own citizens. Rather than considering what is best for our state, they passed a law based on disapproval of gay and transgender people, which the Tennessee and U.S. Constitutions do not permit.”    

“Fifteen years ago, in fact—in a case quite similar to this one—the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, ‘if the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare … desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest’,” said Rubenfeld, citing Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that barred localities or the state from passing laws to prohibit discrimination against gay people.

The suit’s plaintiffs, represented by Nashville attorney Rubenfeld, the law firm of Morrison & Foerster, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, include:

•    Lisa Howe, the extremely successful Belmont University soccer coach who made a “mutual decision” to leave her coaching position unexpectedly and despite a highly successful career, immediately after sharing with her team that she and her same-sex partner were having a baby.

•    Metro Councilmembers Erik Cole, Erica Gilmore, and Mike Jameson, representing District 7, District 19, and District 6, respectively. Councilmembers Gilmore and Jameson were co-sponsors of BL2011-838, the Metro ordinance which extended existing anti-discrimination protections to gay and transgender employees of Metro government contractors.

•    Shirit Pankowsky, a rising senior at Martin Luther King, Jr. High School (MLK) and founder and president of MLK’s Gay/Straight Alliance. By stripping Metro’s ability to protect its citizens from discrimination, HB600 also strips protections from Metro Nashville Public Schools’ LGBT students who face discrimination.

•    Dr. Marisa Richmond, president of the Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition and longtime advocate for gay and transgender equality at the federal, state and local level.

•    Wesley Roberts, a teacher at Hume-Fogg Academic Magnet School and a co-sponsor of the school’s Gay/Straight Alliance.

•    The Tennessee Equality Project, a statewide non-profit organization dedicated to promoting and sustaining the equality of gay and transgender Tennesseans.

•    The Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition, a statewide organization which advocates for transgender-related legislation at the federal, state and local levels.

“I want my daughter to grow up in a state that treats everyone equally,” said Lisa Howe. “This lawsuit is necessary because the legislation is discriminatory and unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the majority of the legislature didn’t read the bill carefully and think through its consequences. But that’s why we have the Constitution and the courts to interpret it—so that the rights of everyone can be protected.”

“The state legislation was disguised as an effort to ensure consistent business regulations across Tennessee counties. But that was a Trojan horse pretext for getting this passed. Every county has unique zoning regulations, unique employment regulations, and so forth. Why is it only now, and only on the issue of discrimination, that we suddenly need uniformity? If every county now needs to be identical, should we abolish city councils across the state?” said Metro Councilmember and suit plaintiff Mike Jameson.
 
No individual businesses went on record in support of HB600, and some of Tennessee’s largest employers, including Nissan, Alcoa, FedEx, AT&T, Whirlpool and Comcast, opposed the bill. In addition, the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce issued a public statement in opposition to the bill on the day it was signed into law by Gov. Bill Haslam.

“Under the very thin guise of protecting businesses and commerce, Tennessee passed a law specifically intended to encourage discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender members of the community,” said Shannon Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “This law is part of a larger, national strategy to attack cities and counties that attempt to protect their citizens from discrimination based on characteristics that bear no relationship to job performance, talent, or one’s ability to contribute to society.”

Plaintiffs’ claims are based on the equal protection guarantees of the United States and Tennessee Constitutions. The lawsuit, which will proceed in state court, seeks injunctive relief to stop the enforcement of HB600 and an order from the Court declaring the law unconstitutional.  

Media Contacts:

Erik Olvera
NCLR Communications Director 
Office: 415.392.6257 x324
Mobile: 415.994.3242
EOlvera@NCLRights.org

Abby R. Rubenfeld 
Rubenfeld Law Office 
Office: 615.386.9077 
ARubenfeld@RubenfeldLaw.com

WATCH: Olson/Boies Tribute To Loving v. Virginia

June 12 is the 44th anniversary of the unanimous Loving v. Virginia United States Supreme Court case which overturned all state-enacted bans on interracial marriages. David Boies and Ted Olson are the lead attorneys in the federal lawsuit against Proposition 8, a 2008 California ballot measure which bans same-sex marriage. They have recorded a special video tribute acknowledging the significance of the Loving decision, and its potential impacyt on the Perry v. Brown case.

Hat/tip to TowleRoad.

Catholic Charities Sue Ill. For Right To Anti-Gay Discrimination

Today in religious hubris news, three chapters of Catholic Charities (based in Peoria, Joliet and Springfield) have decided to sue Illinois in order to gain the right to take state money (as much as $30 million) but discriminate in who they provide adoption and foster care services to. As you may recall, on June 1, Illinois' civil unions law went into effect. In response, some local Catholic Charities have announced they would suspend foster care and adoption services altogether unless they have the right to violate Illinois Human Right Law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (and race and marital status).

Simply astonishing. The Advocate has the deets:

In the suit, Catholic Charities for the dioceses of Springfield, Joliet, and Peoria claim that their state-funded adoption services are exempt from the civil unions law under provisions of the legislation as well as existing state religious freedom protections.

"Same sex couples' and unmarried cohabiting couples' application for adoption or foster care referrals could be fully and adequately serviced and accommodated (as they are now) by [the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services] referring them to other providers which do not share [our] conscientious religious objections," attorneys for the dioceses wrote in their complaint.

"On the other hand, the harm to plaintiffs and to the poor, needy and vulnerable third parties whom they serve, should no injunctive relief issue, would be severe and ... even unconscionable," they wrote.

The suit was prompted in part by a March 8 letter from Illinois attorney general Lisa Madigan's office inquiring into Catholic Charities of Springfield's existing policies and whether they violate the law.

"Please be advised that the Illinois Human Rights Act makes it a civil rights violation for any person to 'deny or refuse to another the full and equal enjoyment of facilities, goods, or services of any public place of accommodation' on the basis of unlawful discrimination," which includes sexual orientation and marital status as protected characteristics, the letter read in part.

In a Tuesday statement, a spokeswoman for the attorney general's office said of the suit, "Organizations that receive taxpayer funding to provide public services must comply with the law. Unfortunately, instead of working with the state to ensure compliance with child protection and civil rights laws, the dioceses have opted to go to court."

Filed on behalf of the dioceses by attorneys from the Thomas More Society in Chicago, the lawsuit comes after the announcement late last month that Catholic Charities in Rockford was pulling out of adoption services entirely — a decision described by one source as a possible "trial balloon" from the church to put pressure on the state assembly and attorney general's office. But "there's nothing to indicate that the governor or the assembly is interested in providing an exemption" for religious groups contracted by the state for adoption services, the source said.

Meanwhile, Catholic Charities' claim that Illinois is undermining its religious freedom in state adoption contracts has been criticized by several national LGBT legal and advocacy groups.

"It's outrageous," said Camilla Taylor, national marriage project director for Lambda Legal. "They're asking permission to put their desire to discriminate ahead of the welfare of children in state care. And they're asking to do this at taxpayer expense. It's a tragic result for children."

Even the head of Catholic Charities in Illinois, Anthony Riordan, recognizes that the position stated in the lawsuit is nonsensical, making this statement:

That the Catholic Charities adoption contracts in question are not private but rather funded to the tune of a reported $30 million annually by the state is not ultimately what this is about, he argued. "I think it's certainly a reasonable point: If you receive state funds, you have to follow the directives and the rules of the state," Riordan said. "But our position is that faith-based charities have religious liberties and certain rights of conscience."[emphasis added]

I wonder how far Catholic Charities would like these alleged religious liberties to go? The right to be exempt from age of consent laws? Statutes of limitation on child molestation lawsuits? Why stop at the human rights law and try to get exemptions for every law that they don't agree with?

It should be noted that the notion that religious beliefs should trump the concept of "equal justice under the law" and the underlying principle of public accommodations civil rights laws has been rearing it's ugly head in other contexts, most notably the fight to legalize marriage equality in New York State.

Openly Gay LAPD Officer Wins $1.1M Lawsuit

Sgt. Ronald Crump

An openly gay police officer named Ronald Crump who literally appeared on a poster to recruit people to the Los Angeles Police Department has won a million-dollar judgement against the City of Los Angeles for anti-gay job discrimination and retaliation.

Karen Ocamb of LGBT POV has been covering the story diligently:

Openly gay Sergeant Ronald Crump is suing the city of LA claiming that his boss in Media Relations, Lt. John Romero, created a hostile work environment for gay and lesbian officers. His civil suit outlines a series of incidents over six months in which Crump claims he was harassed and humiliated. For instance, Crump claims that Romero said: “I was a religion major at Liberty University – Jerry Falwell would roll over in his grave if he knew I hired you.” The suit notes that Fawell founded the conservative religious university – but doesn’t mention that Falwell’s Moral Majority helped launch the antigay movement in 1977 with Anita Bryant.

Crump claims that Romero subjected him to “nearly constant harassment on account of his sexual orientation, including introducing Crump to new co-workers as “the new Ruby [Crump’s predecessor] – the only difference is that he doesn’t wear heels.” When Crump told Romero that he didn’t appreciate being referred to as the “new Ruby,” he says Romero told him to “’get over it’ and chuckled as he walked away.”

The lawsuit also details comments Romero allegedly made about other LAPD employees, calling one a “quirky, effeminate guy;” and of another, “She’s a militant, don’t ask/don’t tell activist lesbian,” among other similar comments.

The lawsuit also reports how in January 2009, a lesbian co-worker “remarked that Lt. Romero made the office environment stressful and that she saw Romero treating Plaintiff and others poorly.”  That lesbian left the Media Relations Department one month later, which was closely followed by an inquiry into the concerns about the hostile work environment from then-Assistant Chief Jim McDonnell’s office. Before he left the LAPD, McDonnell had an extraordinarily good relationship with the LGBT community.

And people think this blatant discrimination won't happen in California just because we have strong laws against it? It's up to the justice system to enforce the laws on the books.

Here's a local media report on the Crump verdict:

Los Angeles - A Los Angeles police sergeant who claimed he was the victim of retaliation for being gay was awarded $1.16 million by a jury today. 

A Los Angeles Superior Court jury deliberated for part of Wednesday afternoon and most of today before finding in favor of Sgt. Ronald Crump. 

"This was not a case about Ronald Crump being gay, but about the department's retaliation against him," attorney Gregory Smith said on behalf of Crump. 

Smith said his client's involuntary transfer from the Los Angeles Police Department's Media Relations Section in 2009 after complaining about his treatment from his boss at the time, Lt. John Romero, left the sergeant without a chance for significant promotions and pay increases. 

"He's not going anywhere in this department," Smith said during closing arguments Wednesday. "He is finished forever. They have completely destroyed his career for any advancement or promotion." 

Deputy City Attorney Daniel Aguilera declined to comment on the verdict. However, his colleague, Deputy City Attorney Shaun Dabby Jacobs, told jurors that Crump did not lose rank or pay with his changes of position and earns about $110,000 annually. She also said that months passed after he began the media relations assignment before he complained about alleged mistreatment.

I wonder what City Attorney Carmen Trutanich and LAPD Chief Charlie Beck will say about the Crump case the next time they address a large openly LGBT audience during one of their regular community forums?

Witt Wins! U.S. Settles Major DADT Case

Major Margaret Witt 

In a major victory for LGBT rights advocates, the federal government has declined to continue litigating the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" case of Witt v. Department of the Air Force, settling the case with Major Margaret Witt and the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington state. Witt had won an important 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 2008 where the judges said that laws impacting sexual orientation should receive "heightened scrutiny" and that it was unlikely that DADT would survive such judicial review.

Today, Witt announced that she would retire from the Air Force, receiving full benefits, and that the government had agreed to expunge her discharge from her military records, thus ending the lawsuit.

Servicemembers'' Legal Defense Network (SLDN) hailed the result:

(Washington, D.C.) Today, Army Veteran and SLDN Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis released the following statement regarding the announcement that  Major Margaret Witt will receive full retirement, the government will drop its appeal of the federal court ruling in her favor, and the unlawful 2003 discharge under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will be removed from her military service record:  

“We congratulate Air Force Major Margaret Witt and her legal team on the stunning victory announced today.  Major Witt is a decorated veteran, discharged under ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ after 18 years of sacrifice for our country as an operating room and flight nurse. Today’s events underscore once again the unjust nature of this discriminatory chapter in American history.  Her case established a new rule of law in the Ninth Circuit, and her voice and story were pivotal in building support for the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ This is not just a victory for Major Witt – it’s a victory for justice and for service members everywhere.”

It should be interesting to see what impact setlling the Witt case has on the other major DADT case still pending in the 9th Circuit, Log Cabin Republicans v. United States which has as its focus the complete elimination of the DADT policy and establishment of non-discrimination procedures based on sexual orientation in the U.S. armed forces.

NJ Lawsuit Hinges On Definition Of "Male"

This is an interesting story I discovered via PageOneQ. The New York Times has the deets:

Mr. Devoureau, 39, says he has identified himself as a man all his life. In 2006, after he began taking male hormones and had sex-change surgery, he adopted the name El’Jai (pronounced like L. J.). A new birth certificate issued by the State of Georgia identifies him as male, as does his New Jersey driver’s license, and the Social Security Administration made the change in its records. 

“As long as I’ve been a person, I’ve lived as a man,” he said in an interview. “At age 5, I did everything a boy did: I climbed trees, I played football, I played with trucks. Most of the people in my life, all they know is I’m male.” 

Last June, Urban Treatment Associates in Camden hired Mr. Devoureau as a part-time urine monitor; his job was to make sure that people recovering from addiction did not substitute someone else’s urine for their own during regular drug testing. On his second day, he said, his boss said she had heard he was transgender. 

“I said I was male, and she asked if I had any surgeries,” he said. “I said that was private and I didn’t have to answer, and I was fired.” 

Calls to Urban Treatment were not returned. But after Mr. Devoureau made a complaint to the state’s Division on Civil Rights, the treatment center filed a response in January saying that Mr. Devoureau’s dismissal “was not motivated by, nor related in any way to, any discriminatory intention.” 

Civil rights laws and court decisions allow limited cases of favoring one group over another, like giving preference to women for jobs as nurses in maternity wards. In its January filing, Urban Treatment said that firing Mr. Devoureau was legitimate, “since the sex of the employee engaged in that particular job position is a bona fide occupational qualification” — implying that Mr. Devoureau was not really a man. 

Mr. Devoureau’s suit, filed in Superior Court in Camden, is not the first job discrimination case brought by a transgender person, though those remain rare. But Michael D. Silverman, executive director of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, said it was the first employment case in the country to take on the question of a transgender person’s sex.

The question of what defines male and female is not as simple as "what you see in the mirror when you stand in front of it nude." Scientifically (and legally) there are at least 8 different characteristics which comprise "sex." It will be interesting if this lawsuit forwards this notion in the legal sphere.

Note that there are only 12 states which ban employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The Maryland legislature just failed to enact HB 235 which would have banned gender identity discrimination in employment, housing and credit (but not public accommodations).

Arkansas Supreme Court Strikes Down Anti-Gay Initiative

Great news out of Arkansas! (I don't think I have typed that sentence very many times before.) In November 2008, voters passed Initiative Act 1 by a vote of 57-43 but Thursday the Arkansas Supreme Court unanimously ruled it unconstitutional and struck the measure down in Arkansas Dep't of Human Services v. Cole. The ballot measure banned unmarried, cohabiting couples from being considered for the adoption or foster care of children in Arkansas. Of course, Arkansas also bans same-sex couples from marrying, so Initiative Act 1's passage implicitly banned all same-sex couples from adopting or fostering children in the state.

As always, Chris Geidner of Poliglot summarizes the legal issues perfectly:

The court noted: 

We hold that a fundamental right to privacy is at issue in this case and that, under the Arkansas Constitution, sexual cohabitors have the right to engage in private, consensual, noncommercial intimacy in the privacy of their homes. We further hold that this right is jeopardized by Act 1 which precludes all sexual cohabitors, without exception, from eligibility for parenthood, whether by means of adoption or foster care. We quickly note that in certain instances, such as in custody, visitation, or dependency-neglect matters, the State and the circuit courts of this state have a duty to protect the best interest of the child. We will discuss this issue more fully below.

Then: 

We strongly disagree with the State and FCAC’s conclusion that if this court finds that the categorical ban on adoption and fostering for sexual cohabitors put in place by Act 1 violates an individual’s fundamental right to sexual privacy in one’s home, state courts and DHS will be prohibited henceforth from considering and enforcing non-cohabitation agreements and orders in deciding child-custody and visitation cases as well as dependency- neglect cases. That simply is not the case. The overriding concern in all of these situations is the best interest of the child. 

Finally: 

Thus, Act 1 directly and substantially burdens the privacy rights of “opposite-sex and same-sex individuals” who engage in private, consensual sexual conduct in the bedroom by foreclosing their eligibility to foster or adopt children, should they choose to cohabit with their sexual partner. The pressure on such couples to live apart, should they wish to foster or adopt children, is clearly significant. ...

Here Act 1 presents a pernicious choice for Cole. She can either give up her fundamental right to sexual intimacy in her home free from investigation by the State into her sexual practices in order to adopt or foster or forego the privilege of having children by adoption or fostering. We hold that the burden inflicted on her is direct and substantial. 

The court, thus, concluded: 

We conclude that the individualized assessments by DHS and our trial courts are effective in addressing issues such as relationship instability, abuse, lack of social support, and other factors that could potentially create a risk to the child or otherwise render the applicant unsuitable to be a foster or adoptive parent. These would be the least restrictive means for addressing the compelling state interest of protecting the welfare, safety, and best interest of Arkansas’s children. By imposing a categorical ban on all persons who cohabit with a sexual partner, Act 1 removes the ability of the State and our courts to conduct these individualized assessments on these individuals, many of whom could qualify and be entirely suitable foster or adoptive parents. As a result, Act 1 fails to pass constitutional muster under a heightened-scrutiny analysis.

If an Arkansas Supreme Court will strike down such a statute it shows that heterosexual supremacists trying to pass similar ballot measures in other states would very likely face even more hostile courts in other jurisdictions.

An important win for the good guys! Another reason I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU.

9th U.S. Circuit Refuses To Lift Stay On Prop 8

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling today refusing to lift Judge Vaughn Walker's stay on the enforcement of Proposition 8 while the ruling is appealed. Currently the California Supreme Court is considering a question of whether official proponents of a ballot measure can defend an initiative in court when the state's official representatives refuse to do so.

Here's the official text of the order from the 3-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals:

Having considered all of the factors set forth in Nken v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1749, 1756 (2009), and all of the facts and circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the stay pending appeal, as well as the standard for vacatur set forth in Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 472 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2006), we deny Plaintiffs’ motion at this time.

The ruling means that Proposition 8 will remain in effect until after the California Supreme Court rules later in 2011 on the standing question and the 9th Circuit panel issues a ruling either accepting the standing determination from the California Supreme Court (which it does NOT have to do, since there are very different standards for standing under federal and state law) and issues its own ruling on the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

British Homophobes Lose Another Religious-Based Lawsuit

Eunice and Owen Johns are a British couple who went to court to seek the right to foster
children and indoctrinate them with their homophobic (allegedly faith-based) views

There is a cause célèbre legal case which is exciting religious heterosexual supremacists on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. It pits religious belief versus non-discrimination based upon sexual orientation. The Johns are a couple of Pentecostal Christians from Derby, England who wanted to become foster parents to young children but also felt that they were not willing to "tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing."

The Johns sued the Derby City Council and lost.

Andrew Brown in The Guardian ("The law of England is not Christian") quotes Lord Munby's decision:

"We are simply not here concerned with the grant or denial of State 'benefits' to the claimants. No one is asserting that Christians (or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims) are not 'fit and proper' persons to foster or adopt. No one is contending for a blanket ban. No one is seeking to de-legitimise Christianity or any other faith or belief. No one is seeking to force Christians or adherents of other faiths into the closet. No one is asserting that the claimants are bigots. No one is seeking to give Christians, Jews or Muslims or, indeed, peoples of any faith, a second class status. On the contrary, it is fundamental to our law, to our polity and to our way of life, that everyone is equal: equal before the law and equal as a human being endowed with reason and entitled to dignity and respect."

Additionally, the Johns case quotes an earlier decision written by Lord Laws regarding whether religious belief could exempt clerks from performing same-sex civil partnerships:

"The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified; it is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective, but it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary. We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion, any belief system, cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic. The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law, but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself."


"So it is that the law must firmly safeguard the right to hold and express religious beliefs. Equally firmly, it must eschew any protection of such a belief's content in the name only of its religious credentials. Both principles are necessary conditions of a free and rational regime."

It would be incredible if we could get such a strong judicial opinion about the separation of church and state from our Highest Court. Andrew Brown finished with a statement which has immediate implications for the kulturkampf (culture war) about homosexuality we are currently engaged in:

Obviously, these judgments will have a considerable effect on evangelical protestantism in this country, which has always taken the view that we are, or should be, a Christian nation. But I think the greatest effect will not be on pentecostalists like the Johnses. They can adjust quite easily to the idea that they live under a heathen or godless regime. It is the old-fashioned evangelical wing of the Church of England which will be most upset and confused by these clear statements of principle.

Repeat after me: America is NOT a Christian nation.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God.

L.A. TIMES Op Ed: "Same-sex weddings, now"

Today's Los Angeles Times runs an editorial in favor of ending the stay on Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional and calls for same-sex marriages to resume immediately while the legal wrangling at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and California Supreme Court get settled.

Although the federal courts expedited their handling of the lawsuit challenging Proposition 8, the issues are far from resolved. And now that the California Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in, the case could be delayed for another year or more.

Enough already. Gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to wed while the case works its way through the system.

The state Supreme Court was asked by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to rule on whether supporters of Proposition 8 have the right — known as "standing" — to continue with their case. It indicated that it would hear arguments late this year, with a ruling likely to follow a few months later. Meanwhile, a stay pending the outcome of the appeal has kept gay weddings from going forward. Now, however, the lawyers challenging Proposition 8 have asked the 9th Circuit to lift the stay and allow the weddings to take place. We agree that it should.

Every day that the case drags on, gay and lesbian couples who would like to marry are being deprived of their civil rights. That's not our wording; the federal trial judge decided that issue, at least for now. The denial of constitutional rights, even temporarily, is a deplorable situation that must meet high legal standards to be allowed to continue. In our view, those conditions have not been met.

First, a stay should be issued only if there is a strong likelihood that the appealing party — in this case, the supporters of Proposition 8 — will prevail in court. Yet there are serious questions about whether they even have the standing to appeal, so the outcome is very uncertain. There are other factors the courts take into account when deciding whether to keep a stay in place. Those filing the appeal must show that they would be irreparably harmed if the stay were lifted; the courts also take into account where the public interest lies. During the trial, the supporters of Proposition 8 were unable to identify any harm that would befall them if same-sex weddings took place.

Certainly it would be messy if California were to resume performing wedding ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples, only to have to stop again when another ruling comes down. But there may be no other option. Right now, same-sex couples are being deprived of their constitutional right to marry, and every indication is that unless the stay is lifted, they'll have to keep waiting for more than a year. That is real harm, and there is no valid reason to allow it to continue.

I think it is unlikely that the Courts will agree to lift the stay, but I do agree that the harm to same-sex couples who would like to get married in California should not be discounted, especially  when it is looking increasingly likely that Proposition 8 will not survive judicial scrutiny.

Creationism Is "Superstitious Nonsense" Lawsuit Heard

OMG this lawsuit makes me wanna holla! A public school teacher names James Corbett previously lost a federal lawsuit at the district court level for remarks he made in class that student Chad Farnan claimed violated his first amendment religious rights. Now that decision has been appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals:

A Santa Ana federal judge ruled in 2009 that Corbett violated the First Amendment's establishment clause when he referred to Creationism as "religious, superstitious nonsense" during a classroom lecture.

But the judge – noting Corbett would not have necessarily known he was violating student Chad Farnan's constitutional rights – also barred the teacher from having to pay attorney fees and damages under a "qualified immunity" defense. Qualified immunity is a form of federal protection for government employees who have violated an individual's constitutional rights.

Both sides appealed the ruling to the 9th Circuit. Corbett is seeking to be vindicated; Farnan is seeking a stronger ruling against Corbett, and for Corbett's qualified immunity to be tossed out.

The 9th Circuit court, which did not make any decisions Friday, has wide discretion with this case. It can rule on any or all of the arguments presented, declare portions to be moot, and/or send the case back to the trial court.

Corbett remains in his teaching position; Farnan, who brought the lawsuit as a sophomore at Capistrano Valley High in December 2007, is now a freshman at Pepperdine University in Malibu.

The teacher also said "When you pray for divine intervention, you're hoping that the spaghetti monster will help you get what you want." This is a reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, an "alternative" religion. Bizarrely, Erwin Chemerinksy, who I greatly admire and is serving as the attorney for Corbett, had to argue these statements "had legitimate teaching purposes that did not promote hostility toward religion."