Gay Man Was Harassed At Work For Being A ‘Cocksucker’ ...

[W!nston]

Gay Man Was Harassed At Work For Being A ‘Cocksucker,’ Court Says It Won’t Do A Thing About It
THINGPROGRESS | BY ZACK FORD OCT 30, 2015 8:00AM

Just this week, House Republicans blocked an attempt by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) to advance the Equality Act, which would create nationwide LGBT nondiscrimination protections. A Missouri appeals court decision this week demonstrates exactly why such legislation is necessary.

In a 2-1 decision Tuesday, the Western District Missouri Court of Appeals ruled against James Pittman, who had sued Cook Paper Recycling Corp. for discriminating against him for being gay. Though the direct harassment and overall hostile environment was well doented in the case, the court could offer Pittman no relief. “Because the Missouri Human Rights Act does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” the majority wrote, “we affirm the circuit court’s judgment dismissing Pittman’s petition for failure to state a claim.”

While working for Cook Paper, Pittman was told that he was a “cocksucker” and subjected to other comments of a sexual nature. He was asked if he had AIDS. He was harassed for having a same-sex partner, and was mocked when that relationship ended. The workplace was, as Pittman described it, “an objectively hostile and abusive environment.” Cook Paper ultimately fired him.
Pitt argued that because the MHRA does protect “sex,” he should find relief because he was discriminated against for violating gender stereotypes by being gay. Judge James Edward Welsh disagreed — by citing the dictionary:

The plain language of the Missouri Human Rights Act is clear and unambiguous. Employers cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of their “sex.” The clear meaning prohibiting discrimination based upon “sex” under the Missouri Human Rights Act intended by the Missouri legislature concerns discrimination based upon a person’s gender and has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Indeed, the first definition of “sex” provided by Webster’s Third New International Dictionary is “one of the two divisions of human beings respectively designated male or female.”

In a separate opinion, Judge Robert M. Clayton wrote, “I respectfully and reluctantly concur in the opinion of Judge Welsh with respect to the result only.”

Judge Anthony Rex Gabbert dissented, pointing out that there were other definitions of “sex.” Citing the same dictionary, he highlighted definitions 2, 3, and 4:

(2) the sum of the morphological, physiological, and behavioral peculiarities of living beings that subserves biparental reproduction; (3) the sphere of interpersonal behavior especially between male and female most directly associated with, leading up to, substituting for, or resulting from genital union; and (4) the phenomena of sexual instincts and their manifestations.

Though all three could easily encapsulate sexual orientation, this did not persuade the majority. “No matter how compelling Pittman’s argument may be and no matter how sympathetic this court or the trial court may be to Pittman’s situation, we are bound by the state of the law as it currently exists,” Welsh wrote. “Without the legislative addition of ‘sexual orientation’ to the statutory list of protected statuses, the Missouri Human Rights Act does not prohibit discrimination based upon a person’s sexual orientation.”

Missouri is not alone; there are 28 states that offer no state-level employment protections based on “sexual orientation.” The Movement Advancement Project (MAP), which tracks LGBT legislation, released a new report this week confirming that only half of LGBT people in the U.S. live somewhere that offers them employment protections at the municipal or state level.

CREDIT: MOVEMENT ADVANCEMENT PROJECT​

MAP Executive Director Ineke Mushovic told ThinkProgress that it’s “shocking that a worker can be fired solely because he is gay, that the court does not dispute these facts, but that the court still finds in favor of the employer due to lack of nondiscrimination protections under state law.”

She pointed out that even though the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has determined that sexual orientation is protected under the “sex” classification in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, that does little to help a case filed in state court. The Missouri Court made clear it was not considering Title VII, and “because this case only looked at the Missouri Human Rights Act, it is unrelated to the EEOC rulings.”

Mushovic also highlighted a 2011 study that found that one in ten lesbian, gay, and bisexual workers had reported losing a job in the last five years because of their sexual orientation. “This case is just one illustration of how discrimination is a problem,” she explained. “Pittman was fired because he is gay and the court did not deny that. Rather, they said anti-gay discrimination is not illegal under Missouri law.”

Republican majorities in Congress and many state legislatures are keeping legislation like the Equality Act from advancing, but efforts to extend LGBT nondiscrimination protections are still underway. Just last week, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) issued an executive order to protect transgender people from discrimination after such protections have been blocked by the state Senate for several years. State lawmakers in Ohio have introduced an LGBT protections bill just this week, hoping that the fifth time is the charm.
And on Tuesday, voters in Houston, Texas will consider Proposition 1, the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO). As the fourth most populated city in the U.S., HERO’s passage could make a significant dent in the number of LGBT people who remain vulnerable to legal discrimination.

SOURCE

With the recent Supreme Court Ruling on Gay Marriage Equality and the 2016 election campaigning underway why hasn't I heard a single word from any Presidential candidate about the issue of anti-discrimination protection for LGBT citizens? I remember when President Obama was campaigning he made a point of including the Gay Rights movement and specifically Gay Marriage Equality an issue in his campaign. Why hasn't any Democratic candidate even paid lip service to LGBT protections? Why hasn't Hillary gone on record calling for LGBT protection? I don't trust her any more than I trusted her husband. He was and is a cheating, lying fraud and she is even worse. I hope Bernie Sanders mops the floor with Hillary.

 

[gb2000ie]

This strikes me as a workers rights issue, not a gay rights issues.

It doesn't matter WHAT you are bullied about, bullying should not be OK!

I don't think a law saying "you may not bully people about being Gay" is the solution.

Here in Ireland, the man would have had an open-and-shut case. If an employer tolerates a "hostile work environment", then they have failed in their duty of care towards their employees, and they are guilty. It doesn't matter how exactly it was made hostile.

Reading the story, it is clear the judge agreed the work environment was hostile. That should be the end of the case!

B.

 

[W!nston]

Apparently here in the USA it does matter if you are being bullied because of your sexual orientation and that is why we need anti-discrimination protection. If he was being bullied because he was black, Muslim or a woman he would have won his case. The hostile work environment was okay because he was being bullied for a non-protected cause.

It's insane. Isn't it?

That is why I can't understand how this isn't being talked about by a Democratic candidate. It seems to me it is a ready made cause célèbre that should be a campaign issue.

I hope Bernie Sanders will find the courage to make this issue a part of his campaign and then push the Democrats to add it to their platform in 2016.

We need some one to give a damn about how our rights are being trampled on.

If he weren't Gay he would not have been subject to this hostile work environment. It is a Gay issue.

 

[gb2000ie]

If he weren't Gay he would not have been subject to this hostile work environment. It is a Gay issue.

I disagree - all worker being forced to endure a hostile workers need protection, not just a small set of special groups.

It's not OK to bully people for wearing glasses, or for liking scifi, or for being fat, or for being short, or for being ginger or for ......

By writing laws in such a way that only some classes are protected, you are effectively legalising a hostile work environment for everyone not in one of those special classes. That is just nuts!

B.

 

[W!nston]

I see your point, B.

Now change his complaint from a Sexual Orientation to a Race or Gender or Religious persecution. Instead of being called a 'cocksucker' he is called a 'n*gg*r' or 'sp*arch*ck*er' or a 'whore' or 'bitch' or a 'r*ghe*d' or 's*nd n*gg*r'. Now would you insist his group should have not anti-discrimination protection and he had no case against his employer or fellow employees for creating a hostile work environment therefore he should not win a settlement and re-instatement?

I don't live in a Utopian society. Far from it. Where I live LGBT citizens need anti-discrimination protection. Everyone needs a safe work environment but when Gay men are singled out and verbally abused and the employer does nothing he should pay a price for allowing the persecution of LGBT employees.

I do enjoy your posts my friend. You point out things to me all the time. Even if we don't agree I always enjoy reading your stuff. It's interesting and I appreciate it

 

[gb2000ie]

I see your point, B.

Now change his complaint from a Sexual Orientation to a Race or Gender or Religious persecution. Instead of being called a 'cocksucker' he is called a 'n*gg*r' or 'sp*arch*ck*er' or a 'whore' or 'bitch' or a 'r*ghe*d' or 's*nd n*gg*r'. Now would you insist his group should have not anti-discrimination protection and he had no case against his employer or fellow employees for creating a hostile work environment therefore he should not win a settlement and re-instatement?

My point is that EVERYONE who is harassed at work, for ANY reason should be able to win these cases.

That encompasses all your examples, and much more.

I don't live in a Utopian society. Far from it. Where I live LGBT citizens need anti-discrimination protection.

I agree there is need for anti-discrimination protection for gays so we cannot be fired for being gay, so we cannot be evicted for being gay, so we cannot be denied service for being gay etc.. It's a real pity ENDA didn't pass

My point was that THIS SPECIFIC CASE is not a gay rights case, but a workers rights case. No worker should be subjected to a hostile work environment!

Everyone needs a safe work environment but when Gay men are singled out and verbally abused and the employer does nothing he should pay a price for allowing the persecution of LGBT employees.

No, they should pay the price for allowing persecution of an employee, period.

Why the employee is being persecuted should not matter - any persecution for any reason should be punishable in the same way.

Sometimes gay people suffer because of a lack of human rights, not a lack of gay rights. In those cases, the solution is rights for all, not rights just for gay people. I think this specific example falls into that category.

I do enjoy your posts my friend. You point out things to me all the time. Even if we don't agree I always enjoy reading your stuff. It's interesting and I appreciate it

Ditto.

B.