Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Judge: Gay Pride firefighter appearance not illegal
10.13.2008 1:52pm EDT
(San Diego, California) A San Diego judge has ruled the city did not act illegally when it ordered four firefighters to take part in a gay pride parade. The ruling, by San Diego Superior Court Judge Michael Anello, came a week after a mistrial was declared in a sex discrimination lawsuit by the firefighters.
In his ruling, Anello rejected a motion from the the firefighters’ attorney for an injunction barring the city from from requiring participation in parades.Charles LiMandri had argued that pride parades are a political event whose purpose is to advocate for LGBT rights including “the controversial concept of gay marriage” and that the department improperly used the four to support a political cause. He said the order is a violation of the firefighters’ constitutional right to free speech.
In rejecting the motion, Anello cited rulings by other courts that held that when citizens enter government service they must accept some limits on their constitutional rights.
In his written ruling, Anello said the appearance by firefighters at the parade was part of the San Diego Fire Department’s “community building activities,” and was required under state and municipal anti-discrimination laws.
Anello also noted the argument was moot, since the city has already amended its policies to make future participation in parades voluntary.
The ruling came after a jury deadlocked last week on a sexual harassment suit brought by LiMandri on behalf of the four firefighters who claimed they had become emotionally distressed as a result of their treatment by crowds along the parade route last year.
The jury of six men and six women became hopelessly deadlocked after four days of deliberations.
LiMandri had urged the jury to award $500,000 to $1 million to each firefighter.
City Attorney Michael Aguirre said the lawsuit “was about greed” and declared the jury’s deadlock a total victory.
Last month, one of the firefighters told the court that he was sexually taunted by crowds on the street and has been undergoing counseling to try to cope with the aftermath of the experience.
Charles Kane testified that participating in the parade has affected his family life and that he has been ridiculed by some at his fire station.
“I felt confused, embarrassed, used, abandoned by my leadership … I had to fight through it,” he testified.
But under cross-examination by city attorney Michael Aguirre, Kane acknowledged that the fire hall is in the largely gay Hillcrest neighborhood, and that he actually lives in the area.
Anello has scheduled a retrial to begin on Jan. 16.
Googling “Charles LiMandri” yields the following:
“So last year, Charles LiMandri got involved. Charles is an attorney in Rancho Santa Fe. He is also the Western Regional Director of the Thomas More Law Center, a Catholic public interest law firm.”
Thomas More Law Center is the Catholic cousin of Alliance Defense Fund … both are well-known anti-gay organizations. I figured the money for the firefighters’ lawsuit had to be coming from SOMEWHERE in the Reich Wing.
I wonder if those firefighters have ever demeaned WOMEN by whistling at THEM? Such delicate souls, our firefighters (NOT!).
Cheers,
Bud Clark
San Diego CA USA
Breaks your heart to hear a story like this. Men being viewed as sex objects - how unnatural. The emotional trauma that this must cause to have other people find you attractive and cat-call you for a distance without the possibility of getting groped or smacked on the a$$. I am sure the mental havoc this has caused keeps these 4 men up at nights in cold sweats. The inhumanity of it all - makes me want to go join the fire department!
I HATE THAT THIS IS JUST THE NEWS AND THANK YOU NOT MAKING SOMETHING ABOUT THIS ICCIDENT.
Oh man. Talk about thin-skinned. Going to counseling because a number of people made advances at you.
Maybe all women should sue the government for being born women and having to endure the same on a far grater extent.
I agree that they shouldn’t have been forced into the parade, but like the article says, that policy has already been changed. asking for money on top of that is beyond greedy.
What a joke! If they don’t feel that LGBT people should have equal rights etc. then why force them to ride in the parade?
I think this is really about trying to make a quick buck and it fell apart.
very informative Bud Clark, thanks. It confirms the lawsuit was really about $$$ for the firefighters, and anti-LGBT hate for the attorneys (which they will use in their fundraising letters to their bigoted and hate filled donors.
Certainly, San Diego isn’t the only city that requires firefighters to participate in “community events.” However, the San Diego appellate court is easily the most homophobic in the state. Which is probably why these right-wing lawyers decided to file suit in that particular jurisdiction (instead of, say, Los Angeles County). It makes it easier for them to appeal. And I’m sure that’s precisely what they’ll do.
A short trip down memory lane:
In 2003, the San Diego appellate court got rebuffed by the California Supreme Court when it tried to ban co-parent adoption. In 2005, that court voted to exempt country clubs from anti-discrimination laws (used to exclude gay and lesbian couples from joining). The justices soon put a stop to that practice as well. Last year, the same court decided that doctors have the right to refuse treating lesbians if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Yet another decision that was overturned by the high court.
Could there be 4 bigger firefighting cry-babies on the planet? Duh, not really.
What do they mean Retrial ?? Why aren’t they throwing this out ? What a waste of taxpayers dollars !!
I think that the judge got it wrong in this case. Sexual harassment law clearly states that the employer is responsible for not placing employees in “an environment” in which the employee feels sexual pressure/harassment. If we’re going to support women who complain that their office mates have posted obscene material on bulletin boards in the office (and that this creates an atmosphere of intimidating, discomfort, and harassment), then, in the interest of equal rights, we need to support the same rights of men. And I say this as a gay man who’d hoot, holler, “woof!”, and whistle at firefighters going by in the parade. Men have the right not to be subjected to that, IMO, and they should be allowed to do community service in an environment in which they do not feel harassed.
I look forward to this one being over turned on appeal. If we’d fight for women to fight it in one instance and tell men to “suck it up” in the same instance, we’re being unfair and fostering inequality.
Gerry Fisher: You almost got it right, but then you got it all wrong. Yes, employers have a duty to protect their employees from hostile work environments… but put it in context. A once-a-year-parade out in the streets in full view of the public, and with a spatial buffer is not the same as the close quarters of a continuously hostile office environment. Regardless: there is a pubic relations part of being a firefighter, e.g. parades and open house events. Most firefighters love them. Would you protect a firefighter if he was unwillingly ordered to escort a mostly brown group of school children around the firehouse? [I can hear it now: I felt so uncomfortable; they taunted me for being a privileged white male.] Just not the same.