Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Jury: Firefighters harassed at gay parade
02.18.2009 12:47pm EST
(San Diego, California) A jury has found that four San Diego firefighters were sexually harassed for being ordered to participate in a gay pride parade and awarded them combined damages of $34,300.
The firefighters – Alex Kane, Chad Allison, Capt. John Ghiotto and Capt. Jason Hewitt – claimed they were subjected to sexually charged conduct and lewd comments while riding a fire engine in the July 2007 parade, which drew about 150,000 spectators.The firefighters’ attorney, Charles LiMandri, said during his closing argument that his clients were targets of vulgar gestures and catcalls while being forced to watch barely clothed men and women simulate sex acts and touch themselves and one another.
“The Fire Department knew what goes on there,” LiMandri told the jury.
This was the second trial on the firefighters’ claims. In October, jurors were unable to reach a verdict.
LiMandri requested up to $1 million for each client at the first trial. He didn’t propose specific damages at this trial.
A crew that volunteered to ride a fire engine pulled out shortly before the parade because the captain’s mother died. LiMandri told the jury that department supervisors didn’t try to find other volunteers, but gave the assignment to the crew in the city’s Hillcrest area, home to a large gay population where the parade is held.
The firefighters’ attorney argued that his clients objected but weren’t taken seriously. The city said the firefighters expressed discomfort but didn’t complain of sexual harassment at the time.
Deputy City Attorney Don Shanahan said the firefighters weren’t satisfied after Chief Tracy Jarman apologized and promised to change the department’s policy and use only volunteers in the parade.
“The department bent over backwards,” Shanahan told jurors.
The city will appeal the verdict and oppose any motions to pay the firefighters’ legal fees, Shanahan said.
You’re exactly right, Gerry. It’s not fair to put anyone in a situation where they’re subject to sexual harassment and intimidation. Even men and those in stereotypically “macho” career fields can justifiably feel violated in certain situations and we should respectfully recognize that reality. The supervisors at the SD Fire Department were out of line in forcing unwilling employees to participate in the gay pride parade.
What is notable is that instead of each getting a million dollars that they asked for, they will each (assuming the ruling stands) get less than ten thousand. Basically even the jury thinks they are a bunch of whiners with mountain-out-of-a-molehill case.
How can we be demanding equality if we treat straight people as meat for our amusement?
Another reason why the Pride parades neither promote pride nor promote our agenda.
What a bunch of pussies!
I have to agree with the verdict.
Maybe next time they will consider using volunteers for the event.
That is a good verdict. They should have used volunteers..it shoudl be easy to put together a crew. And if there has to be a crew there just for protection in all parades under some city ordinance then the firefighters themselves should be self-selecting… WORK ON IT.
This should be taken for what it is.. a ploy by the Alliance Defense Fund. This goes to show when you shop for a jury, you can get the results you want. I’ve been in parades and it’s nearly impossible to hear what people are calling out. These firemen had their windows rolled up and headphones on playing music, yet somehow, they could say what was being called out to them. They were well rehearsed by a nutjob religious right lawyer and unfortunately this jury fell for it.
If the city/fire department has a policy of participation in community events like parades and does not allow employees to decline to participate then I can’t support these guys.
If they just don’t want to participate in a Gay Pride parade because they find Gayness objectionable, then I think they need additional training.
Employees that must serve the public cannot pick and choose who they want to serve. What happens when a home/apt bld know to have gay occupants catches fire? Do they also have the option of refusing to save gay lives and property? Can they refuse to provide CPR?
I am a public servant and public service is a priviledge not a right. They take an oath to perform their job and are compensated for their service. If participation in a community parade is part of the job then they have a choice about whether they want to keep that job or resign.
I’m sorry to say that I have to side with the firefighters on this one. It’s sounds like they weren’t asked to go to the parade on fire watch, but rather were ordered to participate in the parade. That’s inappropriate in my opinion. Gay pride parades, like Mardi Gras parades, tend to get a little raunchy. It’s unfair to order someone to participate if they don’t want to. They weren’t there to deal with fires, they were being forced to serve a purely visual role.
Interesting. I wonder how much we GLBT folks would be awarded for the verbal abuses (name calling, bullying, etc) that these four have more than likely done to individuals in our community over the years? While legally, I agree that no one should be forced into participating in our parades/celebrations, I am appalled at the statement/slap in the face that these social conservatives just laid on us. As we push forward, occasionally we step back in time…
While I agree that staff shouldn’t be ordered into sexually uncomfortable situations, this borders on the frivolous. The chief already apologized and promised to change the policy.
Fine, they deserve protection from sexual harassment, but don’t they dare do the same thing. I won’t put up with double standards.
Gerry Fisher said: “If the situation was reversed, and it was a group of women being ordered by their boss into a situation that exposed them to cat calls, gestures, and simulated sex acts,”
You mean a cocktail waitress? A female bartender? Maybe the woman who works the counter at an adult bookstore?
I’m not saying sexual harassment is no big deal. I’m saying this wasn’t sexual harassment.
I’m the child of a retired fireperson and I have mixed feelings about this. I don’t think they should have been required to participate and they definitely have a union grievance. Firepersons are BRAVE and to be respected but this isn’t part of their job and it was wrong to require them to participate in something, for whatever reason, that made them uncomfortable that had nothing to do with their job (I’m sure that’s a run-on but I’m not editing).
On the other hand, I’ve seen the way a wide wide majority of firepersons catcall and ‘flirt’ with passersby when bored. I’ve also been privy to firehouse humor and conversations and they could make the most jaded queer blush. To sue over this seems petty and like people are trying to make a quick buck.
>laughable! funny how these “brave” firefighters can rush into a burning building to save lives yet they felt a little “discomfort” at being whistled at?
It’s not funny.
If the situation was reversed, and it was a group of women being ordered by their boss into a situation that exposed them to cat calls, gestures, and simulated sex acts, then it would be a slam dunk win for that group of women. If you don’t support these mens’ rights to opt out of sexually charged work assignments, then you don’t take workplace sexual harassment very seriously or you’re gender biased (the guys are just supposed to “suck it up”).
FWIW, I like our gay prides the way they are, sexual content and all. And I think that firefighters volunteering to participate is the way to go. It was the “order” part that was wrong, and the person in charge knew it.
laughable! funny how these “brave” firefighters can rush into a burning building to save lives yet they felt a little “discomfort” at being whistled at? Can anyone here say “HOMOPHOBIC GOLD DIGGERS”! LMAO! Let’s all hope that the appeals court laughs at them and makes them all pay the legal costs which it’s costing us taxpayers to deal with this multiple hetero whine job!