In all, nearly two dozen defendants are named in the suit.

The lawsuit was filed by King’s parents, Dawn and Gregory King, and his brother, Rocky. It claims that the school and the Casa Pacifica shelter for troubled children where King had been living knew that his behavior was “sexually assertive” but that neither took action.

It also alleges that shelter gave him “cross-dressing clothes and makeup and women’s boots.” The lawsuit additionally claims that the Rainbow Alliance encouraged the teen to make the sexual advances which led to his death.

According to the lawsuit, King “did not cross-dress” while living at home and that his family begged officials from the school, the shelter and county Child Protective Services agency to ask him to “tone it down.”

The Associated Press reports Rainbow Alliance executive director Jay Smith denies the allegations.

“No facilitator or mental health therapist would say anything even remotely like that,” Smith told the AP. “This whole thing is just frivolous.”

Spokespersons for Casa Pacifica and the school also denied wrongdoing.

King often dressed in a feminine manner and told friends that he was gay. He was shot in the head during a morning class at E.O. Green Junior High in Oxnard in February 2008. More than 20 other students were in the room at the time.

King died in the hospital after doctors declared him brain dead and his mother agreed to have life-support removed.

The lawsuit also names Brandon McInerney, the 15-year-old who shot King in a classroom full of students.

Ryan Pacifico worked in the New York office of Calyon in the Americas, a firm owned by Credit Agricole CIB of France.

According to Pacifico’s suit, filed in a Manhattan court, he was doing well at the company until he got a new boss.  

The discrimination suit names the supervisor, Robert Catalanello, Calyon, and one other employee.

Pacifico claims that after complaining about the slurs he was fired last March.

In papers filed with the court, Pacifico claims that when Catalanello learned the 28-year-old trader did not eat meat, he called him “a vegetarian homo.” The slurs continued when Catalanello saw a photo of Pacifico in running tights.

The court papers say that Pacifico is not gay and married, but that the law protecting workers from homophobia in the workplace extend to heterosexuals.

The company has not commented on the lawsuit.

“They associated being a vegetarian with being gay,” Pacifico’s attorney Rick Ostrove told The Daily News. “It’s a ridiculous male stereotype that only real men eat meat.”

Crystal Dixon, the former associate vice president for human resources at the university, claims that the school violated of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

In court papers filed by Dixon’s attorneys, she claims that the school punished her for private political speech contained in the op-ed article for the Toledo Free Press.

She is represented by the Christian conservative Thomas More Law Center based in Ann Arbor, Mich.

In a statement to the media, Thomas Moore president Richard Thompson said that gays have an “inordinate amount of influence” over UT President Dr. Lloyd  Jacobs, and that Jacobs does not care about the constitutional free-speech rights of Christians.

“Crystal Dixon has a constitutional right to privately express her personal opinions, and this particular opinion represents the view of a majority of Christian Americans,” Thompson said in the statement.

The university said that it has not read the legal complaint.  “That said, we have asserted from the beginning that Ms. Dixon was in a position of special sensitivity as associate vice president for human resources and this issue is not about freedom of speech, but about her ability to perform that job given her statements in the Toledo Free Press,” said UT spokesperson Larry Burns.

“We are convinced of the correctness of our position, and we will present the facts that support our position in a court of law.”

The op-ed article for the Free Press was titled “Gay rights and wrongs: another perspective.” In it Dixon wrote that homosexuality is a matter of choice and that it has consequences.

“I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman,” Dixon wrote in the article.

“Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle evidenced by the growing population of PFOX (Parents and friends of Ex-Gays) and Exodus International, just to name a few.”

The article appeared as a rebuttal to a Free Press editorial, “Gay rights and wrongs,” written by editor-in-chief Michael Miller, which said Ohio lags in LGBT civil rights.

The university initially placed Dixon on administrative leave and then held a disciplinary meeting with her.  She was officially terminated from her $134,383 job in May.

“The public position you have taken in the Toledo Free Press is in direct contradiction to university policies and procedures as well as the core values of the strategic plan which is mission critical,” said the letter of termination.

The letter also said that her views made it impossible for her to continue as an administrator in charge of personnel.

Central Alabama Pride accuses the mayor of acting unconstitutionally when he barred city workers from hanging pride banners on city property in June.

In a motion filed with the U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Langford’s attorneys said the group cannot show it suffered any harm and as a result the case should not be allowed to moved forward.

The motion said that the pride celebration went on as planned.

Central Alabama Pride in its lawsuit claims the mayor has not restricted banners from other organizations. The suit also said there is no criteria for hanging banners in Birmingham.

The group said in the suit that Langford subjected the group to religious discrimination, violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, and violation of the freedom of speech. 

Langford said that he did not discriminate against anyone and that the city only hangs banners for groups sponsored by the city.

The mayor called the suit a frivolous publicity stunt.

“The parade took place as planned, and all of plaintiff’s decorations were hung,” the motion filed by his attorney said.

“In essence, the parade of 2008 was the same as all other years. Plaintiff does not claim that having to hang the banners itself in any way injured the parties either physically, mentally or emotionally. In other words, plaintiffs cannot point to a concrete and particularized injury.”

Langford refused to sign a gay pride proclamation that was passed by the city council in May and said at the time he would deny the group a parade permit.

The permit was eventually granted by the Birmingham Police Department and Langford did not interfere.

He still says he opposes gay pride celebrations and signing gay pride proclamations, but denies that he discriminates.

A judge has yet to rule on Langford’s motion.

The lawsuit does not mention the dollar amount sought, but reports citing settlement negotiations say the four want $3 million.

One of the firefighters told the court this week 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 said.

During his testimony, Kane became noticeably upset and Judge Michael Anello called a recess so that Kane could compose himself.

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.

Aguirre said some of the “overtly sexual” behavior at the parade that Kane complained about likely occurred on a daily basis in the area.

Kane replied that he had seen gay sexual behavior but that he could go home and close the door.

“Well, you could have closed your eyes during the parade. You could have averted your eyes,” Aguirre shot back.

In another development, Judge Anello rejected an attempt by Aguirre to question another firefighter, Capt. John Ghiotto, about Playboy magazines that were reportedly in open view at the fire station.

Aguirre wanted to show that sexual images were not uncommon to the four and that the suit was plain homophobia.

Anello ruled that the line of questioning was irrelevant.

The four firefighters claim they followed an order that they appear in the parade because they feared that if they refused, they would be suspended or punished.

In previous years, firefighters were encouraged but not ordered to take part in the parade.

The lawsuit claims that the pride parade is 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.

A spokesperson at the time for the fire department said that the men were assigned to the parade at the last minute, because volunteer participants backed out when one of them had a family crisis, and that the four worked in a fire station near the parade route.

Attorneys for the firefighters are expected to being their summations on Monday.

During the 2006-2007 school year, Phi Ngo and Joseph O’Leary lived in family housing on the main campus of the University of Hawaii at Manoa while O’Leary worked toward a degree in history.  

They reapplied for family housing for the 2007–2008 school year, but the University denied their request.

In a letter to the couple, the interim director of University Housing Services stated that the University “recognizes marital status as defined in Section 572-1 of the Hawaii’s Revised Statutes,” which restricts the term “marriage” to different-sex couples.

The letter went on to state that “[u]ntil such time that the state revises its definition of marital status, we will continue to apply the existing definition to our assignment policy for married housing.”

Ngo and O’Leary filed suit in March with the help of Lambda Legal. 

Lambda in its lawsuit noted that the university had denied Ngo and O’Leary housing merely because they were not a married couple.  However, the Supreme Court of Hawaii already has held that the denial of any of the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples constitutes discrimination in violation of the Hawaii Constitution.

The suit said that the couple had incurred unnecessary expenses as a result of the university’s action.

The couple was forced to lease a more expensive off-campus apartment.  It was not within walking distance to campus, so O’Leary was “forced to incur significant transit expenses to get to and from his classes.”  He also had to forgo use of the subsidized student meal plan. The additional expenses amounted to several thousand dollars per year.

In a statement, Lambda said that the lawsuit has now been settled to the mutual satisfaction of the parties, but did not provide details.

Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, the university said it would create accommodation for gay and lesbian pairs. The settlement of the lawsuit involved only the monetary issues incurred as a result of the denial of housing.

The current complaint involves the banning of a 2007 demonstration outside the Moscow building that houses an EU office where gay activists hoped to draw attention to the mayor’s refusal to allow a gay pride parade.

The court already has complaints before it over pride parade bans in 2006 and 2007 and event organizers say they intend to file another complaint over the city’s refusal to grant a parade permit this year.

The court, based in Strasbourg, France, has not indicated when it will hear any of the cases. In similar cases brought by gays in other European cities where pride parades were barred the court has ruled for the LGBT groups.

Mayor Lushkov has been a vocal opponent of the growing visibility of gays in Moscow.

Last year the mayor refused a parade license citing security concerns. Gays, many of them from the Europen Union,  marched anyway. About 20 people were arrested at the May 27 parade, including Moscow gay leader Nikolay Alexeyev, two European parliamentarians and British gay advocate Peter Tatchell.

Charges against the foreigners were later dropped and Alexeyev was fined $1000 rubles – about $40. (story)

Last year, in another case against the mayor a Moscow court tossed out a lawsuit accusing Lushkov of libel over claims he made that gay rights marches were “satanic.” (story)

The court ruled that Moscow Pride leaders had failed to prove that the remarks were incendiary or intended to vilify gays in general. 

In January, a Moscow judge acquitted 13 gay activists arrested last month for staging a protest outside a polling station during national elections. (story)

(Madison, Wisconsin) The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ordered a conservative pastor to pay $87,000 in legal fees to a gay rights group he accused of defaming him.

Grant Storms of the Reformer Ministries in Marrero, La., claimed in the lawsuit that Action Wisconsin defamed him by saying remarks he made at a 2003 anti-gay conference in Milwaukee advocated the murder of gays.

Storms was one of several speakers at the “International Conference on Homo-Fascism,” a gathering of people who railed against gays.

Action Wisconsin obtained an audio recording of the conference and publicized remarks that the group said incited violence and hatred.

In his speech, Storms said gay rights’ opponents should “start taking it to the streets.” He mimicked gun fire: “Boom, boom, boom, boom. There’s twenty! Ca-ching,” according to a transcript.

After Action Wisconsin widely distributed the tape Storms sued the group claiming it had defamed him by suggesting he was advocating murdering gays.

In 2006 Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Patricia McMahon said the group’s interpretation of the remarks was reasonable and the lawsuit lacked merit from the day it was filed. McMahon awarded Action Wisconsin $87,000 in legal fees.

Following the verdict called the judge “liberal” and “insane,” and filed an immediate appeal.

The appeals court reversed the ruling and Action Wisconsin took the case to the state Supreme Court.

In a 4-3 ruling the high court overturned the appellate ruling, allowing the original decision to stand.

In the majority decision the court said that Storms should have known the lawsuit was frivolous.