Former Lowe's Employee Sues For Antigay Discrimination And Harassment

Former Lowe's Employee Sues For Antigay Discrimination And Harassment

Screen Shot 2015-01-16 at 2.06.23 PM

Former Lowe’s employee Adam Haimowitz claims he was the target of homophobic taunts, verbal harassment and subsequently fired for testifying in a colleague’s discrimination case against the hardware giant reports The AdvocateHaimowitz, 32, worked at the Lowe’s in Orangeburg, N.Y. for 11 years, and he regularly filed complaints with the company’s human resources department regarding the anti-gay harassment he endured. Haimowitz’s complaints yielded no results as the alleged harassment continued.

Haimowitz’s lawsuit claims a female manager called him a “whore,” and said to him that the promiscuity of gay men was well-documented. The lawsuit also contains details about an incident where a male supervisor asked Haimowitz for oral sex, and that a coworker “joked” that someone might contract AIDS when Haimowitz inadvertently cut his finger. “They got a kick out of it. I guess they got pleasure out of it,” Haimowitz told Journal News. 

The lawsuit claims that Haimowitz was fired based on trumped-up reasons that only turned into formal complaints in the months following his 2012 testimony in support of a gay colleague who sued the company for “sex-based harassment.” That lawsuit, filed by an Edward Marse, settled in April 2014 under the agreement Marse would not discuss the terms of the settlement. Prior to Marse’s settlement, Haimowitz held a perfect record with the company in the four years leading up to his testimony. However, a month after the company reached a settlement with Marse, Haimowitz claims he was written up twice for a “time and attendance” infraction and for “using strong language on the floor,” reports Journal News. Haimowitz’s lawsuit contends he was terminated under the pretext of “making inappropriate comments on the floor.”

A spokeswoman for Lowe’s declined to comment to Journal News, but the company has long held a rough relationship with the LGBT community. The Human Rights Campaign’s latest Corporate Equality Index gave Lowe’s a score of 30 out of 100, and noted that although the company’s nondiscrimination policy includes sexual orientation and gender identity, it does not offer equal spousal benefits to same-sex couples, nor does it offer trans-inclusive health care coverage, LGBT cultural competency training or LGBT employee groups.


Anthony Costello

www.towleroad.com/2015/01/former-lowes-employee-sues-for-antigay-discrimination.html

Kevin Hart Won't Play A Gay Role Because 'Of What People Are Going To Think'

Kevin Hart Won't Play A Gay Role Because 'Of What People Are Going To Think'
“The Wedding Ringer” star Kevin Hart says he won’t play a gay character because of what “people are going to think” if he were to take on such a role.

“I can’t [play a gay character] because I don’t think I’m really going to dive into that role 100 percent, because of the insecurities about myself trying to play that part,” the 35-year-old comedian told hosts of the Breakfast Club on Power 105.1 in an interview, as TMZ reports. “What I think people are going to think while I’m trying to do this is going to stop me from playing that part the way I’m supposed to.”

The actor had been discussing his regrets in turning down Brandon T. Jackson’s role in 2008’s “Tropic Thunder” at the time of the remarks.

Noting that he “appreciates and respects” the gay community, Hart said, “The dude…he was doing a lot of stuff in the draft that I read. It was real flagrant.”

Hart has taken a cautious stance on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues in the past. In early 2014, the star revealed in a Reddit AMA he would not deliver jokes about the gay community because “it’s just a sensitive topic and I respect people of all orientations.”

When hosting the MTV VMAs two years earlier, he praised R&B star Frank Ocean for opening up about a same-sex relationship.

I think what Frank Ocean did was really great,” he said at the time, as quoted by Towleroad. “Not everybody can do that, and for that, I commend you.”

www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/16/kevin-hart-gay-role-_n_6490424.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay+Voices

Could The Supreme Court Decide That We Don’t Have A Constitutional Right To Marriage?

Could The Supreme Court Decide That We Don’t Have A Constitutional Right To Marriage?

Supreme_Court_US_2010The Supreme Court has finally run out of road to kick the marriage equality can down. Tacitly acknowledging that the issue can no longer be ignored, the justices have agreed to decide once and for all whether there is a constitutional right to marry. 

Specifically, the Court will be answering the questions that it left unanswered with the Windsor ruling two years ago: do states have the right to ban same-sex marriages and can states refuse to recognize marriages from other states? At the time of the Windsor ruling, the justices insisted that they weren’t being asked to address that question, suggesting that it’s each state has the right to make its own choice.

So much has happened in the intervening year and a half that the Windsor ruling seems from a previous decade. We’ve gone from 9 states with marriage equality to 36. Public support for marriage equality keeps growing.

But every case has its risks. As inevitable as the final outcome looks, there’s always a chance that a majority of justices decide that its still too soon to declare marriage equality a federal right, as opposed to one that states can confer.

The case at issue this time around is a ruling from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. In a 2-1 ruling last November, the Court reinstated marriage bans in those four states. The two majority judges, both appointed by George W. Bush, relied upon a one-sentence ruling from a 1972 Supreme Court ruling  involving two Minnesota men who sought to marry. The judges didn’t even bother to refer to the Windsor arguments, which was a remarkable feat of judicial acrobatics.

Could the justices decide that the time isn’t right? After the Windsor ruling, Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the Court acted “just the way they should have” by not getting ahead of public opinion. That will probably be the question hanging in the air when the Court takes up oral arguments. This is not a famously activist group of judges (at least not on cultural issues) and basically telling the residents of Tuscaloosa that gay couples have the same right to marry as they do to bear arms may be a bit too far even for those sympathetic to the issue.

Still, in the end it only takes five justices to make a majority. Would any of the five who struck down the Defense of Marriage Act get cold feet now? Even Ginsburg isn’t that cautious; she was the first justice to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony. 

Moreover, on this single issue, Justice Anthony Kennedy has shown a willingness to be bold. He wrote the majority opinions in the decisions striking down sodomy laws and “special rights” ballot measures. Why he would change his mind now would be hard to imagine.

Still, that doesn’t mean it can’t happen. We’ll have a better sense of what the justices are thinking when they hear oral arguments in the case, like in April. The final decision will likely come down to the wire again at the end of the Court’s term in June. In other words, just in time for the second anniversary of the Windsor ruling.

 

JohnGallagher

feedproxy.google.com/~r/queerty2/~3/q03k-auTkpg/could-the-supreme-court-decide-that-we-dont-have-a-constitutional-right-to-marriage-20150116

MI5 Makes Stonewall's Top 10 List of Best British Workplaces For Gay Employees

MI5 Makes Stonewall's Top 10 List of Best British Workplaces For Gay Employees

Mi5logo

Just in time for the 15th anniversary of MI5’s decision to allow gay people into its ranks, the British intelligence agency has been named as one of the top 10 gay-friendly employers in the UK. The British Army, Navy and the Royal Air Force were also included in Stonewall’s annual equality index.

“It represents incredibly significant progress in a very short time,” said Stonewall spokesman Richard Lane. “I wouldn’t say I am entirely surprised by it though, because the Armed Forces have been working very hard to change the culture of their organisations. They have realised the importance of recruiting the best people for the job, regardless of their sexual orientation.”

 


Charles Pulliam-Moore

www.towleroad.com/2015/01/mi5-makes-stonewalls-top-10-list-of-best-british-workplaces-for-gay-employees.html