National
Lesbian sues over alleged anti-gay job discrimination at Ky. bank
Hudson allegedly was told she was ‘too butch’ for her job
Penelope Hudson is suing a Kentucky bank for anti-gay job discrimination. (Photo courtesy Freedom for All Americans)
A lesbian worker alleging she faced anti-gay job discrimination at a Kentucky bank that led to her termination — including being told she was “too butch” to deal with customers — sued Friday in state court for compensatory and punitive damages.
Penelope Hudson, who filed the lawsuit, worked at the Louisville-based Park Community Credit Union at various locations in Kentucky and Indiana for 15 years until she was terminated in 2016.
According to her complaint, Hudson was “continually subject to harassment, disparate treatment and hostile work environment due to her status as a gay women,” which was witnessed by other employees and customers at the bank.
In a statement, Hudson said she’s “heartbroken” about her termination, adding she loved her job, was good at it and “loved the members that I dealt with every day.”
“I gave my heart and soul to this company, and then I was fired for no other reason than that I am gay,” Hudson said. “That is hard to believe, and I’m filing this case because I want this company to know that this is not OK. I never want any other LGBT person to be treated the way I was treated.”
Among alleged incidents cited in the complaint is being told her appearance was “too butch,” which required her to change her appearance and clothing for her to keep her job. The complaint says Hudson overheard fellow employees discuss her sexual orientation, she was repeatedly passed over for promotions and she was singled out and reprimanded for actions when straight employees did the same things and weren’t punished.
According to the complaint, Hudson on one occasion was attending an event on behalf of her employer at Churchill Downs Racetrack, where she provided tickets and money under the instructions of ensuring other guests have a time. One guest allegedly proceeded to flirt with Hudson, and even after she politely turned him down, he continued, tried to kiss her and asked for her phone number.
Hudson complained to the vice president of human resources, but that person responded, “well we see if the gay thing doesn’t work out, you can also go the other way,” the complaint says.
When Hudson took time off under the Family & Medical Leave Act for invitro treatments, she was asked what her medical condition was after the time was approved, the complaint says. When she told the person asking her she didn’t think she could be asked for information, the person responded the inquiry to ensure “it wasn’t something related to her being gay,” the complaint says.
According to the complaint, at one time, when she sought an explanation from her supervisor on why she wasn’t promoted, the supervisor responded she, the supervisor, doesn’t hate gay people even though her family thinks that’s the case. But Hudson had never stated her supervisor hated gay people and “there was no reason for that to be discussed unless the plaintiff’s perceived sexual orientation was an issue,” the complaint says.
Another incident cited in the complaint is another supervisor having “made the comment more than one time that the plaintiff doesn’t believe in God because she’s gay.” Although Hudson corrected the supervisor’s presumption, the supervisor continued to make it, the complaint says.
Hudson admits to making mistakes over 15 years, the complaint says, but “similar mistakes were made by others, who were not gay of perceived to be gay and they were not terminated for those mistakes.” Hudson was terminated Sept. 29, 2016.
Although Kentucky is among the more than 30 states without explicit protections based on sexual orientation or transgender status, Hudson’s lawsuit seeks restitution under a city ordinance barring anti-gay discrimination as well as state law and Title VII of the Civil Rights of Act. The latter two laws bar discrimination on the basis of sex, and courts have increasingly interpreted sexual-orientation to be a form of sex discrimination.
Representing Hudson in court is Shannon Fauver of the Louisville-based firm Fauver Law Office, who was one of the attorneys representing same-sex couples in the cases that won marriage equality in Kentucky and nationwide.
“What happened to Penelope is wrong – and there is a growing consensus in federal courts, including the full 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, that this kind of employment discrimination based on sexual orientation is clearly illegal under existing law,” Fauver said. “We’ll keep standing up in the court of law, because no hardworking person should face unfair treatment because of who they are.”
The lawsuit seeks a judgment in Hudson’s favor against the bank for compensatory and punitive damages, reasonable costs and attorney fees and “any and all other relief to which she may be entitled.”
The Washington Blade has placed a request seeking comment on the lawsuit in with BoxcarPR, the public relations representing Park Community Credit Union.
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
National
Glisten’s 30th annual Day of Silence to take place April 10
Campaign began as student-led protests against anti-LGBTQ bullying, discrimination
Glisten’s 30th annual Day of Silence will take place on April 10.
The annual Day of Silence began as a student-led protest in response to bullying and discrimination that LGBTQ students face. It is now a national campaign for the LGBTQ community and their allies to come together for LGBTQ youth.
It takes place annually and has multiple ways for supporters to get involved in the movement.
Glisten, originally GLSEN, champions LGBTQ issues in schools, grades K-12. Glisten’s mission is to create more inclusive and accepting environments for LGBTQ students through curriculum, supportive measures, education campaigns, and engagement, such as the Day of Silence.
There are three main ways for the community to get involved in the Day of Silence.
Glisten has a Day of Silence frame, a series of pictures used as profile photos across social media that feature individuals holding signs. The signs allow for personalization, by providing a space to put the individual’s name, followed by filling in the prompt “ … and I am ENDING the silence by…”
Participants are encouraged to post the photo on social media and use it as a profile picture. The templates can be found on Google Drive through this link.
Using #DayOfSilence and #NSCS, as well as tagging Glisten’s official Page @glistencommunity, is another way to participate in the Day of Silence.
Glisten also encourages participants to tag creators, friends, family and use a call to action in their caption, to call attention to the facts and stories behind the Day of Silence.
“Today’s administration in the U.S. wants us to stay silent, submit to their biased and hurtful conformity, and stop fighting for our right to be authentically ourselves,” said Glisten CEO Melanie Willingham-Jaggers. “We urge supporters to use their social platforms and check in with local chapters to be boots on the ground to help LGBTQ+ students feel seen, heard, supported, and less alone. By participating in the ‘Day of Silence,’ you are showing solidarity with young people as they navigate identity, safety, and belonging. Our voices matter.”
South Carolina
Man faces first S.C. ‘hate intimidation’ charge
Timothy Truett allegedly shot at gay club in Myrtle Beach on April 1
A South Carolina man remains in custody on a more than $300,000 bond after he allegedly opened fire at a Myrtle Beach nightclub on April 1, according to WMBF.
Reports say 37-year-old Timothy James Truett Jr., of Clover, S.C., was detained by the Myrtle Beach Police Department after the April 1 incident outside Pulse Ultra Club. He was later arrested and charged with possession of a weapon during a violent crime, discharging a firearm into a dwelling, discharging a firearm within city limits, malicious injury to real property valued over $5,000, and assault or intimidation due to political opinions or the exercise of civil rights.
At 10:57 a.m. on April 1, officers responded to a call about a possible shooting at Pulse Ultra Club, located in the 2700 block of South Kings Highway.
In an affidavit released later, the club’s owner, Ken Phillips, said he was doing paperwork that morning when he heard “five or six” gunshots. He went outside and found a window and the windshield of his SUV shattered by bullets. An SUV with blue plastic covering one window was left at the scene.
Police later reviewed footage that showed a silver vehicle stopping in the middle of the road. The video appeared to capture muzzle flashes coming from the passenger-side window.
According to the affidavit, an officer later pulled over a vehicle driven by Truett and found spent shell casings in the back seat, along with a gun.
Documents do not detail why Truett was ultimately charged under the state law covering assault or intimidation tied to political opinions or the exercise of civil rights.
As of April 1, records show Truett is being held in Horry County on a combined bond of more than $312,000.
WMBF spoke with Phillips after the incident and asked whether there was any prior conflict that might have led to the shooting.
“I don’t know if it’s personal, I don’t know if it’s related to being gay, I don’t know if it’s related to the bar issues,” Phillips told WMBF. “Anybody with a mindset of pulling out a weapon in broad daylight is not right.”
“My primary concern has and always will be the safety of my community and my customers,” he added. “It’s given me great concern … as to how far people will go.”
WMBF also spoke with Adam Hayes, vice chair of Myrtle Beach’s Human Rights Coalition, who was involved in pushing for the ordinance. He said that while the incident itself is troubling, it shows the policy is being put to use.
The ordinance is intended to deter “crimes that are motivated by bias or hate towards any person or persons, in whole or in part, because of the actual or perceived” identity, in the absence of a statewide hate crime law.
“It’s nice to see that something we put into policy is not just a piece of paper, that it’s actually being used,” said Hayes.
He said the shooting underscores the need for a statewide hate crime law in South Carolina and added that the incident has left the local LGBTQ community shaken.
South Carolina and Wyoming are the only two states in the U.S. without a comprehensive statewide hate crime law.
Truett remains in jail as of publication.
A Sondheim masterpiece ‘Merrily’ rolls onto Netflix
ROSENSTEIN: Vote McDuffie for mayor of D.C.
New book celebrates 1970s dance music icons
Report: Grenell wants Russian ambassadorship
