Connect with us

Local

Va. high court rejects gay man’s appeal

Court says it can’t help in discrimination case

Published

on

The Virginia Supreme Court has denied a gay man’s effort to obtain restitution after he allegedly was forced to resign from his job at a state museum because of his sexual orientation.

In a two-paragraph notice issued May 17, the state’s high court said it wouldn’t hear the case of Michael Moore v. Virginia Museum of Natural History because there’s nothing in the situation the justice system could rectify.

“Upon review of the record in this case and consideration of the argument submitted in support of and in opposition to the granting of an appeal, the Court is of opinion there is no reversible error in the judgment complained of,” the notice states. “Accordingly, the court refuses the petition for appeal.”

The notice says that Justice Williams Mims took no part in considering the case.

Last month’s petition denial is the result of a process that began when Moore allegedly was forced to resign his position as public relations associate at the Virginia Museum of Natural History in Martinsville, Va., in November 2006 because of his sexual orientation.

On appeal to Virginia’s high court, Moore also contended his dismissal violated his rights under the U.S. Constitution providing for freedom of religion and equal protection.

Moore, who has since moved to Lakeland, Fla., and is now preparing for law school, said the court decision was disappointing but not unexpected.

“We’ve been dealt blows all along, so I was kind of pessimistic going into it,” he said. “Them having to decide either for me or against me would have just required sweeping change. It should have been the reason they made a decision and they didn’t, so I’m disappointed actually.”

Moore said he plans to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court based on violation of rights in the U.S. Constitution. He noted that he has 90 days from when Virginia’s high court issued its notice to appeal the case.

In his case, Moore has said his supervisor discovered he was gay and asked him shortly thereafter to resign, even though he was rewarded with satisfactory marks after completing a performance review.

Following his firing, Moore filed a complaint first within the state government and later with the courts based on an executive order from former Gov. Tim Kaine (D) prohibiting job bias against gay employees in the state and public workforce.

But the administration wasn’t able to find restitution for Moore, and the courts have said the executive order didn’t provide a legal basis by which the courts could take action.

Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, general counsel for Equality Virginia, said the failure of the Virginia Supreme Court to take up the case shows the need for the passage of state legislation that would help protect LGBT Virginians against workplace discrimination.

“The bottom line is this decision just demonstrates what we’ve held for years — that LGBT employees don’t have any meaningful law to seek redress for discrimination, and frankly, they don’t have any cause of action under the old executive order, either,” she said.

When he took office this year, Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell didn’t renew the executive order for workplace protection against gays and instead replaced it with a less forceful executive directive.

Gastanaga said if there weren’t any meaningful protections under Kaine’s order, “there really, really isn’t any protection now” under McDonnell’s directive.

Greg Nevins, supervising senior staff attorney for Lambda Legal, called the Virginia Supreme Court case decision “a disappointing result” and said the reasoning for the court’s rejection “isn’t completely clear.”

Still, he said LGBT people have some workplace protections because the U.S. Constitution grants them some rights.

“It doesn’t mean that public employees in Virginia don’t have recourse for discrimination,” he said. “The Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution does protect state workers from arbitrary discrimination that’s based on sexual orientation.”

Nevins said many courts have found that the Equal Protection Clause protects LGBT people against discrimination in the public workplace, although a U.S. district court in Virginia hasn’t made such a ruling.

“A whole bunch of different courts around the country have said it,” he said. “I don’t really think it’s controversial.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

District of Columbia

‘Sandwich guy’ not guilty in assault case

Sean Charles Dunn faced misdemeanor charge

Published

on

Sean Charles Dunn was found not guilty on Thursday. (Washington Blade file photo by Joe Reberkenny)

A jury with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Thursday, Nov. 6, found D.C. resident Sean Charles Dunn not guilty of assault for tossing a hero sandwich into the chest of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent at the intersection of 14th and U streets, N.W. at around 11 p.m. on Aug. 10. 

Dunn’s attorneys hailed the verdict as a gesture of support for Dunn’s contention that his action, which was captured on video that went viral on social media, was an exercise of his First Amendment right to protest the federal border agent’s participating in President Donald Trump’s deployment of federal troops on D.C. streets. 

Friends of Dunn have said that shortly before the sandwich tossing incident took place Dunn had been at the nearby gay nightclub Bunker, which was hosting a Latin dance party called Tropicoqueta. Sabrina Shroff, one of three attorneys representing Dunn at the trial, said during the trial after Dunn left the nightclub he went to the submarine sandwich shop on 14th Street at the corner of U Street, where he saw the border patrol agent and other law enforcement officers  standing in front of the shop.

 Shroff and others who know Dunn have said he was fearful that the border agent outside the sub shop and immigrant agents might raid the Bunker Latin night event. Bunker’s entrance is on U Street just around the corner from the sub shop where the federal agents were standing.

 “I am so happy that justice prevails in spite of everything happening,“ Dunn told reporters outside the courthouse after the verdict while joined by his attorneys. “And that night I believed that I was protecting the rights of immigrants,” he said.

 “And let us not forget that the great seal of the United States says, E Pluribus Unum,” he continued. “That means from many, one. Every life matters no matter where you came from, no matter how you got here, no matter how you identify, you have the right to live a life that is free.”

The verdict followed a two-day trial with testimony by just two witnesses, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent Gregory Lairmore, who identified Dunn as the person who threw the sandwich at his chest, and Metro Transit Police Detective Daina Henry, who told the jury she witnessed Dunn toss the sandwich at Lairmore while shouting obscenities.

Shroff told the jury Dunn was exercising his First Amendment right to protest and that the tossing of the sandwich at Lairmore, who was wearing a bulletproof vest, did not constitute an assault under the federal assault law to which Dunn was charged, among other things, because the federal agent was not injured. 

Prosecutors  with the Office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C. initially attempted to obtain a grand jury indictment of Dunn on a felony assault charge. But the grand jury refused to hand down an indictment on that charge, court records show. Prosecutors then filed a criminal complaint against Dunn on the misdemeanor charge of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers of the United States.

“Dunn stood within inches of Victim 1,” the criminal complaint states, “pointing his finger in Victim 1’s face, and yelled, Fuck you! You fucking fascists! Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!”

The complaint continues by stating, “An Instagram video recorded by an observer captured the incident. The video depicts Dunn screaming at V-1 within inches of his face for several seconds before winding his arm back and forcefully throwing a sub-style sandwich at V-1. 

Prosecutors repeatedly played the video of the incident for the jurors on video screens in the courtroom. 

Dunn, who chose not to testify at his trial, and his attorneys have not disputed the obvious evidence that Dunn threw the sandwich that hit Lairmore in the chest. Lead defense attorney Shroff and co-defense attorneys Julia Gatto and Nicholas Silverman argued that Dunn’s action did not constitute an assault under the legal definition of common law assault in the federal assault statute.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael DiLorenzo, the lead prosecutor in the case, strongly disputed that claim, citing various  provisions in the law and appeals court rulings that he claimed upheld his and the government’s contention that an “assault” can take place even if a victim is not injured as well as if there was no physical contact between the victim and an alleged assailant, only a threat of physical contact and injury.

The dispute over the intricacies of  the assault law and whether Dunn’s action reached the level of an assault under the law dominated the two-day trial, with U.S. District Court Judge Carl J. Nichols, who presided over the trial, weighing in with his own interpretation of the assault statute. Among other things, he said it would be up to the jury to decide whether or not Dunn committed an assault.

Court observers have said in cases like this, a jury could have issued a so-called  “nullification” verdict in which they acquit a defendant even though they believe he or she committed the offense in question because they believe the charge is unjust. The other possibility, observers say, is the jury believed the defense was right in claiming a law was not violated.

DiLorenzo and his two co-prosecutors in the case declined to comment in response to requests by reporters following the verdict.

“We really want to thank the jury for having sent back an affirmation that his sentiment is not just tolerated but it is legal, it is welcome,” defense attorney Shroff said in referring to Dunn’s actions. “And we thank them very much for that verdict,” she said.

Dunn thanked his attorneys for providing what he called excellent representation “and for offering all of their services pro bono,” meaning free of charge.

Dunn, an Air Force veteran who later worked as an international affairs specialist at the U.S. Department of Justice, was fired from that job by DOJ officials after his arrest for the sandwich tossing incident. 

“I would like to thank family and friends and strangers for all of their support, whether it  was emotional, or spiritual, or artistic, or financial,” he told the gathering outside the courthouse. “To the people that opened their hearts and homes to me, I am eternally grateful.” 

“As always, we accept a jury’s verdict; that is the system within which we function,” CNN quoted U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro as saying after the verdict in the Dunn case. “However, law enforcement should never be subjected to assault, no matter how ‘minor,’” Pirro told CNN in a statement.

“Even children know when they are angry, they are not allowed to throw objects at one another,” CNN quoted her as saying.

Continue Reading

Maryland

Democrats hold leads in almost every race of Annapolis municipal election

Jared Littmann ahead in mayor’s race.

Published

on

Preliminary election results from Tuesday show Democrats likely will remain in control of Annapolis City Hall. Jared Littmann thanks his wife, Marlene Niefeld, as he addresses supporters after polls closed Tuesday night. (Photo by Rick Hutzell for the Baltimore Banner)

By CODY BOTELER | The Democratic candidates in the Annapolis election held early leads in the races for mayor and nearly every city council seat, according to unofficial results released on election night.

Jared Littmann, a former alderman and the owner of K&B Ace Hardware, did not go so far as to declare victory in his race to be the next mayor of Annapolis, but said he’s optimistic that the mail-in ballots to be counted later this week will support his lead.

Littmannn said November and December will “fly by” as he plans to meet with the city department heads and chiefs to “pepper them with questions.”

The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.

Continue Reading

Virginia

Democrats increase majority in Va. House of Delegates

Tuesday was Election Day in state.

Published

on

Virginia Capitol (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Democrats on Tuesday increased their majority in the Virginia House of Delegates.

The Associated Press notes the party now has 61 seats in the chamber. Democrats before Election Day had a 51-48 majority in the House.

All six openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual candidates — state Dels. Rozia Henson (D-Prince William County), Laura Jane Cohen (D-Fairfax County), Joshua Cole (D-Fredericksburg), Marcia Price (D-Newport News), Adele McClure (D-Arlington County), and Mark Sickles (D-Fairfax County) — won re-election.

Lindsey Dougherty, a bisexual Democrat, defeated state Del. Carrie Coyner (R-Chesterfield County) in House District 75 that includes portions of Chesterfield and Prince George Counties. (Attorney General-elect Jay Jones in 2022 texted Coyner about a scenario in which he shot former House Speaker Todd Gilbert, a Republican.)

Other notable election results include Democrat John McAuliff defeating state Del. Geary Higgins (R-Loudoun County) in House District 30. Former state Del. Elizabeth Guzmán beat state Del. Ian Lovejoy (R-Prince William County) in House District 22.

Democrats increased their majority in the House on the same night they won all three statewide offices: governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general.

Narissa Rahaman is the executive director of Equality Virginia Advocates, the advocacy branch of Equality Virginia, a statewide LGBTQ advocacy group, last week noted the election results will determine the future of LGBTQ rights, reproductive freedom, and voting rights in the state.

Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin in 2024 signed a bill that codified marriage equality in state law.

The General Assembly earlier this year approved a resolution that seeks to repeal the Marshall-Newman Amendment that defines marriage in the state constitution as between a man and a woman. The resolution must pass in two successive legislatures before it can go to the ballot.

Shreya Jyotishi contributed to this article.

Continue Reading

Popular