National
Gay Obama officials, HRC named in ‘racketeering’ lawsuit
Former Bush official Scott Bloch sues 25 people and groups
Two gay Obama administration officials and the Human Rights Campaign were lumped in as defendants with former Bush administration operative Karl Rove and more than a dozen others in a federal racketeering lawsuit filed by anti-gay Bush official Scott Bloch.
John Berry, director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (Blade photo by Michael Key)
The 64-page lawsuit, filed last week in Fairfax County Circuit Court, charges the defendants – including former GOP Congressman Tom Davis of Virginia – with conspiring to force Bloch out of his job as head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel through a trumped up criminal investigation.
News of the lawsuit, which was first reported by Courthouse News Services, hasn’t been widely reported in major news media outlets.
Bloch and his wife, who is a party to the suit, are seeking $102 million in compensatory damages and $100 million in punitive damages.
Bloch, who served as director of the Office of Special Counsel from 2004 to October 2008, pleaded guilty in April 2010 to a charge of contempt of Congress. The guilty plea followed a lengthy investigation that included an FBI raid on his office and home in May 2008.
The investigation stemmed from allegations that Bloch improperly sought to purge employees in his office who disagreed with him and later sought to cover up possible wrong-doing by hiring a computer services company to “scrub” files from his government office computer.
A federal judge in Washington sentenced him on March 30 to one month in jail in connection with his guilty plea but agreed to stay the sentence while Bloch appeals it on grounds that he didn’t know the contempt of Congress law carries a mandatory minimum jail term of 30 days.
The gay Obama administration officials named in Bloch’s suit are John Berry, director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and Elaine Kaplan, OPM’s general counsel. Kaplan preceded Bloch as head of the Office of Special Counsel during the Clinton administration.
While working as an attorney in private practice after her term ended as U.S. Special Counsel, Kaplan joined others who criticized Bloch for dismantling LGBT-supportive policies at the Special Counsel’s office that Kaplan established there.
Kaplan and others argued that an existing U.S. civil service law protected federal workers from discrimination based solely on their sexual orientation through a provision that barred bias for non-work related factors. Bloch, upon taking office after being appointed by President George W. Bush, reversed Kaplan’s policies, saying he disputed the assumption that the civil service law could be interpreted to bar discrimination based on sexual orientation.
In his lawsuit, Bloch alleges that the Bush White House demanded that he back off from reversing Kaplan’s polices at the Office of Special Counsel, saying White House aides threatened to arrange for his dismissal if he failed to comply with their request.
Bloch and his wife, who are representing themselves in the case, filed their suit under a federal statute called the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. The statute allows both criminal and civil charges to be brought in cases where the government or a private party alleges that others conspired to commit an illegal act or to damage a person or a business through a “criminal enterprise.”
Other parties named as defendants in the lawsuit include the Executive Office of the President, the Office of Special Counsel, the National Treasury Employees Union, and several government watchdog groups, including the Government Accountability Project.
Elaine Kaplan, OPM's general counsel (Blade photo by Michael Key)
In his lawsuit, Bloch names Berry as a defendant only in his capacity as director of the Office of Personnel Management, making no allegations that Berry played a role in Bloch’s forced resignation as head of the Office of Special Council during the Bush administration.
However, Bloch repeatedly alleges in the lawsuit that OPM as a government agency “conspired” with others in the Bush administration to force his ouster because, among other things, he was investigating possible breaches of government ethics rules by Bush White House staffers, including Karl Rove, and officials with other government agencies.
The lawsuit alleges that Kaplan was a party to the alleged effort to oust him from his post as head of the Office of Special Counsel in her role as general counsel to the National Treasury Employees Union, which opposed Bloch’s policies and practices at the OSC. Kaplan became general counsel to NTEU shortly after her five-year term as head of the Office of Special Counsel ended.
The lawsuit alleges that Kaplan joined other organizations and individuals who disagreed with Bloch’s policies and sought his removal.
It says the Human Rights Campaign was among several outside groups that Kaplan and others worked with to discredit Bloch and “conspire” to oust him from office. During his tenure as head of the Office of Special Counsel, HRC criticized Bloch for rolling back his office’s protections for gay federal workers.
“We don’t believe this case has any merit,” said HRC spokesperson Fred Sainz.
“[F]rom 2005 to the present, both as counsel for National Treasury Employees Union, and plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege, that in her current role as general counsel of OPM, [Kaplan] is conspiring with or has conspired with third parties to damage plaintiffs as hereinafter alleged, improperly, illegally, and against the Ethics in Government Act, both as to her involvement in previous issues as Special Counsel of the OSC, and as general counsel of OPM with conflicts of interest, personal and official, and to conspire to harm plaintiffs…,” Bloch says in his lawsuit.
The lawsuit charges that Kaplan and those she allegedly conspired with sought to “disrupt official investigations, undermine official functions in the Office of Special Counsel, divert loyalty of employees away from Scott Bloch, and otherwise seek to undermine and harm plaintiffs in their reputation and family life.”
Berry and Kaplan or a spokesperson for the Office of Personnel Management couldn’t be immediately reached for comment on the lawsuit.
The lawsuit can be read in its entirety on the Courthouse News Service website: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/29/Bloch.pdf
The Comings & Goings column is about sharing the professional successes of our community. We want to recognize those landing new jobs, new clients for their business, joining boards of organizations and other achievements. Please share your successes with us at [email protected].
Congratulations to Gil Pontes III on his recent appointment to the Financial Advisory Board for the City of Wilton Manors, Fla. Upon being appointed he said, “I’m honored to join the Financial Advisory Board for the City of Wilton Manors at such an important moment for our community. In my role as Executive Director of the NextGen Chamber of Commerce, I spend much of my time focused on economic growth, fiscal sustainability, and the long-term competitiveness of emerging business leaders. I look forward to bringing that perspective to Wilton Manors — helping ensure responsible stewardship of public resources while supporting a vibrant, inclusive local economy.”
Pontes is a nonprofit executive with years of development, operations, budget, management, and strategic planning experience in 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), and political organizations. Pontes is currently executive director of NextGen, Chamber of Commerce. NextGen Chamber’s mission is to “empower emerging business leaders by generating insights, encouraging engagement, and nurturing leadership development to shape the future economy.” Prior to that he served as managing director of The Nora Project, and director of development also at The Nora Project. He has held a number of other positions including Major Gifts Officer, Thundermist Health Center, and has worked in both real estate and banking including as Business Solutions Adviser, Ironwood Financial. For three years he was a Selectman, Town of Berkley, Mass. In that role, he managed HR and general governance for town government. There were 200+ staff and 6,500 constituents. He balanced a $20,000,000 budget annually, established an Economic Development Committee, and hired the first town administrator.
Pontes earned his bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth.
Kansas
ACLU sues Kansas over law invalidating trans residents’ IDs
A new Kansas bill requires transgender residents to have their driver’s licenses reflect their sex assigned at birth, invalidating current licenses.
Transgender people across Kansas received letters in the mail on Wednesday demanding the immediate surrender of their driver’s licenses following passage of one of the harshest transgender bathroom bans in the nation. Now the American Civil Liberties Union is filing a lawsuit to block the ban and protect transgender residents from what advocates describe as “sweeping” and “punitive” consequences.
Independent journalist Erin Reed broke the story Wednesday after lawmakers approved House Substitute for Senate Bill 244. In her reporting, Reed included a photo of the letter sent to transgender Kansans, requiring them to obtain a driver’s license that reflects their sex assigned at birth rather than the gender with which they identify.
According to the reporting, transgender Kansans must surrender their driver’s licenses and that their current credentials — regardless of expiration date — will be considered invalid upon the law’s publication. The move effectively nullifies previously issued identification documents, creating immediate uncertainty for those impacted.
House Substitute for Senate Bill 244 also stipulates that any transgender person caught driving without a valid license could face a class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. That potential penalty adds a criminal dimension to what began as an administrative action. It also compounds the legal risks for transgender Kansans, as the state already requires county jails to house inmates according to sex assigned at birth — a policy that advocates say can place transgender detainees at heightened risk.
Beyond identification issues, SB 244 not only bans transgender people from using restrooms that match their gender identity in government buildings — including libraries, courthouses, state parks, hospitals, and interstate rest stops — with the possibility for criminal penalties, but also allows for what critics have described as a “bathroom bounty hunter” provision. The measure permits anyone who encounters a transgender person in a restroom — including potentially in private businesses — to sue them for large sums of money, dramatically expanding the scope of enforcement beyond government authorities.
The lawsuit challenging SB 244 was filed today in the District Court of Douglas County on behalf of anonymous plaintiffs Daniel Doe and Matthew Moe by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Kansas, and Ballard Spahr LLP. The complaint argues that SB 244 violates the Kansas Constitution’s protections for personal autonomy, privacy, equality under the law, due process, and freedom of speech.
Additionally, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a temporary restraining order on behalf of the anonymous plaintiffs, arguing that the order — followed by a temporary injunction — is necessary to prevent the “irreparable harm” that would result from SB 244.
State Rep. Abi Boatman, a Wichita Democrat and the only transgender member of the Kansas Legislature, told the Kansas City Star on Wednesday that “persecution is the point.”
“This legislation is a direct attack on the dignity and humanity of transgender Kansans,” said Monica Bennett, legal director of the ACLU of Kansas. “It undermines our state’s strong constitutional protections against government overreach and persecution.”
“SB 244 is a cruel and craven threat to public safety all in the name of fostering fear, division, and paranoia,” said Harper Seldin, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project. “The invalidation of state-issued IDs threatens to out transgender people against their will every time they apply for a job, rent an apartment, or interact with police. Taken as a whole, SB 244 is a transparent attempt to deny transgender people autonomy over their own identities and push them out of public life altogether.”
“SB 244 presents a state-sanctioned attack on transgender people aimed at silencing, dehumanizing, and alienating Kansans whose gender identity does not conform to the state legislature’s preferences,” said Heather St. Clair, a Ballard Spahr litigator working on the case. “Ballard Spahr is committed to standing with the ACLU and the plaintiffs in fighting on behalf of transgender Kansans for a remedy against the injustices presented by SB 244, and is dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights jeopardized by this new law.”
National
After layoffs at Advocate, parent company acquires ‘Them’ from Conde Nast
Top editorial staff let go last week
Former staff members at the Advocate and Out magazines revealed that parent company Equalpride laid off a number of employees late last week.
Those let go included Advocate editor-in-chief Alex Cooper, Pride.com editor-in-chief Rachel Shatto, brand partnerships manager Erin Manley, community editor Marie-Adélina de la Ferriére, and Out magazine staff writers Moises Mendez and Bernardo Sim, according to a report in Hollywood Reporter.
Cooper, who joined the company in 2021, posted to social media that, “Few people have had the privilege of leading this legendary LGBTQ+ news outlet, and I’m deeply honored to have been one of them. To my team: thank you for the last four years. You’ve been the best. For those also affected today, please let me know how I can support you.”
The Advocate’s PR firm when reached by the Blade said it no longer represents the company. Emails to the Advocate went unanswered.
Equalpride on Friday announced it acquired “Them,” a digital LGBTQ outlet founded in 2017 by Conde Nast.
“Equalpride exists to elevate, celebrate and protect LGBTQ+ storytelling at scale,” Equalpride CEO Mark Berryhill said according to Hollywood Reporter. “By combining the strengths of our brands with this respected digital platform, we’re creating a unified ecosystem that delivers even more impact for our audiences, advertisers, and community partners.”
It’s not clear if “Them” staff would take over editorial responsibilities for the Advocate and Out.
Comings & Goings
Kansas passes bathroom bounty hunter bill
ACLU sues Kansas over law invalidating trans residents’ IDs
After layoffs at Advocate, parent company acquires ‘Them’ from Conde Nast
Spring into sold
New book profiles LGBTQ Ukrainians, documents war experiences
PHOTOS: Queen of Hearts
Two very different views of the State of the Union
Va. activists preparing campaign in support of repealing marriage amendment
