Connect with us

National

Woman alleges harassment, sues Family Research Council

Claims anti-gay group fired her for filing bias complaint

Published

on

Family Research Council, FRC, gay news, Washington Blade
Family Research Council, FRC, gay news, Washington Blade

A former employee claims the D.C.-based Family Research Council retaliated against her for objecting to harassment. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

In a little noticed development, a former high-level official with the anti-gay Family Research Council has accused the group in a lawsuit of firing her in retaliation for complaining that her supervisor subjected her to sexual harassment.

News of the lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in July 2011, was first reported last week by conservative journalist and commentator Evan Gahr in his blog Chimpstein.com.

Moira Gaul, who at the time of her dismissal served as the FRC’s Director of Women’s and Reproductive Health, charges in the lawsuit that the retaliation began in January 2009 after she filed a gender discrimination complaint before the D.C. Office of Human Rights against the supervisor.

The complaint says the supervisor, who is identified only as the director of FRC’s Center for Human Life and Bioethics, engaged in “inappropriate behavior” toward Gaul since he became her supervisor in March 2007.

“Examples of his behavior include, but are not limited to pressuring me to attend parties, referring to me as a ‘young, attractive woman,’ and emailing me ‘hi cutie,’” Gaul states in the OHR complaint.

“He also referred to the use of birth control pills by young women as ‘whoring around.’ His attitude toward me and other women was rude, belittling, and at times angry,” she said in the OHR complaint.

William J. Hickey, the lead attorney representing FRC in the lawsuit, did not respond to a request by the Washington Blade for comment. The FRC’s vice president for communications, J.P. Duffy, couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.

Gaul’s attorney, Shannon L. Stokes, said neither she nor Gaul would comment on the case at the present time.

In a Sept. 2, 2011 court brief or “answer” to the lawsuit on FRC’s behalf, Hickey said FRC denies Gaul’s allegations that it engaged in discrimination or retaliation against her.

Hickey’s brief also says the lawsuit “fails to state a cause of action against defendant and should be dismissed.”

In a November motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the case, Hickey argues that Gaul dropped her gender discrimination case before the Office of Human Rights after a settlement was reached several months after she filed the complaint. He asserts in the motion that she and her attorneys could not raise allegations made in that complaint if her lawsuit goes to trial.

Although the attorneys on both sides have so far refused to discuss the matter with the media, Hickey appears to be referring to a decision by U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates granting an FRC motion for a “protective order” that places a “seal” on information and evidence related to Gaul’s OHR complaint about gender discrimination and allegations of sexual harassment by her supervisor.

Gahr, who broke the story on the lawsuit, reported that multiple media reports show that prominent anti-abortion attorney William L. “Bill” Saunders served as director of FRC’s Center for Human Life and Bioethics during the period Gaul alleges she was subject to sexual harassment.

Her OHR complaint says it was the director of that FRC center that allegedly committed the gender discrimination linked to the alleged sexual harassment against her.

Several papers authored or co-authored by Saunders on the right-to-life movement and efforts to overturn the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortions in the country, are currently posted on the FRC’s website with the FRC logo printed above the title of the papers.

The FRC’s website, however, makes no mention of Saunders having worked for the organization.

A May 22, 2009 press release from Americans United for Life, one of the nation’s most prominent anti-abortion groups, announced that Saunders joined the group’s staff at that time as senior counsel. The AUL website currently shows that Saunders still holds that position.

A spokesperson for the AUL didn’t return a call from the Blade seeking comment on Gaul’s lawsuit and earlier complaint before the D.C. Office of Human Rights involving Saunders.

Saunders couldn’t be reached for comment.

A mediation process required by the court to determine whether Gaul’s lawsuit could be settled took place earlier this year, according to court records. But the filing of motions by both sides earlier this month seeking a summary judgment ruling in their favor indicates the mediation process has so far been unsuccessful.

Gaul’s lawsuit, which was filed July 7, 2011 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, says Gaul continued to perform her job duties in what it calls a “hostile work environment” from the time her supervisor allegedly began hassling her in March 2007 through 2009, when she decided it was necessary to file the OHR complaint.

The lawsuit says stress created by her interaction with her supervisor aggravated her pre-existing chronic health problems, which FRC knew about at the time it hired her in 2005. The lawsuit says that prior to her filing the OHR complaint, FRC accommodated her special health needs, allowing her to take time off from work to seek medical treatment.

A flare up of one of her health problems required that she take a short-term disability leave from January 2009 to March 2009, according to the lawsuit.

Although FRC officials initially told her that her health insurance coverage would continue during her disability leave, she was informed in March 2009 that “FRC was retroactively cancelling her health insurance for the period she was on short-term disability leave,” the lawsuit says.

In February 2009, one month after she filed her complaint, FRC’s then executive vice president issued Gaul a formal reprimand for “insubordination” during the time she was on disability leave. It was the first time she had ever received a reprimand during her tenure with FRC, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit says the retaliation against her continued upon her return to work when FRC personnel officials delayed the reinstatement of her health insurance. Due to her health problems, she contacted various staffers and managers to request a prompt reinstatement of her insurance.

“Rather than assist her, the FRC’s then executive vice president threatened to issue another reprimand for insubordination to Ms. Gaul if she attempted to raise the issue of her health insurance coverage again with FRC management or any other staff member in the D.C. office other than human resources,” the lawsuit charges.

In May 2009, according to the lawsuit, Gaul was formally reprimanded for “failing to submit time sheets on schedule.” It says Gaul is unaware of any FRC employee receiving a reprimand for submitting late time sheets.

Gaul was hopeful that the alleged retaliation would end when she reached a settlement with FRC over her OHR complaint on July 31, 2009, the lawsuit says.

But the lawsuit says her work environment “remained hostile” after the settlement over the next three months leading up to her dismissal on Oct. 22, 2009, which FRC called a “layoff,” the lawsuit says.

“Upon information and belief, other employees laid off in 2009 were given more than a month’s notice of their impending layoff,” it says. “Ms. Gaul, on the other hand, was told to clear her belongings by the close of business the next day.”

The lawsuit says a termination memorandum given to her by the FRC cited “political hostility” against the abstinence movement, on which Gaul devoted much of her work, and a reduction of federal funding for abstinence programs as the primary reason for her termination.

“The memorandum also stated that the FRC needed a person with a background in a variety of ‘life issue’ areas beyond abstinence, which the memorandum claimed that Ms. Gaul did not have,” the lawsuit says

“The reasons cited by the FRC in the termination memorandum were mere pretexts,” the lawsuit charges.

It says Gaul, who has a bachelor’s degree in biology and a master’s degree in public health, worked on a wide range of other issues and was highly qualified to continue as FRC’s women’s and reproductive health director.

“In January 2010 three months after Ms. Gaul’s termination, the FRC created a new position with duties similar to the ones previously held by Ms. Gaul,” the lawsuit says. “This new position was fully funded by the FRC budget.”

The lawsuit says up until the time of her dismissal, Gaul remained dedicated to carrying out FRC’s mission in the area of women’s health.

“Despite all of the problems in her work environment, Ms. Gaul continued to produce at a high level,” it says. “In August 2009, she was rated in the second highest quartile for contribution in the policy department. Ms. Gaul was promoted to the position of Fellow and Director of Women’s and Reproductive health that same month.”

The lawsuit adds, “In September 2009, the FRC released a report on Pregnancy Resource Centers co-authored by Ms. Gaul, which she then presented at a national conference. In October 2009, Ms. Gaul presented the Pregnancy Resources Center report and taught at an international pro-life conference in Hungary.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

New York

Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced

One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.

NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.

John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.

The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.

Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.

Continue Reading

National

Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information

Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources

Published

on

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is named as a defendant in the lawsuit. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.

“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.

 “These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.

It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”

 The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question. 

A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit. 

While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management. 

The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.

 Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.   

“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.

 “Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says. 

Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”

 Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”

Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.

 “As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from  the Washington Blade. 

“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said. 

The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”

It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”

The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society. 

The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections

Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent

Published

on

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Screen capture: YouTube)

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.

While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”

“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.

The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.

Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.

Continue Reading

Popular