National
Woman alleges harassment, sues Family Research Council
Claims anti-gay group fired her for filing bias complaint
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.”
Michigan
Progressives score victory as El-Sayed wins Mich. Senate primary
Democratic newcomer will face Rogers in November
Michigan held its primary on Tuesday, allowing the two major political parties to select their nominees to go head-to-head for the state’s U.S. Senate seat.
NBC News called the Democratic race early, giving the victory to physician Abdul El-Sayed over incumbent U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) in an extremely close primary. El-Sayed won 48.5 percent of the primary vote, with Stevens trailing by just one percentage point at 47.5 percent.
Both candidates have campagined on supporting the LGBTQ community through different avenues— for El-Sayed he focused on his past promoting HIV and PrEP funding and research. Stevens focused on her legislative history working to support transgender rights in the state.
This is a major win for progressive Democrats, who have been bearing the brunt of political attacks from President Donald Trump, the Republican Party, and centrist Democrats.
El-Sayed, a former health director in Detroit, ran his campaign largely on making life in the Great Lakes State more affordable amid rising costs. His policies include promoting “Medicare for All,” pushing health policy that targets the regressive efforts of the Trump-Vance administration that rolls back funding for both Women and LGBTQ people, minimizing the growing amount of money in politics, and he was very vocal in his criticism of Stevens for supporting aid to Israel. He was endorsed by two major progressives — U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-N.Y.).
Stevens, the four-term congresswoman, is much closer to establishment Democrats on policy than El-Sayed.
During her time in the federal government, she has consistently supported the Equality Act, which would add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She has also emphasized supporting local manufacturing and lowering housing costs in the state.
She was named to Advocates for Trans Equality’s 118th Congressional Champions list for her pro-trans policies and was endorsed by establishment heavy hitters Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
The contentious race boiled down not only to Michigan affairs but also extended to international conflicts — namely Palestine. (South Africa has filed a case in the International Court of Justice in The Hague that accuses Israel of committing genocide in the Gaza Strip after Oct. 7.) This primary also acted as one of the first major races that pushed back against AIPAC, a lobbying group that works to promote pro-Israel candidates in U.S. elections. The group has been involved in domestic politics since 1954.
AIPAC devoted a massive amount of money to this race.
The Associated Press reported that the pro-Israel lobbying group spent more than $30 million on ads against El-Sayed because of his vocal denunciation of Israel and his continued criticism of its policies towards Palestine.
Michigan has a large Muslim and Arab American population, which could, in part, explain how El-Sayed was able to win.
The Republican side was far less competitive. Former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) ran unopposed and clinched the GOP nomination. He has consistently held anti-LGBTQ positions, going as far as voting multiple times for a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, voting against repealing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, and supporting efforts to directly target the attempted expansion of Title IX protections to include trans people.
El-Sayed will face off against Rogers in November for Michigan’s Senate seat — one that could have lasting impacts not only on the state’s politics but also on the Republicans’ narrow Senate majority and Trump’s political agenda.
National
White House orders warning signs at Smithsonian over gender identity exhibits
Administration criticizes National Museum of American History
The Trump administration will install temporary warning signs outside the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History after releasing a report accusing the museum of promoting what it calls “radical” gender ideology and other politically biased content.
According to the Executive Order, “For purposes of policy formulation under EO 14253, this review of the National Museum of American History concludes that NMAH, by the intention and at the direction of current Museum and Smithsonian leadership, has become subject to institutional capture by a radical, activist ideology that is fundamentally opposed to telling the noble, honest story of the great country we know and love.”
Executive Order 14253 refers to what the White House has deemed the “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” order. Therefore, the Trump administration has said it will take all available steps to ensure that the issues in the report are addressed and rectified.
Without specifying, the White House has stated that warnings will be posted along NMAH to alert visitors to sections of the museum it has deemed are in violation according to the report.
“The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park Service (NPS) and in coordination with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, shall install temporary signage along the NPS-maintained sidewalks and walkways used by the public to access the Museum, informing visitors of the findings of the Report and of the policy set forth in section 1 of this order,” the Executive Order states.
The warnings were raised in a 162-page report issued by the Domestic Policy Council. The report detailed ways in which the National Museum of American History (NMAH) has “poorly” portrayed American history and insufficiently highlighted the founding story during America 250th celebrations.
The report outlined key findings of the NMAH. One of these findings was the Center for Restorative History within the museum, which has stated its purpose is to “encourage systemic change” by highlighting diverse groups. However, the report states that it highlights every group of Americans except for straight and white Americans.
The Domestic Policy Council accused the museum of engaging in “transgender activism.” According to the report, examples include referring to “biological men” as women or girls, displaying what it describes as sexually suggestive content, and incorporating discussions of gender fluidity, gender identity, and gender nonconformity into the museum’s educational curriculum, “Becoming US.”
The report also criticizes the curriculum for using the term “transgender” when discussing gender-nonconforming people and encouraging individuals to ask a person’s pronouns when meeting them. It further objects to exhibits stating that “transgender, nonbinary, and cisgender female athletes” continue to struggle for and demand equality.
It also condemns what it refers to as explicit content in an exhibition, “Girlhood (It’s Complicated)”, such as chest binders, questioning gender testing in women’s sports, and referring to biological females as “people inhabiting female bodies.”
Additionally, the report accuses the museum of no longer participating in flag-celebrating ceremonies because it was “too busy” preparing for June Pride and WorldPride events. It states, “As Director Hartig explained in a June 2024 presentation, all her attention was focused on flying the Smithsonian Pride Alliance’s ‘intersexual pride flag during June’ in 2023 and 2024.”
On July 9, the American Historical Association issued a statement rejecting the report’s findings.
In regard to the report, it states, “Its anonymous authors overlook a central lesson of the nation’s founding: the United States was forged by finding common purpose amid intense divisions, conflicts, and disagreements.” They argue that only “honest history” can tell the true history of the nation.
House Republicans led a subcommittee hearing that questioned Smithsonian Director Hartig extensively. A main focus of the questions was on the exhibits related to gender identity and whether they were appropriate. In the hearing, Rep. Nancy Mace asked: “When was your gender revealed to you, Dr. Hartig?”
In response to questioning, Hartig stated that the institution is nonpartisan and does not push a specific agenda.
Hartig published a two-page statement ahead of her hearing outlining her thoughts on the situation. In the report, she states that the institution is always open to criticism and will continue to look for ways to improve, but she sees the report as misleading.
“I can attest that the report does not fairly characterize the full body of work at this museum. I am familiar with the depth and breadth of our collections, exhibits, and programming. And while I recognize there is always room for improvement, I also know the beauty, inspiration, and expertise that exists in our museum,” Hartig wrote.
Democrats created their own 16-page report as a rebuttal to the Domestic Policy Council’s report. It argued that the attacks by the current Trump administration are another example of its attempt to rewrite history. Additionally, the report states that no policy changes were included in the Executive Order, as that is beyond the President’s role. “The Report recommends nothing. That is no accident. To recommend an action, the Report would need to identify who is legally empowered to take it, and its own opening chapter concedes the President’s only power is to ‘urge’,” House Democrats wrote.
It is still unclear when the temporary warnings will be installed or what form they will take beyond the requirements outlined in the executive order.
An exhibit at the Smithsonian. (Washington Blade photo by Landon Shackelford)
National
Trump ends direct HIV prevention funding to community groups
Advocates say transfer of funds to states may disrupt local programs
A decision by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the request of the Trump administration to discontinue direct federal funding of community-based organizations and clinics that provide HIV prevention services has raised concern among community health advocates, including LGBTQ advocates.
News surfaced earlier this month that the OMB informed the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that it would not renew $46 million in funding for 96 community-based organizations that provide HIV testing, referrals to medical care, and arrangements for obtaining pre-exposure HIV prevention medication known as PrEP that has been shown to be 99 percent effective in preventing HIV infection.
Under the new policy arranged by OMB, the funds will be redirected to the states to be allocated to state and local health departments. The policy calls for states to encourage but not require their respective state and local health departments to allocate some of those funds for community-based organizations. Under the new policy, the funding is scheduled to last until May of 2027, before a renewal decision is made.
Some political observers have speculated that the decision to end direct federal funding to community-based organizations could be motivated by the Trump administration’s hostility to diversity, equity, and inclusion or DEI programs and organizations that promote those programs, with the belief that some of the groups receiving the federal HIV prevention funds are promoting DEI.
Carl Schmid, executive director of the D.C.-based HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Institute, is among the leaders of many AIDS advocacy organizations expressing strong opposition to the OMB action. Schmid said that in places like D.C. and some states, local officials will be willing to redirect the federal funds to local community-based organizations.
A list of the 96 community-based organizations across the country that are currently receiving the federal AIDS funds includes the D.C.-based Whitman-Walker Health, which has a long history of healthcare support for the LGBTQ community, and La Clinica del Pueblo, which reaches out to the Latino community.
Schmid said Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo have longstanding good relationships with the local D.C. government.
“But other states and jurisdictions don’t have that relationship with the community-based organizations,” Schmid said. “It depends on the state,” he said, adding, “Not all states send their money to the communities that really need it most. And not all states are fast in getting money to the community-based organizations.”
Spokespersons for Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on whether they think the Trump administration’s latest action related to funding will adversely impact their respective organizations.
Schmid said under the current federal grant program slated to be discontinued, which has been in effect for at least five years, HIV-related health organizations receiving the federal grant funds were eligible for an existing federal policy enabling them to purchase HIV-related medication, including the PrEP prevention medication, at a significant discount from pharmaceutical companies. With the ending of the direct federal HIV funds to community-based organizations, Schmid said it was unclear whether problems may surface in obtaining drug discounts.
“They could still qualify as a sub-grantee from a state,” Schmid said. “But what if they don’t get that grant again? They would not be able to qualify to obtain the drugs” at the discounted price, he said.
Among the organizations expressing strong concern over the decision to discontinue the direct HIV prevention funding to community-based organizations has been the Federal AIDS Policy Institute and its subgroup called the HIV Prevention Action Coalition.
In a July 22 letter bearing the names of 71 community-based organizations from throughout the country sent to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Acting Director Jay Bhattacharya, the group called for the Trump administration to “reconsider” ending the current funding policy.
“Ending this program without a clear plan for what comes next would dismantle prevention infrastructure that has taken more than three decades of federal investment to build and do so just as that long record of measurable returns is accelerating,” the letter states.
It says the initiative by President Trump in his first term as president to end the HIV epidemic and reduce new HIV infections by 90 percent by 2030 was moving ahead by the funding program for community-based organizations that the administration now wants to end.
“Discontinuing this program would also cost far more than it saves,” the letter says. “Every HIV transmission prevented avoids an estimated lifetime treatment cost of roughly half a million dollars per person to the healthcare system – costs that fall heavily on taxpayer-funded programs, including Medicaid, Medicare, and the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program,” the letter continues.
“The choice before the administration is straightforward: a modest, targeted investment in prevention now, or far greater public expense for treatment later,” the letter concludes.
Spokespersons for the OMB and the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, have not immediately responded to news media requests for comment on the opposition to the funding change policy.
Doug Ollivant to face Eugene Vindman in Va. 7th Congressional District
LGBTQ advocates optimistic about D.C.’s expected new mayor
Progressives score victory as El-Sayed wins Mich. Senate primary
Dutch prime minister opens World Pride Human Rights Conference
Buttigieg indicates he may run for president in 2028
Should I divorce my catty gay friend group?
PHOTOS: Amsterdam Pride Canal Parade
Amsterdam Pride Canal Parade draws hundreds of thousands
Reggie White relishing first season as artistic director of Woolly Mammoth
