Connect with us

National

‘Less than credible’: Investigation of HRC prez dismissed as conflict of interest

Sidley Austin LLP has pre-exisitng relationship with LGBTQ group

Published

on

hate crimes, gay news, Washington Blade

After a damning report on sexual misconduct allegations that forced Andrew Cuomo to resign as governor of New York and that ensnared the Human Rights Campaign president for having a potential role in the cover-up, the nation’s leading LGBTQ group has arranged for a law firm to conduct an independent review of its president’s role in the scandal — but legal experts see a conflict of interest looming over the process.

Sidley Austin LLP, the law firm chosen to conduct the review, has a self-described “long standing pro-bono relationship” with the Human Rights Campaign and was chief among its legal partners announced in October 2019 for a new direction to litigation in LGBTQ advocacy, which was an engagement David undertook when he took the helm as president.

In fact, Sidley issued a news statement hailing its participation in the agreement with the Human Rights Campaign and six other law firms, which Sidley described as an “alliance” designed to “help shape state and federal laws, regulations and policies and the application of constitutional principles.”

“We’re looking forward to working with the Human Rights Campaign on strategic litigation that will take on discriminatory measures targeting LGBTQ people,” Carter Phillips, partner at Sidley, is quoted as saying in the statement. “HRC is a long-standing pro bono client and this next stage of collaboration reinforces Sidley’s deep commitment to advocating for diversity and equality.”

As a result of the 2019 announcement, which was brokered soon after David took the helm of the Human Rights Campaign, some legal experts see a conflict of interest that undermines the perception of impartiality in Sidley’s ongoing review and could color any finding of no wrongdoing, which would arguably be in the interests of all parties involved in the review.

Brenner Fissell, a law professor who teaches legal ethics at Hofstra University in Long Island, N.Y., told the Blade the independent review Sidley is undertaking “appears less than credible.”

“This is not even a relationship where they engaged them once,” Fissell said. “Sidley in the press release calls HRC a long-standing pro bono client, and they’re also doing PR for them. I mean, they’re really inextricably connected, right?”

The imbroglio with the Human Rights Campaign president began when New York Attorney General Letitia James issued her report finding Cuomo violated the law by sexually harassing as many as 11 women on the job. David, who before taking over as Human Rights Campaign president was counselor to the governor of New York, was named nearly a dozen times in the report.

David has continued to deny wrongdoing. However, the findings indicate after his tenure as counselor to Cuomo, he kept the personnel file of an employee accusing the governor of sexual misconduct, then assisted in returning that file to Cuomo staffers seeking to leak it to the media in an attempt to discredit her. (A representative has disputed the characterization of material David kept as a personnel file, saying it was memorandum on an internal employment matter David kept because he, in part, worked on it.)

Further, the report finds David allegedly said he would help find individuals to sign their names to a draft op-ed that sought to discredit the survivor but went unpublished, although he wouldn’t sign the document himself. Also, the report indicates David was involved in the discussions about secretly calling and recording a call between a former staffer and another survivor in a separate effort to smear her.

In response, David said he agreed to help with only one version of the letter that was more positive in nature and his part of the discussion about recording a survivor was limited to his role as counselor.

Although the Human Rights Campaign board has stood by David and announced on the day after the report came out it has renewed his contract for another five years, last week it announced an independent investigation to resolve the matter. The investigation would be conducted by Sidley and last no longer than 30 days. David has publicly endorsed the review.

But the pre-existing close relationship between Sidley and the Human Rights Campaign has left some legal observers questioning the merits of the investigation.

Fissell said no ethical rules are in place for conducting independent investigations per se, especially because Sidley has never represented David before as a client. As a result, Fissell said there is likely no technical violation of ethics rules over conflict of interest in this scenario.

The only real framework for independent investigations that could be a model of the review for this situation, Fissell said, is found in the handbook for the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission. Among the factors considered in such investigations, Fissell said, is whether outside counsel conducting the review had previously done work for a company or if management previously engaged such counsel.

“If you had previously engaged such counsel, that makes it less independent,” Fissell said. “So the answer to your question is, this is not good if you want to do a truly independent investigation.”

Fissell also questioned why 30 days was selected as the time limit for the investigation, which he said seems artificial and could limit findings.

Sidley didn’t respond to repeated email requests from the Blade for answers to a series of written questions on the independent investigation and its pre-existing relationship with the Human Rights Campaign, including whether or not Phillips, the attorney quoted in the news statement would participate in the ongoing review.

A Human Rights Campaign representative, however, responded to similar inquiries from the Blade with a series of bullet points essentially denying any conflict of interest and standing by the decision to charge Sidley with the investigation.

The representative in the bullet points said the Human Rights Campaign chose Sidley “because of its vast experience in internal investigations and reviews” and is “grateful that Sidley has always represented us on a pro bono basis, including in this matter.”

“Sidley has not represented HRC on any matter related to any of the issues in the current internal investigation that Sidley is conducting,” the representative said.

The Human Rights Campaign representative said Sidley is one of many firms that has worked for the LGBTQ organization, but has “never represented Alphonso David on any matter.” In conducting the investigation, the representative said Sidley reports to an independent Board of Directors for the Human Rights Campaign.

Michael Frisch, an ethics counsel and adjunct professor at Georgetown Law School, told the Blade a law firm being charged with conducting an investigation for an entity after having a previous relationship with it is “always potentially a problem.”

“When any outside entity is retained to conduct an independent review, it has to be truly independent,” Frisch said. “To me, if you’re going to conduct an independent inquiry. Your bonafides to give independent advice in a report is always subject of concern, and one should be above reproach in those situations.”

Frisch, asked if the potential for a conflict is present in Sidley’s investigation of the Human Rights Campaign president, said he couldn’t directly opine on that without knowing all the details about the situation.

“You analyze any conflict of interest from the point of view of is there a substantial risk that the lawyers’ advice will be colored by some interest, other than the client who’s getting the advice,” Frisch said. “The magic language in the rule is substantial risk of material limitation, that’s essentially the test. Every client is entitled to independent advice.”

Asked if a law firm like Sidley could take any internal steps to mitigate the appearance of conflict of interest while continuing to conduct an independent investigation, Frisch said those options, such as walls or ethical screens, aren’t in play here.

“Those kinds of mechanisms to defeat conflicts don’t sound like they’re applicable in this kind of situation because it doesn’t really sound like client-client conflicts,” Frisch said. “A report is not like litigation in that there are parties and opposing counsel and things of that nature that you would have obligations to.”

Frisch concluded: “So that’s where I kind of get back to the key is is it a truly independent report, and if the drafters of the report are compromised by other interests, that always leaves the report open to criticism on that basis.”

A representative for David, who previously pushed back on conclusions of wrongdoing by David based on the report, didn’t respond to a request for comment for this article. Meanwhile, David’s mention in the AG report continues to leave the nation’s leading LGBTQ group in turmoil. Amid reports staffers have called on David to resign, lesbian tennis legend Martina Navratilova — who has previously come under fire for views against transgender women in sports — publicly called for David’s resignation in a podcast interview with the progressive news outlet Raw Story.

Last week, David posted to his Twitter account an open letter from “colleagues and friends” in support of him. Days later, the Blade was forwarded an open letter from “Real HRC Staffers” addressing a separate “communication” that went out from other employees calling for David’s resignation. The open letter asserts David is being unfairly maligned and calls for signatures in support of his presidency.

“It is disheartening to see how the leadership of a Black queer man is being criticized by and vilified in the media and within our own organization at a time of racial reckoning in America and globally,” the letter said. “Worse, is to witness the scapegoating of Alphonso and others who are now being made to answer for the behaviors of powerful white men.”

Fissell, meanwhile, told the Blade the Human Rights Campaign would be better suited going elsewhere for a law firm to conduct the investigation if it wanted real answers about its president in the Cuomo affair.

“If they’re truly committed to demonstrating that they want to have an independent investigation, they would find someone else,” Fissell said.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

Same-sex couples vulnerable to adverse effects of climate change

Williams Institute report based on Census, federal agencies

Published

on

Beach erosion in Fire Island Pines, N.Y. (Photo courtesy of Savannah Farrell / Actum)

A new report by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law finds that same-sex couples are at greater risk of experiencing the adverse effects of climate change compared to different-sex couples.

LGBTQ people in same-sex couple households disproportionately live in coastal areas and cities and areas with poorer infrastructure and less access to resources, making them more vulnerable to climate hazards.

Using U.S. Census data and climate risk assessment data from NASA and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, researchers conducted a geographic analysis to assess the climate risk impacting same-sex couples. NASA’s risk assessment focuses on changes to meteorological patterns, infrastructure and built environment, and the presence of at-risk populations. FEMA’s assessment focuses on changes in the occurrence of severe weather events, accounting for at-risk populations, the availability of services, and access to resources.

Results show counties with a higher proportion of same-sex couples are, on average, at increased risk from environmental, infrastructure, and social vulnerabilities due to climate change.

“Given the disparate impact of climate change on LGBTQ populations, climate change policies, including disaster preparedness, response, and recovery plans, must address the specific needs and vulnerabilities facing LGBTQ people,” said study co-author Ari Shaw, senior fellow and director of international programs at the Williams Institute. “Policies should focus on mitigating discriminatory housing and urban development practices, making shelters safe spaces for LGBT people, and ensuring that relief aid reaches displaced LGBTQ individuals and families.”

“Factors underlying the geographic vulnerability are crucial to understanding why same-sex couples are threatened by climate change and whether the findings in our study apply to the broader LGBTQ population,” said study co-author Lindsay Mahowald, research data analyst at the Williams Institute. “More research is needed to examine how disparities in housing, employment, and health care among LGBT people compound the geographic vulnerabilities to climate change.”

Read the report

Continue Reading

Federal Government

Lambda Legal praises Biden-Harris administration’s finalized Title IX regulations

New rules to take effect Aug. 1

Published

on

U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona (Screen capture: AP/YouTube)

The Biden-Harris administration’s revised Title IX policy “protects LGBTQ+ students from discrimination and other abuse,” Lambda Legal said in a statement praising the U.S. Department of Education’s issuance of the final rule on Friday.

Slated to take effect on Aug. 1, the new regulations constitute an expansion of the 1972 Title IX civil rights law, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education programs that receive federal funding.

Pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the landmark 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County case, the department’s revised policy clarifies that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity constitutes sex-based discrimination as defined under the law.

“These regulations make it crystal clear that everyone can access schools that are safe, welcoming and that respect their rights,” Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said during a call with reporters on Thursday.

While the new rule does not provide guidance on whether schools must allow transgender students to play on sports teams corresponding with their gender identity to comply with Title IX, the question is addressed in a separate rule proposed by the agency in April.

The administration’s new policy also reverses some Trump-era Title IX rules governing how schools must respond to reports of sexual harassment and sexual assault, which were widely seen as imbalanced in favor of the accused.

Jennifer Klein, the director of the White House Gender Policy Council, said during Thursday’s call that the department sought to strike a balance with respect to these issues, “reaffirming our longstanding commitment to fundamental fairness.”

“We applaud the Biden administration’s action to rescind the legally unsound, cruel, and dangerous sexual harassment and assault rule of the previous administration,” Lambda Legal Nonbinary and Transgender Rights Project Director Sasha Buchert said in the group’s statement on Friday.

“Today’s rule instead appropriately underscores that Title IX’s civil rights protections clearly cover LGBTQ+ students, as well as survivors and pregnant and parenting students across race and gender identity,” she said. “Schools must be places where students can learn and thrive free of harassment, discrimination, and other abuse.”

Continue Reading

Michigan

Mich. Democrats spar over LGBTQ-inclusive hate crimes law

Lawmakers disagree on just what kind of statute to pass

Published

on

Members of the Michigan House Democrats gather to celebrate Pride month in 2023 in the Capitol building. (Photo courtesy of Michigan House Democrats)

Michigan could soon become the latest state to pass an LGBTQ-inclusive hate crime law, but the state’s Democratic lawmakers disagree on just what kind of law they should pass.

Currently, Michigan’s Ethnic Intimidation Act only offers limited protections to victims of crime motivated by their “race, color, religion, gender, or national origin.” Bills proposed by Democratic lawmakers expand the list to include “actual or perceived race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, ethnicity, physical or mental disability, age, national origin, or association or affiliation with any such individuals.” 

Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel have both advocated for a hate crime law, but house and senate Democrats have each passed different hate crimes packages, and Nessel has blasted both as being too weak.

Under the house proposal that passed last year (House Bill 4474), a first offense would be punishable with a $2,000 fine, up to two years in prison, or both. Penalties double for a second offense, and if a gun or other dangerous weapons is involved, the maximum penalty is six years in prison and a fine of $7,500. 

But that proposal stalled when it reached the senate, after far-right news outlets and Fox News reported misinformation that the bill only protected LGBTQ people and would make misgendering a trans person a crime. State Rep. Noah Arbit, the bill’s sponsor, was also made the subject of a recall effort, which ultimately failed.

Arbit submitted a new version of the bill (House Bill 5288) that added sections clarifying that misgendering a person, “intentionally or unintentionally” is not a hate crime, although the latest version (House Bill 5400) of the bill omits this language.

That bill has since stalled in a house committee, in part because the Democrats lost their house majority last November, when two Democratic representatives resigned after being elected mayors. The Democrats regained their house majority last night by winning two special elections.

Meanwhile, the senate passed a different package of hate crime bills sponsored by state Sen. Sylvia Santana (Senate Bill 600) in March that includes much lighter sentences, as well as a clause ensuring that misgendering a person is not a hate crime. 

Under the senate bill, if the first offense is only a threat, it would be a misdemeanor punishable by one year in prison and up to $1,000 fine. A subsequent offense or first violent hate crime, including stalking, would be a felony that attracts double the punishment.

Multiple calls and emails from the Washington Blade to both Arbit and Santana requesting comment on the bills for this story went unanswered.

The attorney general’s office sent a statement to the Blade supporting stronger hate crime legislation.

“As a career prosecutor, [Nessel] has seen firsthand how the state’s weak Ethnic Intimidation Act (not updated since the late 1980’s) does not allow for meaningful law enforcement and court intervention before threats become violent and deadly, nor does it consider significant bases for bias.  It is our hope that the legislature will pass robust, much-needed updates to this statute,” the statement says.

But Nessel, who has herself been the victim of racially motivated threats, has also blasted all of the bills presented by Democrats as not going far enough.

“Two years is nothing … Why not just give them a parking ticket?” Nessel told Bridge Michigan.

Nessel blames a bizarre alliance far-right and far-left forces that have doomed tougher laws.

“You have this confluence of forces on the far right … this insistence that the First Amendment protects this language, or that the Second Amendment protects the ability to possess firearms under almost any and all circumstances,” Nessel said. “But then you also have the far left that argues basically no one should go to jail or prison for any offense ever.”

The legislature did manage to pass an “institutional desecration” law last year that penalizes hate-motivated vandalism to churches, schools, museums, and community centers, and is LGBTQ-inclusive.

According to data from the U.S. Department of Justice, reported hate crime incidents have been skyrocketing, with attacks motivated by sexual orientation surging by 70 percent from 2020 to 2022, the last year for which data is available. 

Twenty-two states, D.C., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have passed LGBTQ-inclusive hate crime laws. Another 11 states have hate crime laws that include protections for “sexual orientation” but not “gender identity.”

Michigan Democrats have advanced several key LGBTQ rights priorities since they took unified control of the legislature in 2023. A long-stalled comprehensive anti-discrimination law was passed last year, as did a conversion therapy ban. Last month the legislature updated family law to make surrogacy easier for all couples, including same-sex couples. 

A bill to ban the “gay panic” defense has passed the state house and was due for a Senate committee hearing on Wednesday.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular