National
Gloria Allred: HRC prez may be liable if found to have aided in Cuomo cover-up
High-profile attorney says taking personnel file violates privacy rights
Attorney Gloria Allred, responding to questions about the Human Rights Campaign president’s links to the Andrew Cuomo scandal, said taking an employee’s personnel file after leaving a place of employment would be a violation of privacy rights — and Alphonso David could be individually liable if a court found he aided in disseminating that information to the media.
“Mr. David may be individually liable under New York law if a court determines that he did in fact ‘aid and abet’ Gov. Cuomo in retaliating against Ms. Boylan by providing Gov. Cuomo’s aides with a copy of her personnel file to leak to the media,” Allred said.
Allred, the Los Angeles-based women’s rights attorney known for taking high-profile cases and the lawyer for three of the women accusing Cuomo of sexual harassment, made the assertions Tuesday via email in response to inquiries from the Washington Blade on David’s presence in the New York attorney general’s damning report, which found Cuomo violated the law by sexually harassing as many as 11 women in his office.
Asked by the Blade whether she’s aware of any New York State or federal law, policy, regulation, rule or ethics guidance against taking personnel files and whether David’s actions as described in the report would violate that, Allred said she’s not aware of any such law or rule for a departing public entity employee, but didn’t stop there.
“I would argue that doing so may be violative of the privacy rights of the employees whose personnel file was taken,” Allred said.
Allred conceded public sector employees generally may have fewer privacy protections than a private sector employee, pointing out the public may request a public sector employee’s personnel file through New York’s Freedom of Information Law. Further, Allred said New York law “does not expressly state that the entire contents of an employee’s personnel file is ‘confidential.'”
Nonetheless, Allred said personnel files typically contain confidential information under New York law, including personal identifying information like Social Security numbers, home addresses, telephone numbers, personal electronic mail addresses, internet passwords, confidential medical information/history protected by HIPAA.
Disciplinary records, Allred added, may also be included in this category of confidential information “depending on a number of factors.”
“Thus, I would argue that a departing employee should not keep copies of a coworker’s personnel files because it likely contains confidential information and doing so may violate that employee’s privacy rights,” Allred concluded.
According to the New York attorney general’s report, Cuomo aides sought to distribute unflattering material from the personnel file for Lindsey Boylan, who made sexual harassment accusations against him, in an attempt to discredit her. One aide — as part of that effort — reached out to David in December 2020, after David had left the governor’s office as counsel and was serving as Human Rights Campaign president, and asked for the “full file” for Boylan, the report says.
David, according to the report, took material from a separate, unrelated employment incident unflattering to Boylan, and arranged for the material to be given to Cuomo. The report doesn’t explicitly say David participated in efforts to distribute that material to the media, which was revealed to be an incident of alleged racial discrimination. David has denied all wrongdoing.
Allred, however, said Boylan can argue that she experienced illegal retaliation in violation of New York State law because she believes the AG office sent her personnel file to the media — and David could be in trouble if a court found he helped with that effort. Allred concluded David may be “individually liable” if a court found he was engaged in efforts to leak personnel material to the media.
The Human Rights Campaign, which announced on the day after the report was released that David’s contract as president has been renewed for five years, has stood by him, but announced it has hired the law firm Sidney Austin LLP to conduct an independent investigation of the matter that will take no longer than 30 days.
A representative for David, asked by the Washington Blade to respond to Allred’s assertions, denied the underpinnings on which they were made, saying the Human Rights Campaign president didn’t take a “personnel file.”
“David did not take any employee’s ‘personnel file’ as suggested,” the representative said. “This claim arises from blatant misinformation concerning Mr. David’s role in the Cuomo investigation. Mr. David did keep a copy of a memorandum concerning a matter he worked on because it was, in part, his work product (which is entirely permissible and standard practice for many).”
The legal representative added “to be absolutely clear,” as David has said before, he was required to produce the memo pursuant to rule 1.16 of the rules governing legal counsel.
“He did not provide any documents to the media concerning any Cuomo accuser,” the representative said. “This insinuation is categorically false and is not supported by any finding in the Attorney General’s investigation.”
Allred, asked to respond to those refutations, made clear she never said David undertook those actions in responding to the Blade’s question on his actions as described in the New York attorney general report.
“I never stated that Mr. David provided any documents to the media concerning any Cuomo accuser, nor did I ever state that Mr. David took any employee personnel file or records,” Allred said.
The situation with David continues to leave the Human Rights Campaign in turmoil After a tense staff meeting last week, another meeting with David, the board and staff took place over the phone on Tuesday that was emotional and confrontational, sources familiar with the meeting told the Blade.
David spoke at the beginning, reiterated his denial of wrongdoing, was emotional, but mostly stepped aside so others could talk, sources said. Michael Vazquez, an HRC staffer who has worked on faith organizing for the LGBTQ group, announced he is leaving, citing a culture of bullying and harassment, sources said.
A representative for the Human Rights Campaign, asked to comment on the meeting, confirmed it took place, but said it was a regularly scheduled staff meeting.
It’s unclear whether the situation will have any major impact on the ability of the nation’s leading LGBTQ group to conduct its mission, or whether its fundraising efforts have suffered, which could lead to layoffs for an organization already experiencing high turnover.
The HRC representative referred the Blade to an earlier statement on the matter when asked about changes in fundraising or plans for layoffs.
“This investigation will in no way hinder the organizations’ continued pursuit of the critical work necessary to bring equity and liberation to the LGBTQ+ community,” the representative said.
Allred, in addition to representing women in sexual assault cases, has been an advocate for LGBTQ rights and represented a same-sex couple in California that won marriage rights in the state in 2008 before they were taken away by Proposition 8 and later restored by the U.S. Supreme Court.
National
United Methodist Church removes 40-year ban on gay clergy
Delegates also voted for other LGBTQ-inclusive measures
The United Methodist Church on Wednesday removed a ban on gay clergy that was in place for more than 40 years, voting to also allow LGBTQ weddings and end prohibitions on the use of United Methodist funds to “promote acceptance of homosexuality.”
Overturning the policy forbidding the church from ordaining “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” effectively formalized a practice that had caused an estimated quarter of U.S. congregations to leave the church.
The New York Times notes additional votes “affirming L.G.B.T.Q. inclusion in the church are expected before the meeting adjourns on Friday.” Wednesday’s measures were passed overwhelmingly and without debate. Delegates met in Charlotte, N.C.
According to the church’s General Council on Finance and Administration, there were 5,424,175 members in the U.S. in 2022 with an estimated global membership approaching 10 million.
The Times notes that other matters of business last week included a “regionalization” plan, which gave autonomy to different regions such that they can establish their own rules on matters including issues of sexuality — about which international factions are likelier to have more conservative views.
Federal Government
Republican state AGs challenge Biden administration’s revised Title IX policies
New rules protect LGBTQ students from discrimination
Four Republicans state attorneys general have sued the Biden-Harris administration over the U.S. Department of Education’s new Title IX policies that were finalized April 19 and carry anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ students in public schools.
The lawsuit filed on Tuesday, which is led by the attorneys general of Kentucky and Tennessee, follows a pair of legal challenges from nine Republican states on Monday — all contesting the administration’s interpretation that sex-based discrimination under the statute also covers that which is based on the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
The administration also rolled back Trump-era rules governing how schools must respond to allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault, which were widely perceived as biased in favor of the interests of those who are accused.
“The U.S. Department of Education has no authority to let boys into girls’ locker rooms,” Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in a statement. “In the decades since its adoption, Title IX has been universally understood to protect the privacy and safety of women in private spaces like locker rooms and bathrooms.”
“Florida is suing the Biden administration over its unlawful Title IX changes,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wrote on social media. “Biden is abusing his constitutional authority to push an ideological agenda that harms women and girls and conflicts with the truth.”
After announcing the finalization of the department’s new rules, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona told reporters, “These regulations make it crystal clear that everyone can access schools that are safe, welcoming and that respect their rights.”
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, a question that is addressed in a separate rule proposed by the agency in April.
LGBTQ and civil rights advocacy groups praised the changes. Lambda Legal issued a statement arguing the new rule “protects LGBTQ+ students from discrimination and other abuse,” adding that it “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.”
Federal Government
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
Ruling a response to N.C., W.Va. legal challenges
BY ERIN REED | The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that transgender people are a protected class and that Medicaid bans on trans care are unconstitutional.
Furthermore, the court ruled that discriminating based on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is discrimination based on gender identity and sex. The ruling is in response to lower court challenges against state laws and policies in North Carolina and West Virginia that prevent trans people on state plans or Medicaid from obtaining coverage for gender-affirming care; those lower courts found such exclusions unconstitutional.
In issuing the final ruling, the 4th Circuit declared that trans exclusions were “obviously discriminatory” and were “in violation of the equal protection clause” of the Constitution, upholding lower court rulings that barred the discriminatory exclusions.
The 4th Circuit ruling focused on two cases in states within its jurisdiction: North Carolina and West Virginia. In North Carolina, trans state employees who rely on the State Health Plan were unable to use it to obtain gender-affirming care for gender dysphoria diagnoses.
In West Virginia, a similar exclusion applied to those on the state’s Medicaid plan for surgeries related to a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Both exclusions were overturned by lower courts, and both states appealed to the 4th Circuit.
Attorneys for the states had argued that the policies were not discriminatory because the exclusions for gender affirming care “apply to everyone, not just transgender people.” The majority of the court, however, struck down such a claim, pointing to several other cases where such arguments break down, such as same-sex marriage bans “applying to straight, gay, lesbian, and bisexual people equally,” even though straight people would be entirely unaffected by such bans.
Other cases cited included literacy tests, a tax on wearing kippot for Jewish people, and interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia.
See this portion of the court analysis here:
Of particular note in the majority opinion was a section on Geduldig v. Aiello that seemed laser-targeted toward an eventual U.S. Supreme Court decision on discriminatory policies targeting trans people. Geduldig v. Aiello, a 1974 ruling, determined that pregnancy discrimination is not inherently sex discrimination because it does not “classify on sex,” but rather, on pregnancy status.
Using similar arguments, the states claimed that gender affirming care exclusions did not classify or discriminate based on trans status or sex, but rather, on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and treatments to alleviate that dysphoria.
The majority was unconvinced, ruling, “gender dysphoria is so intimately related to transgender status as to be virtually indistinguishable from it. The excluded treatments aim at addressing incongruity between sex assigned at birth and gender identity, the very heart of transgender status.” In doing so, the majority cited several cases, many from after Geduldig was decided.
Notably, Geduldig was cited in both the 6th and 11th Circuit decisions upholding gender affirming care bans in a handful of states.
The court also pointed to the potentially ridiculous conclusions that strict readings of what counts as proxy discrimination could lead to, such as if legislators attempted to use “XX chromosomes” and “XY chromosomes” to get around sex discrimination policies:
Importantly, the court also rebutted recent arguments that Bostock applies only to “limited Title VII claims involving employers who fired” LGBTQ employees, and not to Title IX, which the Affordable Care Act’s anti-discrimination mandate references. The majority stated that this is not the case, and that there is “nothing in Bostock to suggest the holding was that narrow.”
Ultimately, the court ruled that the exclusions on trans care violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The court also ruled that the West Virginia Medicaid Program violates the Medicaid Act and the anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act.
Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of anti-trans expert testimony for lacking relevant expertise. West Virginia and North Carolina must end trans care exclusions in line with earlier district court decisions.
The decision will likely have nationwide impacts on court cases in other districts. The case had become a major battleground for trans rights, with dozens of states filing amicus briefs in favor or against the protection of the equal process rights of trans people. Twenty-one Republican states filed an amicus brief in favor of denying trans people anti-discrimination protections in healthcare, and 17 Democratic states joined an amicus brief in support of the healthcare rights of trans individuals.
Many Republican states are defending anti-trans laws that discriminate against trans people by banning or limiting gender-affirming care. These laws could come under threat if the legal rationale used in this decision is adopted by other circuits. In the 4th Circuit’s jurisdiction, West Virginia and North Carolina already have gender-affirming care bans for trans youth in place, and South Carolina may consider a similar bill this week.
The decision could potentially be used as precedent to challenge all of those laws in the near future and to deter South Carolina’s bill from passing into law.
The decision is the latest in a web of legal battles concerning trans people. Earlier this month, the 4th Circuit also reversed a sports ban in West Virginia, ruling that Title IX protects trans student athletes. However, the Supreme Court recently narrowed a victory for trans healthcare from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and allowed Idaho to continue enforcing its ban on gender-affirming care for everyone except the two plaintiffs in the case.
Importantly, that decision was not about the constitutionality of gender-affirming care, but the limits of temporary injunctions in the early stages of a constitutional challenge to discriminatory state laws. It is likely that the Supreme Court will ultimately hear cases on this topic in the near future.
Celebrating the victory, Lambda Legal Counsel and Health Care Strategist Omar Gonzalez-Pagan said in a posted statement, “The court’s decision sends a clear message that gender-affirming care is critical medical care for transgender people and that denying it is harmful and unlawful … We hope this decision makes it clear to policy makers across the country that health care decisions belong to patients, their families, and their doctors, not to politicians.”
****************************************************************************
Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.
United Methodist Church removes 40-year ban on gay clergy
Republican state AGs challenge Biden administration’s revised Title IX policies
University students have a right to protest
Former CAMP Rehoboth official sentenced to nine months in prison
Christian Siriano to serve as grand marshal of Annapolis Pride Parade
Md. governor signs Freedom to Read Act
HHS reverses Trump-era anti-LGBTQ rule
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
PHOTOS: Capital Pride Pageant
