INTERNATIONAL LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANS AND INTERSEX ASSOCIATION
INTERNATIONAL LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANS AND INTERSEX ASSOCIATION
UNITED STATES
The Your Stories section is all about you! Please take a minute to tell visitors of the ILGA website about what LGBTI life is like in reality. Please submit your personal story and share your experience!
YOUR STORIES
Post a new story to this section
Readers Experiences
This is what people are saying about life for LGBTI people in UNITED STATES...
showing stories 1-50
Ron
(user currently living in UNITED STATES)
posted for
gay
lesbian
transgender
bisexual
intersex
straight
readers
on 29/01/2013
tagged with tourism, intersex, at the work place, teaching lgbt rights in schools, adoption, lgbt families, hate crime and violence prevention, health, hiv/aids , gender identity, human rights, laws and leadership , sexual orientation, armed forces, religion, marriage / civil unions, illegality of female to female relationships, illegality of male to male relationships
+0
ILGA is an education in homofascism. ILGA discriminates against people based on sexual orientation - the ultimate hypocrisy. ILGA sucks.
add response to story
pro bush
(user currently living in UNITED STATES)
posted for
straight
readers
on 23/08/2012
tagged with at the work place
+4
Well it's a funny one, the day when a man is proud to lay with another man. Why not just pick up a fun and end it this is not a thing to take pride in I fear bring up my son in such a place. all I can do is tell him how wrong it is and there are no rights for these people. had one tell me it's wrong not to hire them I mean come on where's might right to tell a gay to f off If don't won't one working for me. That is my straight right.
add response to story
Jeff Wood
(user currently living in UNITED STATES)
posted for
gay
readers
on 01/08/2012
tagged with at the work place
My suit is currently in the MCAD and will hopefully be moving forward in August. Discrimination and allowing a hostile work environment is horrible. I lived it for almost a year before US Airways accused me on writing the comments and firing me without even doing an investigation. I hired my own handwriting expert who sliced US Airways handwriting expert to pieces. It is foolish to think that companies today still discriminated against GLBT person. Help me speak out against this company and let them know enough is enough!
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination
________________________________
)
Jeff, )
Complainant, )
)
v. )
)
US AIRWAYS, INC., )
Respondent. )
________________________________)
COMPLAINANT’S STATEMENT IN REBUTTAL
In accordance with correspondence from the MCAD, and as discussed at the Investigative Conference held on February 22, 2012 before Investigator XXXXX, the Complainant (“Mr. Wood”) hereby submits his Rebuttal to the Position Statement of the Respondent, US Airways, Inc. (“US Airways”), which he received on Friday, February 17, 2012.
For the reasons set forth below, Mr. Wood has established the requisite probable cause that he was subjected to a hostile work environment, and that he was later subjected to willful and unlawful retaliation.
I. Facts
There is no need to recount all the facts, as alleged in the Amended Complaint and the company’s response thereto. With regard to the company’s Position Statement, however, Mr. Wood notes the following.
In fn. 2 on page 2 of the Position Statement, US Airways states it lacks sufficient information about the statements attributed to The Director. Mr. Wood, however, has alleged there was a witness to the statements. See Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”) ¶ 5.
In paragraph 2 on page 3 of the Position Statement, US Airways denies knowledge of two instances of graffiti (found in August and September 2011, Exhibits 8 and 10 of the Am. Compl.). Mr. Wood did inform and advise HR representative XXXX and Managing Director about all the instances of graffiti, by either telephone or emails.
In the fifth paragraph on page 3, US Airways states that it “involved” Mr. Wood in the installation process. Mr. Wood responds that he was advised and directed by Station Director XXXXX with regard to where the cameras would be installed.
In the sixth paragraph on page 3 of the Position Statement, US Airways denies Mr. Wood’s allegation that he raised certain issues with The Director of HR in a conversation Mr. Wood had with on or about September 7, 2011. As alleged in the Amended Complaint, ¶ 19, this conversation was witnessed by another Manager, who could confirm that these issues were discussed at that meeting. In addition, Mr. Wood did inform Ms. XXXX from HR and the station directors of the comment made by fleet service agent XXXXX Further, the comment itself was overheard by Ramp Shift Manager XXXXXXX.
In fn. 3 on page 4, US Airways acknowledges that Mr. Wood informed Mr. XXXXX about the comments made by two union representatives. Mr. Wood hereby alleges that he also informed a HR representative about these comments, and also spoke with HR about the xxxxx matter around the same time. At the bottom of page 4 of the Position Statement, US Airways states that Mr. Wood never raised the issue of the interaction between Mr. XXXXX and Agent XXXXX. Mr. Wood, however, did mention to Mr. XXXXX , in a conversation in Mr. XXXXX office, the exchange between Mr. XXXX and Ms. XXXXX, as well as the comment made by Ms. XXXXXX.
In fn. 7 on page 5, US Airways denies any knowledge about the graffiti found on or about January 3, 2011 (exhibit 27 of the Am. Compl.). In rebuttal, Mr. Wood states that US Airways employees were aware of, observed, and/or photographed that graffiti, including XXXXX and XXXXX (who was referred to by name in this graffiti).
Finally, as for the company’s retention of a handwriting expert, Katherine Koppenhaver, and her January 19, 2012 letter, which is addressed in the Position Statement and was discussed at the Investigative Conference held on February 22, 2012, Mr. Wood offers the following in rebuttal. Mr. Wood has retained his own independent handwriting expert, Dr. Richard S. Fraser. Dr. Fraser has reviewed Ms. Koppenhaver’s letter, as well as the materials she used in forming her opinion, and found that her conclusion was flawed and unwarranted. See Exhibit 1 (March 4, 2012 letter report of Dr. Fraser). Among other things, Dr. Fraser questions Ms. Koppenhaver’s methods, and points out numerous shortcomings with her analysis and conclusion.
II. Legal Argument
Turning to the applicable law, Mr. Wood responds to the Position Statement of
US Airways as follows:
A. Mr. Wood’s Work Environment Was Sufficiently Hostile and Offensive
The factual allegations demonstrating the hostile work environment that Mr. Wood was subjected to are described in his Amended Complaint. “A hostile work environment is one that is ‘pervaded by harassment or abuse, with the resulting intimidation, humiliation, and stigmatization, and that poses a formidable barrier to the full participation of an individual in the workplace.’” Cuddyer v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., 434 Mass. 521, 532 (2001) quoting College-Town, Div. of Interco, Inc. v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 400 Mass. 156, 162 (1987).
The hostile work environment consisted of vulgar and offensive homophobic graffiti directed specifically at Mr. Wood, over approximately nine months, and the corresponding failure by US Airways to timely and adequately respond to that graffiti. Under applicable case law, this was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment. For example, in Salvi v. Suffolk County Sheriff’s Dept., 67 Mass. App. Ct. 596, 603-606 (2006), a hostile work environment was demonstrated by homophobic verbal statements made to the plaintiff and about the plaintiff, together with one instance of out-of-work harassment. In Belanger v. Sant-Gobain Industrial Ceramics, Inc., 1999 WL 1324190 *3-4 (Mass.Super. Feb. 24, 1999), two comments by a coworker about the plaintiff’s sexual orientation, made within one week after the plaintiff’s return to work following an absence stemming from sexual harassment by a different coworker, were sufficiently severe and pervasive for the jury to have concluded they created a hostile work environment. Accordingly, the Superior Court denied the defendant’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, leaving intact the jury’s damage award of $634,000, consisting of back pay ($102,000), front pay ($372,000), emotional distress damages ($52,000) and punitive damages ($108,000). And in Messina v. Araserve, Inc., 906 F.Supp. 34 (D.Mass. 1995), two months of name calling and sexually suggestive gestures were enough to constitute a hostile environment. See also Modern Continental/Obayashi v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 445 Mass. 96, 115 n.23 (2005) (assuming that graffiti constituted a form of harassment). In Rolando Cano v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 2332538 *10-*12 (E.E.O.C 2006) the hostile environment consisted of unwelcome comments, rumors and graffiti. The graffiti there was similar to that directed as Mr. Wood, including: “Cano swallows,” “Cano sucks dicks” and “Cano’s a queer.” Id. at *12. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission concluded that:
the sexually explicit comments and graffiti directed at complainant, after he expressed that he found them offensive, were sufficiently severe and pervasive to create an intimidating, hostile, and offensive work environment. The Commission notes that, evaluated from the viewpoint of a reasonable person in complainant’s circumstances, the sexually explicit comments and graffiti were extremely offensive and we not the record shows that complainant, a veteran supervisor with the agency, had his authority undermined by the offensive conduct.
Id. Mr. Wood submits that offensive verbal comments are equivalent to offensive written graffiti, and perhaps more so as they are anonymous and can be seen by many people.
The company’s failure to effectively stop the graffiti contributed to and exacerbated that hostile environment. This environment was severe and pervasive enough to alter the conditions of Mr. Wood’s employment. He suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the repeated instances of graffiti, as well as the company’s lackadaisical response to it. The totality of these circumstances are indeed enough to be offensive to a reasonable person, and were experienced as such by Mr. Wood. See Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993) (“whether an environment is ‘hostile’ or ‘abusive’ can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct”); Ruffino v. State Street Bank & Trust Co., 908 F.Supp. 1019, 1038 (D.Mass. 1995) (“hostile environment discrimination typically is not confined to one act, directed at one individual, one time; rather it is a composite of workplace action and inaction”); Belanger, supra at *4, citing Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc.
B. The Company’s Response Was Not Reasonable
Furthermore, the company’s response was not reasonable in these circumstances. The response was clearly not prompt, as US Airways acknowledges that surveillance cameras were not fully installed until September, six months after Mr. Wood’s initial complaint about inappropriate graffiti and vandalism of company property, and only after Mr. Wood had made repeated requests. Nor was appropriate training of all employees promptly undertaken or completed. As of the filing of the company’s Position Statement in February 2012 — nearly one year since Mr. Wood’s initial complaints — they concede that not all employees have completed anti-harassment training, but that it “will be completed shortly.” See Modern Continental, 445 Mass. at 111 n.17 (noting that a plaintiff’s claim survives summary judgment where there was a “protracted delay before taking any remedial action”).
Statements made by Mr. Wood’s superiors at US Airways also demonstrate the company’s unreasonable response to his repeated complaints. See Am. Compl., ¶¶ 5, 8, 10-11, 18-19. “An employer who passively tolerates the creation of a hostile working environment implicitly ratifies the perpetrator’s misconduct ….” Modern Continental, 445 Mass. at 105. The SJC continued:
Moreover, acquiescence on the part of the employer effectively communicates to the victim of harassment that her employer does not care about the hostile environment in which she must work, a message that can only operate to exacerbate the adverse effects of that hostile environment. In this context, an employer who is not part of the solution inevitably becomes part of the problem.
Ibid. See also Salvi, 67 Mass. App. Ct. at 606; Barbot v. Hapco Farms, Inc., 19 M.D.L.R. (1997) (MCAD ruled that where an employee who was called names, the employer’s response of telling the employee to “ignore the situation and get back to the job,” and promising she would be “on the lookout” and would be calling a meeting of employees in which she would condemn the name calling, was ruled an inadequate response by the employer). Commentary in this area of the law notes that “reported MCAD cases reveal a tendency of employers to underreact to claims of antigay harassment in the workplace.” Massachusetts Employment Law, MCLE, Vol. 1, Ch. 12, § 12.7.2 (2009).
With regard to the investigation of Mr. Wood’s complaints, the company’s initial response was inadequate and ineffective. Later, the company apparently began investigating whether perhaps Mr. Wood was himself responsible for the homophobic graffiti directed at him. Accusing the victim of being the perpetrator cannot possible qualify as having conducted a reasonable investigation — especially where Mr. Wood’s own handwriting expert has undermined and refuted the company’s handwriting expert’s report and conclusion. See Exhibit 1. The company’s resorting to an investigation of Mr. Wood, let alone relying on the inadequate and inconclusive report of their expert, buttresses the evidence that the company’s response was not only unreasonable but retaliatory.
C. Retaliation
With regard to Mr. Wood’s claim of unlawful retaliation against him by the company, this is demonstrated by, inter alia: the company’s delayed and ineffectual response to his initial complaints; various statements made to Mr. Wood by his supervisors; the company’s lack of legal support when Wood was falsely accused of harassment in December 2011 by fellow employee XXXXX, after Mr. Wood has filed his charge with the MCAD in October 2011; the company’s accusation that Mr. Wood himself was responsible for the offensive graffiti; and the company’s reliance on the handwriting expert’s flimsy findings as the basis for ultimately terminating his employment. The investigation of Mr. Wood, the victim of the hostile work environment, and later termination of Mr. Wood based on an inadequate and inconclusive handwriting report, constituted willful retaliation by US Airways.
Conclusion
Having offered the handwriting analysis of Dr. Fraser in rebuttal to the company’s own handwriting expert, which demonstrates the ample shortcomings with Ms. Koppenhaver’s methods and conclusion, Mr. Wood has established the necessary probable cause that he was both subjected to a hostile work environment and retaliated against.
I swear or affirm, under the pains and penalties of perjury, that I have read the above Rebuttal Statement and that it is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
__________________________
Jeffrey R. Wood, Complainant
Dated: ____________________
On this ___ day of March, 2012, before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared __________________, and proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification, which was ___________________, to be the person whose name was signed on the within document in my presence.
__________________________
Notary Public
Commission Expires:_________
Respectfully submitted,
Complainant,
Jeffrey R. Wood,
By his attorneys,
_____________________________
add response to story
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination
________________________________
)
Jeff, )
Complainant, )
)
v. )
)
US AIRWAYS, INC., )
Respondent. )
________________________________)
COMPLAINANT’S STATEMENT IN REBUTTAL
In accordance with correspondence from the MCAD, and as discussed at the Investigative Conference held on February 22, 2012 before Investigator XXXXX, the Complainant (“Mr. Wood”) hereby submits his Rebuttal to the Position Statement of the Respondent, US Airways, Inc. (“US Airways”), which he received on Friday, February 17, 2012.
For the reasons set forth below, Mr. Wood has established the requisite probable cause that he was subjected to a hostile work environment, and that he was later subjected to willful and unlawful retaliation.
I. Facts
There is no need to recount all the facts, as alleged in the Amended Complaint and the company’s response thereto. With regard to the company’s Position Statement, however, Mr. Wood notes the following.
In fn. 2 on page 2 of the Position Statement, US Airways states it lacks sufficient information about the statements attributed to The Director. Mr. Wood, however, has alleged there was a witness to the statements. See Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”) ¶ 5.
In paragraph 2 on page 3 of the Position Statement, US Airways denies knowledge of two instances of graffiti (found in August and September 2011, Exhibits 8 and 10 of the Am. Compl.). Mr. Wood did inform and advise HR representative XXXX and Managing Director about all the instances of graffiti, by either telephone or emails.
In the fifth paragraph on page 3, US Airways states that it “involved” Mr. Wood in the installation process. Mr. Wood responds that he was advised and directed by Station Director XXXXX with regard to where the cameras would be installed.
In the sixth paragraph on page 3 of the Position Statement, US Airways denies Mr. Wood’s allegation that he raised certain issues with The Director of HR in a conversation Mr. Wood had with on or about September 7, 2011. As alleged in the Amended Complaint, ¶ 19, this conversation was witnessed by another Manager, who could confirm that these issues were discussed at that meeting. In addition, Mr. Wood did inform Ms. XXXX from HR and the station directors of the comment made by fleet service agent XXXXX Further, the comment itself was overheard by Ramp Shift Manager XXXXXXX.
In fn. 3 on page 4, US Airways acknowledges that Mr. Wood informed Mr. XXXXX about the comments made by two union representatives. Mr. Wood hereby alleges that he also informed a HR representative about these comments, and also spoke with HR about the xxxxx matter around the same time. At the bottom of page 4 of the Position Statement, US Airways states that Mr. Wood never raised the issue of the interaction between Mr. XXXXX and Agent XXXXX. Mr. Wood, however, did mention to Mr. XXXXX , in a conversation in Mr. XXXXX office, the exchange between Mr. XXXX and Ms. XXXXX, as well as the comment made by Ms. XXXXXX.
In fn. 7 on page 5, US Airways denies any knowledge about the graffiti found on or about January 3, 2011 (exhibit 27 of the Am. Compl.). In rebuttal, Mr. Wood states that US Airways employees were aware of, observed, and/or photographed that graffiti, including XXXXX and XXXXX (who was referred to by name in this graffiti).
Finally, as for the company’s retention of a handwriting expert, Katherine Koppenhaver, and her January 19, 2012 letter, which is addressed in the Position Statement and was discussed at the Investigative Conference held on February 22, 2012, Mr. Wood offers the following in rebuttal. Mr. Wood has retained his own independent handwriting expert, Dr. Richard S. Fraser. Dr. Fraser has reviewed Ms. Koppenhaver’s letter, as well as the materials she used in forming her opinion, and found that her conclusion was flawed and unwarranted. See Exhibit 1 (March 4, 2012 letter report of Dr. Fraser). Among other things, Dr. Fraser questions Ms. Koppenhaver’s methods, and points out numerous shortcomings with her analysis and conclusion.
II. Legal Argument
Turning to the applicable law, Mr. Wood responds to the Position Statement of
US Airways as follows:
A. Mr. Wood’s Work Environment Was Sufficiently Hostile and Offensive
The factual allegations demonstrating the hostile work environment that Mr. Wood was subjected to are described in his Amended Complaint. “A hostile work environment is one that is ‘pervaded by harassment or abuse, with the resulting intimidation, humiliation, and stigmatization, and that poses a formidable barrier to the full participation of an individual in the workplace.’” Cuddyer v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., 434 Mass. 521, 532 (2001) quoting College-Town, Div. of Interco, Inc. v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 400 Mass. 156, 162 (1987).
The hostile work environment consisted of vulgar and offensive homophobic graffiti directed specifically at Mr. Wood, over approximately nine months, and the corresponding failure by US Airways to timely and adequately respond to that graffiti. Under applicable case law, this was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment. For example, in Salvi v. Suffolk County Sheriff’s Dept., 67 Mass. App. Ct. 596, 603-606 (2006), a hostile work environment was demonstrated by homophobic verbal statements made to the plaintiff and about the plaintiff, together with one instance of out-of-work harassment. In Belanger v. Sant-Gobain Industrial Ceramics, Inc., 1999 WL 1324190 *3-4 (Mass.Super. Feb. 24, 1999), two comments by a coworker about the plaintiff’s sexual orientation, made within one week after the plaintiff’s return to work following an absence stemming from sexual harassment by a different coworker, were sufficiently severe and pervasive for the jury to have concluded they created a hostile work environment. Accordingly, the Superior Court denied the defendant’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, leaving intact the jury’s damage award of $634,000, consisting of back pay ($102,000), front pay ($372,000), emotional distress damages ($52,000) and punitive damages ($108,000). And in Messina v. Araserve, Inc., 906 F.Supp. 34 (D.Mass. 1995), two months of name calling and sexually suggestive gestures were enough to constitute a hostile environment. See also Modern Continental/Obayashi v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 445 Mass. 96, 115 n.23 (2005) (assuming that graffiti constituted a form of harassment). In Rolando Cano v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 2332538 *10-*12 (E.E.O.C 2006) the hostile environment consisted of unwelcome comments, rumors and graffiti. The graffiti there was similar to that directed as Mr. Wood, including: “Cano swallows,” “Cano sucks dicks” and “Cano’s a queer.” Id. at *12. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission concluded that:
the sexually explicit comments and graffiti directed at complainant, after he expressed that he found them offensive, were sufficiently severe and pervasive to create an intimidating, hostile, and offensive work environment. The Commission notes that, evaluated from the viewpoint of a reasonable person in complainant’s circumstances, the sexually explicit comments and graffiti were extremely offensive and we not the record shows that complainant, a veteran supervisor with the agency, had his authority undermined by the offensive conduct.
Id. Mr. Wood submits that offensive verbal comments are equivalent to offensive written graffiti, and perhaps more so as they are anonymous and can be seen by many people.
The company’s failure to effectively stop the graffiti contributed to and exacerbated that hostile environment. This environment was severe and pervasive enough to alter the conditions of Mr. Wood’s employment. He suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the repeated instances of graffiti, as well as the company’s lackadaisical response to it. The totality of these circumstances are indeed enough to be offensive to a reasonable person, and were experienced as such by Mr. Wood. See Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993) (“whether an environment is ‘hostile’ or ‘abusive’ can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct”); Ruffino v. State Street Bank & Trust Co., 908 F.Supp. 1019, 1038 (D.Mass. 1995) (“hostile environment discrimination typically is not confined to one act, directed at one individual, one time; rather it is a composite of workplace action and inaction”); Belanger, supra at *4, citing Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc.
B. The Company’s Response Was Not Reasonable
Furthermore, the company’s response was not reasonable in these circumstances. The response was clearly not prompt, as US Airways acknowledges that surveillance cameras were not fully installed until September, six months after Mr. Wood’s initial complaint about inappropriate graffiti and vandalism of company property, and only after Mr. Wood had made repeated requests. Nor was appropriate training of all employees promptly undertaken or completed. As of the filing of the company’s Position Statement in February 2012 — nearly one year since Mr. Wood’s initial complaints — they concede that not all employees have completed anti-harassment training, but that it “will be completed shortly.” See Modern Continental, 445 Mass. at 111 n.17 (noting that a plaintiff’s claim survives summary judgment where there was a “protracted delay before taking any remedial action”).
Statements made by Mr. Wood’s superiors at US Airways also demonstrate the company’s unreasonable response to his repeated complaints. See Am. Compl., ¶¶ 5, 8, 10-11, 18-19. “An employer who passively tolerates the creation of a hostile working environment implicitly ratifies the perpetrator’s misconduct ….” Modern Continental, 445 Mass. at 105. The SJC continued:
Moreover, acquiescence on the part of the employer effectively communicates to the victim of harassment that her employer does not care about the hostile environment in which she must work, a message that can only operate to exacerbate the adverse effects of that hostile environment. In this context, an employer who is not part of the solution inevitably becomes part of the problem.
Ibid. See also Salvi, 67 Mass. App. Ct. at 606; Barbot v. Hapco Farms, Inc., 19 M.D.L.R. (1997) (MCAD ruled that where an employee who was called names, the employer’s response of telling the employee to “ignore the situation and get back to the job,” and promising she would be “on the lookout” and would be calling a meeting of employees in which she would condemn the name calling, was ruled an inadequate response by the employer). Commentary in this area of the law notes that “reported MCAD cases reveal a tendency of employers to underreact to claims of antigay harassment in the workplace.” Massachusetts Employment Law, MCLE, Vol. 1, Ch. 12, § 12.7.2 (2009).
With regard to the investigation of Mr. Wood’s complaints, the company’s initial response was inadequate and ineffective. Later, the company apparently began investigating whether perhaps Mr. Wood was himself responsible for the homophobic graffiti directed at him. Accusing the victim of being the perpetrator cannot possible qualify as having conducted a reasonable investigation — especially where Mr. Wood’s own handwriting expert has undermined and refuted the company’s handwriting expert’s report and conclusion. See Exhibit 1. The company’s resorting to an investigation of Mr. Wood, let alone relying on the inadequate and inconclusive report of their expert, buttresses the evidence that the company’s response was not only unreasonable but retaliatory.
C. Retaliation
With regard to Mr. Wood’s claim of unlawful retaliation against him by the company, this is demonstrated by, inter alia: the company’s delayed and ineffectual response to his initial complaints; various statements made to Mr. Wood by his supervisors; the company’s lack of legal support when Wood was falsely accused of harassment in December 2011 by fellow employee XXXXX, after Mr. Wood has filed his charge with the MCAD in October 2011; the company’s accusation that Mr. Wood himself was responsible for the offensive graffiti; and the company’s reliance on the handwriting expert’s flimsy findings as the basis for ultimately terminating his employment. The investigation of Mr. Wood, the victim of the hostile work environment, and later termination of Mr. Wood based on an inadequate and inconclusive handwriting report, constituted willful retaliation by US Airways.
Conclusion
Having offered the handwriting analysis of Dr. Fraser in rebuttal to the company’s own handwriting expert, which demonstrates the ample shortcomings with Ms. Koppenhaver’s methods and conclusion, Mr. Wood has established the necessary probable cause that he was both subjected to a hostile work environment and retaliated against.
I swear or affirm, under the pains and penalties of perjury, that I have read the above Rebuttal Statement and that it is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
__________________________
Jeffrey R. Wood, Complainant
Dated: ____________________
On this ___ day of March, 2012, before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared __________________, and proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification, which was ___________________, to be the person whose name was signed on the within document in my presence.
__________________________
Notary Public
Commission Expires:_________
Respectfully submitted,
Complainant,
Jeffrey R. Wood,
By his attorneys,
_____________________________
Ron
(user currently living in UNITED STATES)
posted for
gay
lesbian
transgender
bisexual
intersex
straight
readers
on 01/07/2012
tagged with tourism, intersex, at the work place, teaching lgbt rights in schools, adoption, lgbt families, hate crime and violence prevention, health, hiv/aids , gender identity, human rights, laws and leadership , sexual orientation, armed forces, religion, marriage / civil unions, illegality of female to female relationships, illegality of male to male relationships
+5
ILGA is fascist.
add response to story
(user currently living in UNITED STATES)
posted for
gay
lesbian
transgender
bisexual
intersex
straight
readers
on 30/05/2011
tagged with tourism, intersex, at the work place, teaching lgbt rights in schools, lgbt families, hate crime and violence prevention, health, hiv/aids , gender identity, human rights, laws and leadership , sexual orientation, armed forces, religion, marriage / civil unions, illegality of female to female relationships
+5
The Honolulu Pride Festival Foundation is starting to kick off this years 2011 Hawaii State Pride Fest hosted in beautiful Honolulu Hawaii September 15 - 17, 2011 and encourage all to come and participate as this year we strive to bring PRIDE AROUND THE WORLD!
As Hawaii and the rest of the United States takes pro-active choices in sharing in the equality and justice for all with long roads ahead the little steps we take will lead to bigger victories for all of our LGBT brothers and sister who do not have the same freedoms we do in America. Help our politicians to understand that PRIDE is one way of showing that we are equal and we do not have to fear the hate and discrimination from the world around us which view us as a minority community who is filled with so called "Sinners". Take a stand and support all of your PRIDE organization around the world as we work hand in hand to creating peace, equality and justice for all!
add response to story
As Hawaii and the rest of the United States takes pro-active choices in sharing in the equality and justice for all with long roads ahead the little steps we take will lead to bigger victories for all of our LGBT brothers and sister who do not have the same freedoms we do in America. Help our politicians to understand that PRIDE is one way of showing that we are equal and we do not have to fear the hate and discrimination from the world around us which view us as a minority community who is filled with so called "Sinners". Take a stand and support all of your PRIDE organization around the world as we work hand in hand to creating peace, equality and justice for all!
Jessica
posted for
transgender
readers
on 06/05/2011
tagged with at the work place, gender identity, laws and leadership
+5
I am fortunate to live in one of the few states in the United States where the civil rights of transgender people are protected under law. However, protection under law is just a beginning, an important step on the road to acceptance and overcoming prejudice. I am angry that there are people sitting just a few feet from me, at work, who deny my existence and my right to existence. It is especially the duty of privileged and fortunate people to fight for the rights of others.
add response to story
Jackie
(user currently living in UNITED STATES)
posted for
lesbian
readers
on 10/02/2011
tagged with at the work place
+10
Just a note to all those who use the Blockbuster store in Conway, South Carolina. They don't want us there! I was asked by the manager on Monday if I was gay and she said I did not need to be working around small children! I work for the city parks and rec department and I buy (or used to)movies for the afterschool program. She is so ignorant and needs to be fired!
add response to story
Joe Knudson
(user currently living in UNITED STATES)
posted for
gay
readers
on 16/11/2010
tagged with tourism, at the work place, lgbt families, human rights, laws and leadership , sexual orientation
I am a 55 year old divorced gay father of two sons who recently published a book about my life as a homosexual. I am using it as a vehicle to educate society on homosexuality (other than the sexual preference issue)as I believe a more educated society is definitely a more understanding and accepting society and along with that will eventually come equality for all in many areas! My book, LIVING THE DIFFERENCE: an enlightening story revealed for people of all ages straight or gay, is featured in my blog at http://www.thegaylyblogger.blogspot.com
add response to story
RJR
(user currently living in UNITED STATES)
posted for
gay
lesbian
transgender
bisexual
intersex
straight
readers
on 06/11/2010
tagged with tourism, intersex, at the work place, teaching lgbt rights in schools, adoption, lgbt families, hate crime and violence prevention, health, hiv/aids , gender identity, human rights, laws and leadership , sexual orientation, armed forces, religion, marriage / civil unions, illegality of female to female relationships, illegality of male to male relationships
"Welcome to the 21st Century" by Reinaldo J. Rendon
Oct.04 2010
It hasn’t been too long since the recognition of civil rights for women and our black brethren has allowed their successful integration into what has become a more tolerant, even welcoming society to those that were originally oppressed by outdated laws, and fearful politicians. Although society and laws are still adapting to these modifications, their success has depended mostly on the efforts of those who saw conservation of unnecessary old customs as misguided way to conceal inconvenient or uncomfortable truths. By truth I refer to something universal, unaffected by our perceptions; by truth in this case I refer to equality and freedom.
Thousands of years have passed since certain flawed corrupted/outdated values of the church began to persecute "the wicked", from witches to demons as its doctrine spread through all corners of the Earth. Meanwhile, science has been evolving alongside human civilization and society. Although our knowledge and justice systems have supposedly evolved to the point where we understand all capable humans as equals, (and those not fully capable, as still human…sometimes more), we still don’t have laws that protect and grant gay citizens the same rights, protections, and benefits as our heterosexual counterparts.
Greater understanding of the human mind has been achieved since the consolidation of psychology as a social science. No longer “witches”, nor possessed, we understand mentally ill patients and their conditions; we create treatments to aid them, and structure adequate processes to integrate them into society in a way that they can successfully “fuse” with the system. With the progress of science, and its imminent exposure of the truth, many conservatives have come to re-awaken to the idea that Christianity promotes love and tolerance, not hate nor discrimination. I remember a great quote from a great man who once said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” with a hooker-made-apostle lying at his feet. Although we now frown upon societies that throw stones as ways of punishing their “criminals”, many still throw verbal/mental stones at those who are different simply because they were not educated properly and laws haven’t progressed rapidly enough to protect those in need.
“In recognition of the scientific evidence, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973, stating that “homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities.
After thoroughly reviewing the scientific data, the American Psychological Association adopted the same position in 1975, and urged all mental health professionals “to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations…Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life” (American Psychiatric Association, 1975).
This is true in every sense but the legal one, for denying homosexuals the right to benefit from social/financial unions such as marriage deprives them of certain benefits such as tax-breaks, insurance coverage, or even to be treated as a family member at the time of an accident. The right for a gay American to marry their foreign lover in order to live happily in their free country is impossible; their relationship has no option but to end the moment their foreign “life-partner’s” Visa expires.
Furthermore, the absence of laws that prevent the hate word “faggot” being as commonly used as the hate word “nigger” was before the creation of civil laws that protected the blacks, prevents the social boundaries that allow proper growth of youths in a non-hostile environment. Evidence of this are the (now due to the increasing growth of general acceptance, as the next generation of straight and gay citizens whose education has been updated steps up to the plate) recently public wave of juvenile suicide cases...that are sadly, and ultimately, nothing new...
The point is that people’s lives are still ticking away while bureaucrats place the issue on the back-burner generation after generation, refusing to accept that gay people are equal, and therefore deserve the same rights as everyone else. While most other developed nations in Europe, and even Latin American (Colombia, Argentina, Mexico currently debating it) permit civil unions between homosexuals with equal recognition of all their rights, “The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave” continues to ignore the silent screaming of a small, but definetly existent percentage of their population that seeks nothing more but an equal opportunity at happiness. If the constitution and even the declaration of independence place us all as equals, defining America as a nation ruled by majority, that protects minorities…then how can we allow our rights to freedom, financial prosperity, protection of our nation, and even to live safely in peace without being forced to deny who you are slip away from us.
Is there not a separation between Church and State? Does scientific evidence hold any value over social struggle against the conservation of ignorance? Aren’t we all guaranteed the same protections and rights regardless of our race, gender, sexual orientation, or favorite ice-cream flavor? Do societies evolve or change on their own?
Gay (much like “straight” or “bi”) is also not a choice, but it is something that affects everyone, regardless of their race, gender, or religious preference across the globe since the beginning of civilization. Even animals may choose a same-sex life partner as evidenced by the study of the University of Oslo, that states “More than 1500 species where homosexuality have been observed” (“Against Nature? Oslo). Gay should not be a taboo. Gay is not an illness that can be prayed nor drugged away. You can attempt to brainwash someone into becoming straight, but then you would just be hindering their potential to fully experience their lives, and their rights to explore themselves as human beings without hurting anyone.
Would you want your children, or a loved one's child to live unhappily repressed simply because God/Genetics made them in a certain way that the world hasn’t updated fast enough to fully accept them as people? In a world of repression and lies, it would not be difficult for one to marry someone that is secretly gay, and refuses to come out simply out of lack of courage that it takes to live under such different conditions...do you think that could truly be a happy and honest marriage? Think about the children caught within the parental struggle to stabilize their personal mentality and sexuality and their mental health compared to those that grow up in open and caring environments.
With Florida being one of the many states that recognizes gays’ right to adopt (instead of permitting an vast number of children stuck in orphanages or foster homes relying on state budget/care), we join many developed nations who understand the full personal/economic value of all its tax-payers without any form of discrimination. Furthermore, if the violation of the sanctity of marriage is in question, then know some consider divorce a far greater offense, for it breaks an oath made in front God and the State (perjury?)...but it was still implemented into law due to the social necessity that so many people required in order to find financial and personal stability in their lives.
To simplify the concept a bit more:
If Gay-Joe and Gay-Jane were perceived as “people” instead of “gays” by the majority, our society would improve a lot more having provided every normal human being the rights and protections they deserve. People shouldn’t be perceived legally or socially by who they are biologically, but by what they hope to do for the world around them. This would promote a more accepting co-existence between all members of American society, as well as monogamy and general honesty.
Most conservatives that still discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation are mostly misinformed, or choose to ignore truth simply out of the comfort brought on by tradition or some form of profit. Others are closeted gays who envy the freedom, while others are simply out to hate on someone for what they’ve been taught as “sins” to feel a little better about their own faults; however they’re not the ones we allow to write our academic texts, nor are they the knowledgeable authorities we quote when we teach facts in our schools. Also, if gays were allowed to formally unite under the state, and their individual interpretation of God (we all see our Creator differently, we have a right to do so), that alone would promote monogamy and prevent sexually transmitted diseases among all groups (not that gays are statistically in the lead anymore; now replaced by African-American men). This would also allow more people to reconcile with the bonds that have been severed by temples that promote hate and discrimination, instead of providing help to those in need, or uniting the children of God without casting any stones (if they truly do see him as the supreme judge).
I invite you all to re-examine your definitions of justice, violence, and empathy for we are forging today the world of tomorrow, and as we do, we must do so carefully given how this nation has remained the center-stage of the world (at the very least in terms of democratic ideals) for a couple centuries. It shouldn't take global calamities, waves of pestilence, the bloody (in a term familiar to most: expensive) aftermath of riots and wars, or financial meltdowns for people to focus more in building the bridges and crumbling the walls that separate us, before they become bars in the dawn of an age with diminishing natural resources, and the decaying socio-political values that impede people from realizing how much influence they have lost over the basics of their democratic principles. We are all still working on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s dream to make this nation “rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal”…and that no one should be judged by the color of their skin (or the way God/Genetics brought them into the world).
We shouldn’t wait for it to “get better”, it should be “alright” for all who support and believe the democratic spirit of America, a nation conformed of different states that in spite of being slightly different in their ideology, most stand united as those who wish to protect freedom and peace.
Remember, America is “The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave”.
add response to story
Oct.04 2010
It hasn’t been too long since the recognition of civil rights for women and our black brethren has allowed their successful integration into what has become a more tolerant, even welcoming society to those that were originally oppressed by outdated laws, and fearful politicians. Although society and laws are still adapting to these modifications, their success has depended mostly on the efforts of those who saw conservation of unnecessary old customs as misguided way to conceal inconvenient or uncomfortable truths. By truth I refer to something universal, unaffected by our perceptions; by truth in this case I refer to equality and freedom.
Thousands of years have passed since certain flawed corrupted/outdated values of the church began to persecute "the wicked", from witches to demons as its doctrine spread through all corners of the Earth. Meanwhile, science has been evolving alongside human civilization and society. Although our knowledge and justice systems have supposedly evolved to the point where we understand all capable humans as equals, (and those not fully capable, as still human…sometimes more), we still don’t have laws that protect and grant gay citizens the same rights, protections, and benefits as our heterosexual counterparts.
Greater understanding of the human mind has been achieved since the consolidation of psychology as a social science. No longer “witches”, nor possessed, we understand mentally ill patients and their conditions; we create treatments to aid them, and structure adequate processes to integrate them into society in a way that they can successfully “fuse” with the system. With the progress of science, and its imminent exposure of the truth, many conservatives have come to re-awaken to the idea that Christianity promotes love and tolerance, not hate nor discrimination. I remember a great quote from a great man who once said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” with a hooker-made-apostle lying at his feet. Although we now frown upon societies that throw stones as ways of punishing their “criminals”, many still throw verbal/mental stones at those who are different simply because they were not educated properly and laws haven’t progressed rapidly enough to protect those in need.
“In recognition of the scientific evidence, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973, stating that “homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities.
After thoroughly reviewing the scientific data, the American Psychological Association adopted the same position in 1975, and urged all mental health professionals “to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations…Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life” (American Psychiatric Association, 1975).
This is true in every sense but the legal one, for denying homosexuals the right to benefit from social/financial unions such as marriage deprives them of certain benefits such as tax-breaks, insurance coverage, or even to be treated as a family member at the time of an accident. The right for a gay American to marry their foreign lover in order to live happily in their free country is impossible; their relationship has no option but to end the moment their foreign “life-partner’s” Visa expires.
Furthermore, the absence of laws that prevent the hate word “faggot” being as commonly used as the hate word “nigger” was before the creation of civil laws that protected the blacks, prevents the social boundaries that allow proper growth of youths in a non-hostile environment. Evidence of this are the (now due to the increasing growth of general acceptance, as the next generation of straight and gay citizens whose education has been updated steps up to the plate) recently public wave of juvenile suicide cases...that are sadly, and ultimately, nothing new...
The point is that people’s lives are still ticking away while bureaucrats place the issue on the back-burner generation after generation, refusing to accept that gay people are equal, and therefore deserve the same rights as everyone else. While most other developed nations in Europe, and even Latin American (Colombia, Argentina, Mexico currently debating it) permit civil unions between homosexuals with equal recognition of all their rights, “The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave” continues to ignore the silent screaming of a small, but definetly existent percentage of their population that seeks nothing more but an equal opportunity at happiness. If the constitution and even the declaration of independence place us all as equals, defining America as a nation ruled by majority, that protects minorities…then how can we allow our rights to freedom, financial prosperity, protection of our nation, and even to live safely in peace without being forced to deny who you are slip away from us.
Is there not a separation between Church and State? Does scientific evidence hold any value over social struggle against the conservation of ignorance? Aren’t we all guaranteed the same protections and rights regardless of our race, gender, sexual orientation, or favorite ice-cream flavor? Do societies evolve or change on their own?
Gay (much like “straight” or “bi”) is also not a choice, but it is something that affects everyone, regardless of their race, gender, or religious preference across the globe since the beginning of civilization. Even animals may choose a same-sex life partner as evidenced by the study of the University of Oslo, that states “More than 1500 species where homosexuality have been observed” (“Against Nature? Oslo). Gay should not be a taboo. Gay is not an illness that can be prayed nor drugged away. You can attempt to brainwash someone into becoming straight, but then you would just be hindering their potential to fully experience their lives, and their rights to explore themselves as human beings without hurting anyone.
Would you want your children, or a loved one's child to live unhappily repressed simply because God/Genetics made them in a certain way that the world hasn’t updated fast enough to fully accept them as people? In a world of repression and lies, it would not be difficult for one to marry someone that is secretly gay, and refuses to come out simply out of lack of courage that it takes to live under such different conditions...do you think that could truly be a happy and honest marriage? Think about the children caught within the parental struggle to stabilize their personal mentality and sexuality and their mental health compared to those that grow up in open and caring environments.
With Florida being one of the many states that recognizes gays’ right to adopt (instead of permitting an vast number of children stuck in orphanages or foster homes relying on state budget/care), we join many developed nations who understand the full personal/economic value of all its tax-payers without any form of discrimination. Furthermore, if the violation of the sanctity of marriage is in question, then know some consider divorce a far greater offense, for it breaks an oath made in front God and the State (perjury?)...but it was still implemented into law due to the social necessity that so many people required in order to find financial and personal stability in their lives.
To simplify the concept a bit more:
If Gay-Joe and Gay-Jane were perceived as “people” instead of “gays” by the majority, our society would improve a lot more having provided every normal human being the rights and protections they deserve. People shouldn’t be perceived legally or socially by who they are biologically, but by what they hope to do for the world around them. This would promote a more accepting co-existence between all members of American society, as well as monogamy and general honesty.
Most conservatives that still discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation are mostly misinformed, or choose to ignore truth simply out of the comfort brought on by tradition or some form of profit. Others are closeted gays who envy the freedom, while others are simply out to hate on someone for what they’ve been taught as “sins” to feel a little better about their own faults; however they’re not the ones we allow to write our academic texts, nor are they the knowledgeable authorities we quote when we teach facts in our schools. Also, if gays were allowed to formally unite under the state, and their individual interpretation of God (we all see our Creator differently, we have a right to do so), that alone would promote monogamy and prevent sexually transmitted diseases among all groups (not that gays are statistically in the lead anymore; now replaced by African-American men). This would also allow more people to reconcile with the bonds that have been severed by temples that promote hate and discrimination, instead of providing help to those in need, or uniting the children of God without casting any stones (if they truly do see him as the supreme judge).
I invite you all to re-examine your definitions of justice, violence, and empathy for we are forging today the world of tomorrow, and as we do, we must do so carefully given how this nation has remained the center-stage of the world (at the very least in terms of democratic ideals) for a couple centuries. It shouldn't take global calamities, waves of pestilence, the bloody (in a term familiar to most: expensive) aftermath of riots and wars, or financial meltdowns for people to focus more in building the bridges and crumbling the walls that separate us, before they become bars in the dawn of an age with diminishing natural resources, and the decaying socio-political values that impede people from realizing how much influence they have lost over the basics of their democratic principles. We are all still working on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s dream to make this nation “rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal”…and that no one should be judged by the color of their skin (or the way God/Genetics brought them into the world).
We shouldn’t wait for it to “get better”, it should be “alright” for all who support and believe the democratic spirit of America, a nation conformed of different states that in spite of being slightly different in their ideology, most stand united as those who wish to protect freedom and peace.
Remember, America is “The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave”.
(user currently living in UNITED STATES)
posted for
lesbian
readers
on 08/07/2010
tagged with at the work place, human rights, laws and leadership , sexual orientation
+0
7/7/10
My partner is being discriminated against at her job by her supervisor because of her sexual preference.He has used derogatory terms such as calling her Sr. and Mr. He has questioned as to why she prefers women over men as well as gave her the most difficult labors and has told her that it suits her because she wants to be man, and that what men do. It has been an ongoing situation for the past 3 month. She opted not to say anything due to the fact that she relatively new there. Yet the injustices soften a coworker’s heart and came forward and brought the matter to the attention of the general manager. It is happening so fast for her, she does not know what to do. She is not sure if she should seek legal advice or let her employer settle the situation with the interest of the company in first row…
Sad lover in NY
add response to story
My partner is being discriminated against at her job by her supervisor because of her sexual preference.He has used derogatory terms such as calling her Sr. and Mr. He has questioned as to why she prefers women over men as well as gave her the most difficult labors and has told her that it suits her because she wants to be man, and that what men do. It has been an ongoing situation for the past 3 month. She opted not to say anything due to the fact that she relatively new there. Yet the injustices soften a coworker’s heart and came forward and brought the matter to the attention of the general manager. It is happening so fast for her, she does not know what to do. She is not sure if she should seek legal advice or let her employer settle the situation with the interest of the company in first row…
Sad lover in NY
Twilli
(user currently living in UNITED STATES)
posted for
lesbian
readers
on 29/04/2010
tagged with at the work place
+0
I AM CURRENTLY LIVING IN THE UNITED STATES. I am a married woman in love with another woman. I am moving to the UK in July. I am sick with my decision, but I feel its the right thing to do we do have a 6 year old daughter. Lost between 2 worlds.
add response to story
I committed statutory rape with a 15-year old male when I was 51. He was my student. I loved and love him whole-heartedly and completely, and promised him unconditional love, long before any sex took place. Human behavior is complicated and has many varieties. This is an unusual story. The government told a cartoon story with broad strokes of black and white.
I was imprisoned without bond, and had my freedom of speech taken away before I had been convicted of any crime. Newspapers printed government press releases without any checking of any facts. If necessary, I will submit to a polygraph on any statement I make, from any independent administrator. Ask those who contradict my statements if they will do the same. If a statement was proved by evidence or the victim's statements, I will put (P). I have discovered that the police falsify information, and distort and manipulate facts and testimony. My belief in the United States has been shaken.
The young man, a South American adopted into an Orthodox Jewish family, was cutting himself in September of 2009 when we met. He told me it was from the frustration with his home life, and not being allowed to be Latino or social, and being forced to observe a religion he found oppressive. He said one sister attacked him physically several times. He is a remarkable, bright, witty, and kind human being, with a fierce urge for freedom. I found him to be extraordinary. He came to see me most days, even more often after he was warned by his parents that I was homosexual, I found out later.(P) He brought a chess board in for lunches when he found out I played chess. We talked about history, religion, politics, psychology. He eventually he told me about the cutting.
I called his father, talked to the rabbis, called a psychologist, put him in touch with a former student with whom I thought he might click (heterosexual), gave him a copy of The Road Less Travelled, the best book I thought on how one gets happy. He kept cutting. I was frantic to help. I promised to love him unconditionally, forever. We loved talking, and I hoped I could make up whatever he lacked. I promised to do anything in my power to help him be happy. I sent him affirmation texts. (Know you are loved, you are great as you are, say "I am a wonderful person," etc.)
Some months later, on the phone, he said we should have sex. I told him that was a "really bad idea."
Some time later, he said he was playing tennis next to my building, and he would come by to work on a project. He came up, and said he was not there to work on the project, but to have sex. I tried to talk him out of it. (P) I said I could love him without sex. (P) He said I didn't have to. I said he did not owe me sex for love. He said he knew he did not owe, he wanted it, and he said I did too. I said sex was not that important, that he should not ask such a thing just for sex. He said it was for true love, that we were soul mates, we would be together forever. I said if we were soul mates then, we would be so in a few years. He said, true, but since we were we did not have to wait. Many times, he said he needed it to live. He confirmed at trial that he believed that. (P) He believed he loved me and that I loved him. (P) I said he should be with someone his age. He said he was attracted to older men. (P) I said everyone would assume it was my fault when it came out (even years later if we were together). He said he would tell them he picked me, and besides, we would be together. He said he had known what he wanted for a long time. He said such things happened all the time. Nothing happened that day (Feb,. 13 2010) We agreed to work it out. The conversation continued the next day with many more reasons for no on my part. He finally said if it was not me, it would be some other older white guy. (P) I agreed on February 14.
I have tried to be a good person my whole life. I try not to manipulate people. I love people without sex; sex and love are not the same thing. I do not even like to have sex with someone drunk, even a boyfriend because of the consent issue. I have always tried to tell the truth. Even in teaching, I would tell students the reason I was doing something (quizzes are designed to force you to read, etc.) I have tried to help the outcasts, with chess and theater. Many students said I saved lives, saved souls.
No combination of things could have made me give in like those. I had to save the life of someone I loved, a soul mate with love so true that 35 years made no difference, and if I didn't do it he would go do it somewhere else. I justified it by saving his life, not denying true love, and protecting him from those who did not love him. It was clearly wrong, but has anyone been subject to such arguments in such a situation? He said, trust me, believe me.
I thought that rejection just might kill him. I thought he wanted to be trusted and believed. I rationalized that the release of sex with someone he loved might stop the cutting. I let myself believe. He said in a statement later he did it for power and control. (P) The cutting stopped for four months until another fight with his sister.
Once I agreed I did whatever I could to make him happy. He was very advanced sexually. He claimed that I was the first, but close examination of his statement excluded from trial makes that claim dubious. He wanted to try light bondage and spanking. I always did what he asked. The prosecutor loved to say "penetrated with objects." I was the far more often penetrated. Everything done was done mutually. He was very happy, almost giddy. Only he could arrange meeting times. I came when he called, and did what he asked. He estimated 50 to 60 times in 5 months. The frequency with which he chose should have been proof of a loving if wrong relationship; I had no ability to arrange to see him. The schedule was his. He repeatedly texted and told me "You saved my life."
I had to move to Virginia to make more money. He said he wanted us to be together, so I remained faithful. I saw him that Christmas break, once, and it was clear he was no longer interested. He had been sleeping with a number of other older men. (P This is factual from his statements, not speculation.) I did not know that until my arrest. He called me to officially end the relationship in January. I was heart-broken, but I never raised his vow of eternal love. I tried to continue loving him as a friend. We soon emailed, and I never asked to renew the sexual relationship. I offered to be a best friend (my choice) or never talk to him if that was what he needed. (P) His emails say things like "Thank you...for everything," and "Not worry about you? Not possible." The emails are available.
He broke contact in early June of 2011. I heard by email from someone claiming to be him in October of that year, but it was not him. I denied the sex, thinking it was his family. I promised to do anything to help him if HE asked, and ended contact with the impostor. It was a Florida law enforcement agent. That was my first offer to turn myself in.
He got in trouble for his sexual contact with men. He refused to cooperate with police. (P) He was locked in psychological facilities for a year. He was brainwashed into changing the facts of what happened, (P) and his attitude was reversed. As far as I can tell, he was locked up for being actively gay. He was 17 for most of that time. In May 2012 he cooperated with police, and contacted me. When he called, I said I was ready to come tell the truth if that was what he needed. My second offer. He said he wanted me to come see him (reversed by police) and that he could not wait until he was 18. (P) I was confused by his previous rejection and now reversal. The policeman, as the young man, sent me sexually suggestive texts and emails, begging for me to renew the relationship, and made me promise to say something on the phone. It was the young man on the phone. I promised, and the young man initiated phone sex at the behest of the police. (P) I tried to decline; he said he had "needs." (P) I came to Florida and was arrested, after telling him twice more on the phone I would come and tell the truth. He was three months away from his 18th birthday at this point. The federal age of consent is 16, but they charged me under the Florida age of 18, but using a federal charge that carried a sentence of 10 to life.
The young man's police statement on which the indictment was based was largely disproved at trial. (P) The federal government charged me under an internet predator law, convinced that there were other victims. The police directed or suggested the false testimony. (P) They said I showed him child porn, which makes no sense. This was dismissed on sentencing, but they used it twice in trial to disgust the jury. They kept hinting at trial and sentencing about other victims, who do not exist, in spite of running a hotline number that was carried in the US and England. I find men from the age of maturity to 30ish more attractive sexually than older men, though not exclusively. Do heterosexuals do this as well? Does a 50 year old heterosexual fantasize about 50 year-ld women? I tried NOT to see students outside of school. I would never seduce anyone; the greatest attraction for me is someone's desire for me.
When the other victims did not appear, they brought in the FBI grooming expert to say I groomed him, since the evidence of persuading, enticing, inducing or coercing was slim. No grooming scenario exists in which the "groomer" waits for the "victim" to ask for sex, and then tries to dissuade the "victim." As unlikely as my story sounds, at trial he admitted that he, not I, proposed sex, that I tried to talk him out of it (and thus he talked me into it), that he BELIEVED he needed it to live, that I said I could love him without sex, and that he said he would find another older white guy if I said no. He AFFIRMED these at trial.
The interpretation of the law for induce as "cause" is to "allow to happen," when it should mean force. Under this absurd reading, this law has a LOWER threshold of guilt than statutory rape; a text message saying "OK, I will pick you up," would convict, without any contact. If every gay teen who texted an older lover were to be found in South Florida, there would be an army in prison. Statutory rape under federal guidelines carries a 41-51 month sentence. I was given 200 months under the persuasion statute. I had offered to plead guilty to statutory rape and it was rejected; they blamed me at sentencing for putting him through the trial.
Most heterosexual women in the same situation are sentenced to probation to two years. The application of this statute was arbitrary and unequal. The prosecutor announced to the jury that he granted that the "sex was consensual." The age of consent in Israel is 15, so in that civilized a country I would not even have committed a crime at all. The rich are sued for this. Where is the moral fairness?
Why was I prosecuted this way? Conservative politics and homosexuality. The family is Orthodox Jewish, the investigator who fashioned the testimony is Catholic, the prosecutor is Republican, and the judge voted for Rick Santorum.
I believed saving his life, or both of us believing it, would mitigate the statutory rape charge. I believed telling the truth and offering to turn myself in would mitigate. Telling the truth was the worst thing I could have done. Had I denied him when he called, and lied, nothing would have happened. I tried to be honest; rejecting him seemed to violate my vow of love.
I do not "blame" him for sleeping with other men. I do not love him less. I would have done anything for his happiness. I would have gladly NOT slept with him. I rationalized that I was being courageous to save his life and risk my own. I felt he was testing to see if my vow of eternal, unconditional love was real. He convinced me we were breaking convention for our mutual happiness. I thought I could serve some years to save him. If it truly saved his life, I wish I could say that knowing what I do now, I would still have been loyal enough to say yes. I would not have had the courage. I am sorry it happened either way.
Does love matter? Does fairness matter? Does the truth matter? When does a person have sexual and religious freedom? Can a conservative family change those by locking someone in psychological units, to change attitudes and alter facts? Does gay sex justify any level of charges, and any lying by the government?
I hope the young will save my life some day.
Please tell my story.
Thomas Patrick Keelan 98219-004
FDC Miami