Sunday, March 13, 2011
It's about gender not sexuality -- at least for men's spaces
Gay Pennsylvania man claims gender discrimination in suit
Attorneys for women’s groups file friend-of-the court briefs in support
Published Thursday, 09-Oct-2008 in issue 1085
PITTSBURGH (AP) – A gay western Pennsylvania man claims co-workers who nicknamed him “Princess” and otherwise harassed him about his effeminate behavior discriminated against his gender, not his sexual orientation, and wants a federal appeals court to reinstate his related lawsuit.
But a lawyer for the defendant company said Brian Prowel’s suit was rightfully dismissed by a judge last year because it is really about sexual orientation bias, which isn’t covered by federal Title VII.
“Despite the socially controversial subject matter, this is a statutory interpretation case,” defense attorney Kurt Miller argued before a three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 1.
Prowel’s lawyers contend the rampant harassment – which the company acknowledges – was at least partially fueled by Prowel’s nonconformity with traditional male stereotypes. Since 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that gender stereotyping constitutes illegal gender discrimination.
Prowel, 39, of Penn Hills, was fired in 2004 from his job at Wise Business Forms Inc. of Butler, where he had worked since 1991. He said the harassment occurred after he was “outed” by other employees sometime before 1997.
Prowel contends he was fired after complaining that co-workers nicknamed him “Rosebud” and “Princess” and ridiculed the way he walked, spoke and even sat, with his leg crossed and foot swinging. Among other things, the suit says, workers left a feathered tiara at his work station and wrote graffiti about Prowel and AIDS on bathroom walls.
The company says Prowel was laid off with other workers due to a business slowdown, and that he had complained about his pay and developed attitude problems. The company says other workers complained about Prowel trying to “recruit” them to testify for the bias lawsuit he eventually filed in 2006.
Some of the harassment was spurred by his outwardly effeminate mannerisms, which constitutes gender discrimination, Prowel’s attorneys said. They want a jury to decide whether Prowel’s tormentors were targeting his sexual orientation or his failure to live up to the typical male stereotype.
“If there is a mixed motive, we get the benefit of the doubt,” Prowel attorney Katie Eyer said after arguments.
Attorneys representing 21 women’s groups have filed a friend-of-the-court brief saying Prowel’s experience is the same as a woman being discriminated against for being too masculine or assertive – regardless of her sexual orientation.
But defense lawyer Miller agreed with U.S. District Judge Terry McVerry, whose 15-page opinion rejecting Prowel’s initial lawsuit said Congress did not outlaw bias against sexual orientation in Title VII.
“Permitting a plaintiff to simply relabel a sexual orientation claim as one for failure to conform to gender stereotypes would evade the statutory intent of Congress,” McVerry wrote.
To accept Prowel’s argument is to believe Congress intended Title VII to protect gay men from discrimination only if they act effeminately, Miller said.
Attorneys for women’s groups file friend-of-the court briefs in support
Published Thursday, 09-Oct-2008 in issue 1085
PITTSBURGH (AP) – A gay western Pennsylvania man claims co-workers who nicknamed him “Princess” and otherwise harassed him about his effeminate behavior discriminated against his gender, not his sexual orientation, and wants a federal appeals court to reinstate his related lawsuit.
But a lawyer for the defendant company said Brian Prowel’s suit was rightfully dismissed by a judge last year because it is really about sexual orientation bias, which isn’t covered by federal Title VII.
“Despite the socially controversial subject matter, this is a statutory interpretation case,” defense attorney Kurt Miller argued before a three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 1.
Prowel’s lawyers contend the rampant harassment – which the company acknowledges – was at least partially fueled by Prowel’s nonconformity with traditional male stereotypes. Since 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that gender stereotyping constitutes illegal gender discrimination.
Prowel, 39, of Penn Hills, was fired in 2004 from his job at Wise Business Forms Inc. of Butler, where he had worked since 1991. He said the harassment occurred after he was “outed” by other employees sometime before 1997.
Prowel contends he was fired after complaining that co-workers nicknamed him “Rosebud” and “Princess” and ridiculed the way he walked, spoke and even sat, with his leg crossed and foot swinging. Among other things, the suit says, workers left a feathered tiara at his work station and wrote graffiti about Prowel and AIDS on bathroom walls.
The company says Prowel was laid off with other workers due to a business slowdown, and that he had complained about his pay and developed attitude problems. The company says other workers complained about Prowel trying to “recruit” them to testify for the bias lawsuit he eventually filed in 2006.
Some of the harassment was spurred by his outwardly effeminate mannerisms, which constitutes gender discrimination, Prowel’s attorneys said. They want a jury to decide whether Prowel’s tormentors were targeting his sexual orientation or his failure to live up to the typical male stereotype.
“If there is a mixed motive, we get the benefit of the doubt,” Prowel attorney Katie Eyer said after arguments.
Attorneys representing 21 women’s groups have filed a friend-of-the-court brief saying Prowel’s experience is the same as a woman being discriminated against for being too masculine or assertive – regardless of her sexual orientation.
But defense lawyer Miller agreed with U.S. District Judge Terry McVerry, whose 15-page opinion rejecting Prowel’s initial lawsuit said Congress did not outlaw bias against sexual orientation in Title VII.
“Permitting a plaintiff to simply relabel a sexual orientation claim as one for failure to conform to gender stereotypes would evade the statutory intent of Congress,” McVerry wrote.
To accept Prowel’s argument is to believe Congress intended Title VII to protect gay men from discrimination only if they act effeminately, Miller said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)