Gay Man Was Harassed At Work For Being A ‘Cocksucker,’ Court Says It Won’t Do A Thing About It

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2015 6:48 PM GMT

    Believe me, even with US states that supposedly protect our people in employment, the republican right wing nut jobs, within corporate America, continue to find ways to discriminate against us and get away with it. This just pisses me off, this case is obviously clear icon_evil.gif

    What is so great about America again? The fight for equality has been exhausting, to say the least icon_rolleyes.gif




    http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/10/30/3717515/missouri-discrimination-ruling/


    Just this week, House Republicans blocked an attempt by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) to advance the Equality Act, which would create nationwide LGBT nondiscrimination protections. A Missouri appeals court decision this week demonstrates exactly why such legislation is necessary.

    In a 2-1 decision Tuesday, the Western District Missouri Court of Appeals ruled against James Pittman, who had sued Cook Paper Recycling Corp. for discriminating against him for being gay. Though the direct harassment and overall hostile environment was well documented in the case, the court could offer Pittman no relief. “Because the Missouri Human Rights Act does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” the majority wrote, “we affirm the circuit court’s judgment dismissing Pittman’s petition for failure to state a claim.”

    While working for Cook Paper, Pittman was told that he was a “cocksucker” and subjected to other comments of a sexual nature. He was asked if he had AIDS. He was harassed for having a same-sex partner, and was mocked when that relationship ended. The workplace was, as Pittman described it, “an objectively hostile and abusive environment.” Cook Paper ultimately fired him.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2015 7:19 PM GMT
    By way of contrast, I heard about this UK case on the radio yesterday:

    A gay man has been awarded £7,500 in a landmark case after a member of shop staff made homophobic gestures at him.

    Southend County Court heard the man had been subjected to months of gesturing by a staff member at Taylor Edwards locksmith in Shoeburyness.

    The man, named only as "Tim", brought an action against the shop and won.

    It is thought to be the first time a business has been ordered to pay damages for discrimination that was entirely "non-verbal".

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-34666469
  • Cutlass

    Posts: 426

    Oct 31, 2015 3:36 AM GMT
    It is a sad commentary on the United States, and specifically Missouri, when a person who has done nothing wrong or is subjected to harassment, hostility, ridicule, disparagement, and hatred. We need a national anti-discrimination/anti-harassment law that includes sexual orientation.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14328

    Oct 31, 2015 3:45 AM GMT
    Cutlass saidIt is a sad commentary on the United States, and specifically Missouri, when a person who has done nothing wrong or is subjected to harassment, hostility, ridicule, disparagement, and hatred. We need a national anti-discrimination/anti-harassment law that includes sexual orientation.
    It is time to put intense pressure on the Missouri state legislature to debate and pass laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I would much rather see the states do it. The federal government could withhold critical funding to states that fail to protect their GLB citizens from harassment and discrimination.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14328

    Oct 31, 2015 3:55 AM GMT
    ELNathB said
    Believe me, even with US states that supposedly protect our people in employment, the republican right wing nut jobs, within corporate America, continue to find ways to discriminate against us and get away with it. This just pisses me off, this case is obviously clear icon_evil.gif

    What is so great about America again? The fight for equality has been exhausting, to say the least icon_rolleyes.gif




    http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/10/30/3717515/missouri-discrimination-ruling/


    Just this week, House Republicans blocked an attempt by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) to advance the Equality Act, which would create nationwide LGBT nondiscrimination protections. A Missouri appeals court decision this week demonstrates exactly why such legislation is necessary.

    In a 2-1 decision Tuesday, the Western District Missouri Court of Appeals ruled against James Pittman, who had sued Cook Paper Recycling Corp. for discriminating against him for being gay. Though the direct harassment and overall hostile environment was well documented in the case, the court could offer Pittman no relief. “Because the Missouri Human Rights Act does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” the majority wrote, “we affirm the circuit court’s judgment dismissing Pittman’s petition for failure to state a claim.”

    While working for Cook Paper, Pittman was told that he was a “cocksucker” and subjected to other comments of a sexual nature. He was asked if he had AIDS. He was harassed for having a same-sex partner, and was mocked when that relationship ended. The workplace was, as Pittman described it, “an objectively hostile and abusive environment.” Cook Paper ultimately fired him.

    It is not that the court won't do a thing about it, the court can't do a thing about it because there are no specific laws prohibiting such negative actions and harassment. Until lawmakers in Jefferson City get off their asses and enact laws that prohibit such behavior on the job, there is really nothing the judicial system can do. Horribly sad but true.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2015 4:34 AM GMT
    He sued on the grounds of discrimination, not harassment. Given the lack of legal protection I would have gone the harassment route and possibly constructive dismissal. I'm wondering if the guy and his lawyer were simply taking a chance that a judge would "read in" sexual orientation as being discriminatory on the basis of sex.
  • JackNNJ

    Posts: 1051

    Nov 17, 2015 3:52 AM GMT
    Hard for a court to do anything about something like that, since it's technically true.

    If someone called me a cocksucker, I'd hug them and say "FINALLY! SOMEONE GETS ME!"
  • JackNNJ

    Posts: 1051

    Nov 17, 2015 3:55 AM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle saidWould nothing still be done if a man were to call a woman a cock sucker in the work environment?

    I'm sure that would be considered sexual harassment.


    Depends. If it were true that she was a cock-loving, cum- swallowing, deep-throating slut (which is highly likely - otherwise why would someone call her that?), then that's that.

    A known cockwhore wouldn't have a leg to stand on, well-worn knee pads notwithstanding.