DOJ intervenes in Gay Rights case, Cites Civil Rights law.

[SirNitram]

Link

MOHAWK —

The U.S. Justice Department intervention in the civil case of a former Mohawk Central School District student could lead to a broader interpretation of a federal law that prohibits gender discrimination by applying it to the harassment of a gay male, an attorney in the case said Friday night.

The 14-year-old openly gay student, Jacob, who once attended Gregory B. Jarvis Junior/Senior High School, alleges the district failed to stop other students and a teacher from bullying him because of his sexual orientation.

The federal involvement represents a significant shift for the Justice Department under the Obama administration, the New York Civil Liberties Union lawyer said.

The government cites Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was passed to prevent gender discrimination, as the basis for joining the lawsuit filed last summer in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of New York.

The teenager’s lawyers Friday night cast the case as a fight for basic human rights.

“This is a very significant development and great news for the children who go to school in the Mohawk district,” said Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the NYCLU, which filed the suit on Jacob's behalf.

The suit seeks undisclosed monetary damages. The Justice Department’s legal filing states the government is entering the case against Mohawk to ensure “district-wide relief for all district students” in the future.

Last week, an assistant attorney general in Washington authorized the Justice Department’s intervention “by certifying that this is a case of general public importance,” court records state.

Jacob has withdrawn from the Mohawk district and attends high school in a neighboring district, the government said. The name of that district could not be learned.

Lieberman said she expected a thorough federal investigation.

“I think the weight of the federal government concern will be enormously helpful in ensuring the problems raised in this case are adequately addressed,” she said. “The Justice Department deeply cares about the right of all children to go to school in a safe environment.”

She said the November 2008 election of Barack Obama as president meant federal lawyers were willing to take on cases they had not previously were concerned with.

“There should be nothing political about a case like this,” she said. “That said, we didn’t get a whole lot of help on this issue in the previous administration.”

In a statement, the school district suggested it was close to a possible settlement, but Superintendent Joyce Caputo declined to elaborate Friday. A response to motions in the case is due Monday, Feb. 8, and a status hearing is scheduled before U.S. Magistrate Judge David Peebles in Syracuse on Wednesday, Feb. 24.

“The Mohawk Central School District cooperated fully with representatives of the U.S. Justice Department back in December when they indicated an interest in this case. We’ll continue to cooperate,” Caputo said in the statement.

The district is open to new ideas and recommendations on how it can take a more proactive role in teaching respect and an appreciation for diversity, she said. The district has conducted staff development programs on the topic and put several new anti-bullying programs and supports into place in the past year.

“We live in both a state and a nation that are becoming increasingly diverse,” Caputo said.

Last month, Justice Department lawyers interviewed several Mohawk school officials, including Caputo, former Jarvis Principal Edward Rinaldo, interim Principal Jon Speich and district equal opportunity compliance officer Cynthia Stocker.

Rinaldo left the district for another job, and his departure was unrelated to the suit, Caputo said.

In recent years, the openly gay student became the subject of verbal and physical harassment, the lawsuit states. Last year, he began dyeing his hair and wearing eye makeup, which the lawsuit states intensified the bullying, to the point he was pushed down the stairs.

While all this was happening, Jacob and his parents said, Mohawk school officials did nothing.
“We had no other choice to keep our son safe,” Robert Sullivan, the teenager’s father, said last summer. “He has the right to go to school and feel safe.”

Sullivan could not be reached for comment Friday night.

Looks like not all of the DOJ is still run by Loyal Bushies.

[Darth Wong]

Speaking of the loyal Bushies in the DOJ, they should purge all of those fuckers. They instituted a purge of non-Bushies themselves, so it would be a most fitting outcome.

In any case, it's really pretty obvious that any law which bans gender discrimination also bans discrimination against sexual orientation as a side-effect, unless it specifically contains an exclusionary clause to prevent that. It's amazing that so many people are so reluctant to admit that. Perhaps they don't realize how ridiculous and stupid they will look in hindsight, 20 years from now.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Speaking of the loyal Bushies in the DOJ, they should purge all of those fuckers. They instituted a purge of non-Bushies themselves, so it would be a most fitting outcome.

In any case, it's really pretty obvious that any law which bans gender discrimination also bans discrimination against sexual orientation as a side-effect, unless it specifically contains an exclusionary clause to prevent that. It's amazing that so many people are so reluctant to admit that. Perhaps they don't realize how ridiculous and stupid they will look in hindsight, 20 years from now.

Some courts have shittastically used the fact that laws have been passed explicitly protecting LGBT people to prove that the people writing anti-gender discrimination laws didn't intend for them to protect LGBT people, thereby allowing the more regressive US states to actually use the development of more progressive legislation to protect the LGBT community as a pretext for engaging in further repression.

[Aasharu]

Speaking of the loyal Bushies in the DOJ, they should purge all of those fuckers. They instituted a purge of non-Bushies themselves, so it would be a most fitting outcome.

In any case, it's really pretty obvious that any law which bans gender discrimination also bans discrimination against sexual orientation as a side-effect, unless it specifically contains an exclusionary clause to prevent that. It's amazing that so many people are so reluctant to admit that. Perhaps they don't realize how ridiculous and stupid they will look in hindsight, 20 years from now.

Some courts have shittastically used the fact that laws have been passed explicitly protecting LGBT people to prove that the people writing anti-gender discrimination laws didn't intend for them to protect LGBT people, thereby allowing the more regressive US states to actually use the development of more progressive legislation to protect the LGBT community as a pretext for engaging in further repression.

... I... I understand the words, and the phrases, but the sentence as a whole... what?

Where has stuff like this happened? Any specific instances?

[Darth Wong]

That bullshit reminds me of the anti-gay marriage assholes who claim that it's not discrimination "because they're free to marry people of the opposite sex". This is the same kind of semantic lawyering that led AG Gonzalez to point out that the Constitution never explicitly said people have the right to habeus corpus.

[Rogue 9]

Speaking of the loyal Bushies in the DOJ, they should purge all of those fuckers. They instituted a purge of non-Bushies themselves, so it would be a most fitting outcome.

In any case, it's really pretty obvious that any law which bans gender discrimination also bans discrimination against sexual orientation as a side-effect, unless it specifically contains an exclusionary clause to prevent that. It's amazing that so many people are so reluctant to admit that. Perhaps they don't realize how ridiculous and stupid they will look in hindsight, 20 years from now.

Some courts have shittastically used the fact that laws have been passed explicitly protecting LGBT people to prove that the people writing anti-gender discrimination laws didn't intend for them to protect LGBT people, thereby allowing the more regressive US states to actually use the development of more progressive legislation to protect the LGBT community as a pretext for engaging in further repression.

... I... I understand the words, and the phrases, but the sentence as a whole... what?

It's really not that difficult a concept. The courts in question reason that if the anti-gender discrimination laws were intended to protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation, they would say so. After all, we have these other laws specifically written about sexual orientation, which means that they must be completely different issues or the legislature wouldn't have bothered to make a different set of laws.

It's despicable, yes, but not hard to comprehend.

[Darth Wong]

It's despicable because it is so monumentally dishonest. Laws do not have to specifically describe every circumstance in which they may be applied, and no judge would seriously claim that they should. It's tantamount to saying that laws against racial discrimination never specifically mentioned racially profiling Arabs in airports. But they'll use that logic in this particular case because it suits their prejudices.

[Lonestar]

That bullshit reminds me of the anti-gay marriage assholes who claim that it's not discrimination "because they're free to marry people of the opposite sex". This is the same kind of semantic lawyering that led AG Gonzalez to point out that the Constitution never explicitly said people have the right to habeus corpus.

I find this hilarious, as the 9th Amendment explicitly says "just because something isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution does not mean the right does not exist."

[Rogue 9]

It's despicable because it is so monumentally dishonest. Laws do not have to specifically describe every circumstance in which they may be applied, and no judge would seriously claim that they should. It's tantamount to saying that laws against racial discrimination never specifically mentioned racially profiling Arabs in airports. But they'll use that logic in this particular case because it suits their prejudices.

I imagine they probably would if there were laws specifically outlawing discrimination against Arabs in particular in some other area. That's a large part of the justification; the fact that anti-sexual orientation discrimination laws exist means that those laws are the only ones that apply to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Which to anyone with a basic grasp of the English language is obviously not the case, since the wording of the gender discrimination legislation is what it is, but we're discussing lawyers here.