Firefighters in gay pride parade were sexually harassed, jury says

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-firefighters-gay-pride19-2009feb19,0,4356547.story

The four men sued the city after being ordered to drive a fire truck in the parade. The jury awards them $34,300 in damages.
By Tony Perry
February 19, 2009
Reporting from San Diego -- A Superior Court jury Tuesday found that four male firefighters were sexually harassed while driving a fire truck in the 2007 gay pride parade and were entitled to a combined $34,300 in damages from the city.

The four sued the city because they were ordered to drive the truck in the 90-minute parade even though firefighters in previous gay-pride parades had reported being taunted with sexual innuendoes.

The jury ruled that each of the four should receive $5,000. One should receive an additional $14,200 because he felt compelled to transfer to a different fire station after the incident, and another will receive $100 as reimbursement for a co-pay for a counseling session.

Would you tell a woman who was sexually harassed to "man up"?

I think the people who do the harassing are the ones who need to change, not the other way around.

These are people the run into burning buildings for a living and a little ride on a firetruck sends them spinning into therapy, give me a break.

That seems like a solid, progressive point of view...

sexual harassment claims either?

Of course they can, if it actually is sexual harassment, and that's my point I highly doubt what happened on the parade route actually constituted harassment. I've been to more than a few gay pride parades in my life and never saw anything that came close to sexual harassment of either police or fire personnel in any one of them. I think if you actually read the OP, or shall I say read between the lines of the OP you might have a problem with the case. If there was any sexual harassment it happened in the firehouse after the parade not during it or why would one of them feel compelled to change their firehouse? This lawsuit is all about the internal affairs of the fire department and what a fire personnel can be ordered to do but instead of suing who they needed to sue and get a department reputation they decided to scapegoat the gays, it's a legally elegant solution.

their employer because their employer required them to participate in a parade that wasn't part of their job description.

Who should they have sued instead?

on the policy issue. Using sexual harassment as a legal strategy to force a policy change that has nothing to do with sexual harassment doesn't help the cause for people that have legitimate claims.

performance of her city job.

would have played out without the harassment strategy.

tasks that aren't part of their job descriptions.

but quite frankly you should be a lot more annoyed with people that gin up a legitimate complaint with a claim of sexual harassment considering your history.

but if you want to avoid the obvious, be my guest.

you're referring to my history of being sexually harassed, or the fact that I have a gay father.

no where in this particular thread, between you and me, was there a discussion of your father, only sexual harassment, it should have been clear, but then I might be expecting too much. Anyway, I have not been sexually harassed and I'm seriously pissed off that this has been used simply as a legal strategy and that the gay community was scapegoated purely to deal with an internal fire department issue.

It diminishes your cause to have sexual harassment used this way and as a person that has experienced it, as you have, I'm just surprised that you aren't just a tad pissed off with the plaintiffs.

but another poster brought up my father, so I honestly didn't know what you were getting at.

I'm not sure how this case would weaken awareness of sexual harassment. Perhaps men like these fire fighters will better understand the point of view of women who've been harassed, now that they feel they've been subject to it themselves.

Or maybe you're right and that IS expecting too much of them.

The whole thing was a total farce. It was obviously trumped up to a) embarrass the female chief, whom they despised; b) to try to extort money from the city, and c) provide a platform for their right-wing fundie Christian whackadoodleness.

Fortunately, though the jury found in their "favor", the jury also recognized the extent of their "damage" was far less than the cost of their attorney fees. Too bad.

It demeans the suffering of real harassment.

I'll bet it is.
Education, PR , and neighborhood outreach is a huge part of the job.
Dont fire fighters go to 100s of schools schools to teach "stop drop, and roll"?

I spent a couple of summers as a wildlands frie fighter.
We were expected to do parades, and school visits. We were paid to be on duty , even if there was no fire. Sometimes we had to actually to something to earn our idling wages.
Do you ever wonder who it is dressed in that smokey Bear suit?
It used to be me!

Volunteers, extra pay incentives are a better way to go.

parading is not a part of their job description, and even though they had been subject to sexual harassment in parades in previous years, then I think they should have been able to receive compensation.

So it makes sense that male firefighters would receive compensation in the same circumstances.

I think the fire department was correct in changing their policy to make parade participation voluntary.

description in every municipality?

Firefighters are representative in practically every kind of parade where I live from Christmas to Memorial Day to 4th of July to Gay Pride to Veterans Day to Thanksgiving.

Usually the firefighters -- at least here -- are reservists.

But the point being, if you're going to be a cop or firefighter, it's not uncommon to be out in the community, taking part in holiday parades.

I can tell you one thing .. if the San Diego Fire Department is representative in every parade but the one associated with teh gays, they're going to be in hot water again.

Watch.

that matters in this case -- it was not part of the job description.

On the other hand, I think that it would be a good idea for every city to make participation in any parade voluntary, and if need be, to pay volunteers overtime for participating. I'm sure they'd have plenty of volunteers on that basis.

As far as harassment is concerned, I don't think gay people should participate in it or defend it. It certainly doesn't do anything to promote gay rights.

:wtf:

You don't think gay people should be pissed off about this?

You're out of your mind.

No offense of course.

for gays and straights?

Thank goodness gay people have you to let them know what they should participate in or defend.

Since her father's gay, she can tell us what we should all be thinking.

She's one amazing woman.

Both as a young woman just trying to walk in my town, and in my workplace.

And I don't think anyone -- gay or straight -- should be defending it.

Harassers shouldn't get a pass because they're gay.

I've taken all sorts of abuse, but I think these firemen really just didn't want to march in the fag parade.

I've been to NYC pride and most cops there are cool. Some obviously have issues with it. These are probably the firemen equivalent of it.

the three blocks to where I was going to babysit.

A bunch of men from a home construction site surrounded me on the sidewalk and started following me, making noises at me and saying things that made no sense. I finally got through them and away from them.

I was only 12.

Back in those days, twelve year olds dressed like kids. I was not hot -- at least in my mind -- or sophisticated, but I was already as tall as my mother, so I probably looked older.

After that I crossed the street or turned around or took a long detour if I saw the potential for a situation like that, but I couldn't walk to downtown without having several guys hanging out of their trucks, hollering or honking at me. Could they have thought I liked it? Or were they just creeps?

It doesn't happen to me anymore, decades later, and I've been wondering if it was less of a problem for young women these days. I'm sorry to hear that women like you still go through this kind of garbage.

Edit to add: I know that harassment still goes on in the workplace, too, especially in male dominated fields. I'd have thought that by now things would have improved more than they have.

The city cannot be responsible for citizens openly drooling at the firefighters or even commenting , which I expect is the worst that happened. They should be paid Holiday pay.

she knows 3 gay men. THREE!

close relationships, and other friends and acquaintances.

That's amazing. If that doesn't make her an expert, I don't know what does!

I said in another thread on why gay men appear to be so heavily concentrated in creative fields, that the three gay men I happen to be closest to are a corporate manager, a teacher, and a physicist. I didn't say that these were the only gay people I know, or that I was an expert on gay men. I just disagreed with the stereotype that gay men were more likely to work in fashion or theater. Do you disagree?

A sheep rancher, another sheep rancher, and a guy who raises sheep.

It says a whole lot more abot the what I spend my time with than than what th avergae American gay man does.

Because because because because beCAUUUUUUSE!

Or okay for gays but not for straights?

I think it's wrong for gay people or any people to sexually harass or to defend others who do so.

No one has claimed that it is OK to harass anyone, and no one has defended sexual harassment.

What is not OK is falsely and maliciously suggesting that those who disagree with you are doing that.

So they don't have to show their support to the gay community?

and thinks that this is a crock, and that they don't deserve a dime.

I was a few vehicles/organizations behind them, and I didn't see anything grossly inappropriate.

I do agree, however, that the new policy has to be volunteers only.

exactly what the behaviors described as harassment were. I agree, BTW, that participation in any parade should be voluntary and not ordered.

various articles and news programs.

you could see and hear everything; and, we were all going by the same people within a few minutes of each other. I could see quite clearly what was going on. People were applauding, and may have joked a bit, but they certainly weren't exceptionally rude.

Moreover, if you can't take a slight bit of joviality, when you are a full-grown adult, then you are an ASSHAT!

That is, and will remain, my opinion.

If I'd have cried to my boss any time someone said something slightly objectionable when I was a social worker, I would never have made it seven years!

If you wilt like a violet when someone jokes that you are handsome, then you do NOT belong in a job that deals with the public WHENEVER you are on duty.

And do you really think they would have treated a P-FLAG float the same way they treated the firefighters?

Jeez . . .

over all those lesbians howling, yowling , and harrassing her.
Thats what people do at gay pride parades , isnt it.
(insert sarcasm icon here.)

:sarcasm:

Are you?

You are quite incorrect, however, in my humble opinion (and I was there).

That's all I'll say about the matter.

Have a good evening!

they were citizens. City? not reponsible. Chief? did not intend supposed Harassment. OT pay only

:hug:

Apparently the other poster doesn't believe you.

Apparently the other poster, who thinks she's an expert on all things gay, believes there was a mile and a half gap between groups, so there was no way for you to make an assessment.

What an outrage to insinuate that such a wonderfully decent human being like yourself is a liar. :puke:

I was driving the vehicle, and was doing my best to keep any gap at all!

said a few organizations ahead of him or her?

My remarks here come out of my own experience of being sexually harassed, rather than anything else.

From my perspective, this isn't about gayness, it's about people who think it's okay to sexually harass.

:eyes:

RL

In fact, they are leading experts on this subject, along with many, many others.

You could have gotten thousands!
THOUSANDS!

he spoke to other V.P.'s. It turned out that the man who'd been harassing me had been harassing other women, too. That was the end of his fun. He was invited to resign six months later for other reasons.

Back in those days, I'm not sure sexual harassment law even existed. Not that you would care.

can I say that without getting in trouble?

:shrug:

because I don't really trust people...sorry

regardless of who is the harasser and who is the harassee. Unwelcome advances are inappropriate anywhere and anytime by anybody. And someone damn well should not have to be subjected to it against their will because they were forced to do it by their employer.

No one, that is who.

At issue is whether or not firefighters, in their truck, with the windows up, with headphones on, at a public parade, were in some way repeatedly sexually harassed by person or persons unknown.

The "evidence" was every malicious and bigoted anti-gay stereotype imaginable. It basically boils down to "that gay stuff - you know what we mean wink wink - happened around us and that is so disturbing because we don't approve of the gay lifestyle and wanted to make a statement against that by not showing up for assignment." They are suing for their right to BE persecutors and bigots, not because they were persecuted.

Unfortunately, there are enough people who buy into the anti-gay stereotypes that juries can be assembled that can be persuaded to take the bigots' side, and apparently that works on some people here as well.

it was a whole lot more than just stereotypes. Sexually harassed is a nice way to put it.

atmosphere, where cops and firefighters, etc., weren't so afraid to be who there are, this would never have happened.

is taking part in a Memorial Day parade, and some people start shouting that the black firefighter driving the engine is an N-word?

Now what?

If the employee asks not to be included in the parade the next year and the city orders him to participate and the same incident occurs then the city can be held liable.

David

and that the best thing to do would be to use only volunteers and to compensate them.

And that we should all condemn harassers of all stripes.

Also, I read about "innuendoes", exactly what kind of "sexual advaces" took place?

and they do nothing about it and the behavior continues then yes you can sue and will likely win. Unless the chick is really hot, then no one will believe that the advances were unwanted.

David

and the employer has done nothing to stop her, then yes, you should sue.

Were these formal reports? Or hearsay in the locker room about how they had to endure "sexual advances" as is being claimed here?

And thus, the "sexual harrassment" case was born.

To a homophobe, a man in a speedo is a "sexual advance."

parades are not part of their job description, and even though they made it clear that they didn't want to participate because of past incidents at the parade.

only cites three people for "gestures".

Three people acting inappropriately (others cited for blowing kisses) out of 100K people on a parade route? If that is the standard, then just about everyone who has been in a parade has cause to sue.

Your post makes no sense.

The lawsuit is an expression of hatred and bigotry. No one is saying that they deserved to be harassed. They weren't harassed. They are doing the harassing.

You said it; now try and make sense of it. Who are they harassing? The fire department? For being gay? How can the fire department be gay? What are you talking about?

You can't see how they wanted to make a statement about the GLBTQ community by not participating? How their suit consists of every hateful stereotype, and nothing else? You can't see how it is their "right" to spread hatred and bigotry that they are claiming they were denied? You can't see how spreading hateful and bigoted ideas is beyond harassment - it leads it widespread harassment and persecution? You can't see how suing the city over this is a harassment of the city and city officials, and so by extension a harassment of the people whom the government represents?

All to protect their "right" to be bigoted and hateful and to express that.

It would be like:

"Do you want to drive the truck in the gay parade?"

"No."

"OK, I'll ask somebody else."

Clearly, avoiding the parade was never their goal. why are you willing to speculate in order to legitimatize and defend one side in this dispute, but not the other?

I think it is very likely that the intention all along was to use this absurd lawsuit as a opportunity for expressing and promoting bigotry and hatred. That is what actually happened - hatred and bigotry are being promoted including right here - as opposed to what you would have us imagine might have happened, or could have happened.

It would not surprise me at all to learn that some right wing hate organization is behind this.

You mean to tell me they risked losing all of their legal fees to "express and promote their bigotry and hatred"?

Are you claiming that no one would ever expend any resources on promoting bigotry? Not to mention they thought they might score big on this.

How is your poll going? You know, the poll that is not related to this at all, and is just hypothetical, on that other thread you are monitoring today along with this one. The two completely unrelated threads you are going back and forth between...

You can't see how they wanted to make a statement about the GLBTQ community by not participating? How their suit consists of every hateful stereotype, and nothing else? You can't see how it is their "right" to spread hatred and bigotry that they are claiming they were denied? You can't see how spreading hateful and bigoted ideas is beyond harassment - it leads it widespread harassment and persecution? You can't see how suing the city over this is a harassment of the city and city officials, and so by extension a harassment of the people whom the government represents?

Can you see these things, or not?

Not too punitive but enough to make the city change their behavior in the future.

David

If the firemen's bosses, for example, had made unwanted sexual advances, that would be sexual harassment.

Random bystanders on the street making unwanted sexual advances is not sexual harassment.

then the employer is responsible for putting them in the same environment. Employers can be held liable for the actions of a customer. If the employee has complained and the employer does nothing to rectify the situation and insists that the employee continues to deal with the offensive customer. The courts have ruled this is sexual harassment.

David

but it seems like something that might end up in the Supreme Court.

As for you point, you're right.

If a black firefighter is called the N-word pouring water on a house .. is that sexual harassment?

Sounds like this court has paved the way for the answer to be yes.

to do any community events because of the chance someone might be sexually harassed?

Should they never be forced to leave the fire house to do inspections because there's a chance someone might be sexually harassed?

responsible for making sure the employees aren't placed in a hostile work environment.

David

Every case is different, but yes, a history of harassment that has not been ameliorated by the employer is at the core of the laws.

The cut off point is for judges, juries, and mediators to decide.

There is no indication whether the "reports" were officially filed or just mentioned in passing, yes?

Remember these firefighters asked to not participate and were ordered to.

David

EACH. Must have been a hell of a "sexual advance".

been a history of harassment and complaints.

Did you want to amend your argument?

That sounds like a complaint to me. Apparently the judge and jury agreed.

David

I thought the prosecution did a horrible job. I think a better prosecutor might have been able to secure a conviction. In the end he was held liable for their deaths, maybe the juries are better in civil cases.

David

Could you please post a link to the story so I can read it?

I see nowhere that there's been prior incidents.

I try to make it a habit to not call people liars.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-firefighters-ga...

The four men sued the city after being ordered to drive a fire truck in the parade. The jury awards them $34,300 in damages.
By Tony Perry
February 19, 2009
Reporting from San Diego -- A Superior Court jury Tuesday found that four male firefighters were sexually harassed while driving a fire truck in the 2007 gay pride parade and were entitled to a combined $34,300 in damages from the city.

The four sued the city because they were ordered to drive the truck in the 90-minute parade even though firefighters in previous gay-pride parades had reported being taunted with sexual innuendoes.

The jury ruled that each of the four should receive $5,000. One should receive an additional $14,200 because he felt compelled to transfer to a different fire station after the incident, and another will receive $100 as reimbursement for a co-pay for a counseling session.

but that's completely hearsay.

Hearsay isn't admissible in court nor in an argument like this .. especially when we have no formal complaint information, no quotes from firefighters who can tell us what happened, nor any lawsuit information.

Come on Dave.

I would guess they had the firefighters that had previously complained and the supervisors who fielded those complaints testify at trial. I guess really this is all hearsay we are taking a reporters word that this is in fact a real case.

David

believe you feel fire departments/firefighters should be allowed to pick and choose which community event in which they participate.

Do you know how hurtful that is for the overwhelming number of gay people who are just there to watch the parade.

And what's sad is if this had been say, the 4th of July parade, and some women shouted out that they wanted those firefighters to _ _ _ them out, they probably would have gone back to the station and rubbed one off in the shower because they were so excited.

There's a huge double standard and it's so wrong.

Why didn't those firefighters just say, eh, whatever?

There's just something wrong when, you would think, brave firefighters, lose their minds over being teased by a few gay people.

Not only that, they were being complimented.

Come on Dave.

That seems smarter than ordering someone to participate in something they are uncomfortable with when there have been complaints in the past. It's quite possible that straight firefighters wouldn't have found an advance from a woman as an unwanted sexual advance. It's also quite possible that the spectators in the parade thought the firefighters in the parade are gay. It was just a dumb move on the cities part to force them to participate. I would say the same thing if they forced a female cop to provide security at a girls gone wild event.

David

only apply when men harass women, and not when men harass men, or women harass men.

You are intentionally misrepresenting the views of those who disagree with you.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

They may get sexually harassed there too.

happens if the same comments had been made at the scene of a fire at a gay club?

It's a great question.

Will we not have certain homophobic firefighters (like the ones who sued), refuse to go.

Answer the tough question Dave.

I thought you're supposed to be brave.

their official duties at an emergency scene. If however firefighters were routinely called and dispatched in a non-emergency capacity and they were sexually harassed while there and complained about it, then their employer would have to attempt to mitigate that situation.

David

see them without their turnouts on, is not interfering, and thus not cause for arrest.

At the most, a cop would move the bystander back.

Your second point:

You're insinuating the fire department would not perhaps force them to respond to a commercial fire, with exposures in all directions, because they might hear the a bystander wants to grab their ass or suck their _ _ _ _.

These are frankly wild scenarios that you've prevented.

In either case the city is mitigating the situation and therefore wouldn't be liable.

David

but facing a bunch of winking gays is just too much to bear.

The poor dears are scarred for life. One even had to move.

Can't imagine one of them having to give CPR to a gay guy. They'd probably have to go on permanent disability.

It must have been one hell of a "sexual advance".

The fact that you'll can't differentiate between and emergency call and a parade is quite telling.

David

But, really, why do you think we have fire trucks in parades anyway? It grew out of a tradition in communities where they wanted to show off what they had done to support their community. "Look at our shiny new fire truck! Ain't it grand! Aren't you glad you live HERE and not over THERE? This is to support YOU!"

So a parade devoid of participation by public entities is a parade that says, "We aren't supported by public entities."

I have a problem with a municipality ordering someone to participate when there have been complaints in the past and the employees have specifically asked not to participate. It was stupid on the cities part. Ask for volunteers and pay them overtime, problem solved.

David

for people at a gay club to taunt fire fighters while they're trying to fight a fire.

Yes, the fire fighters have to keep fighting the fire no matter what. But you're really not excusing that kind of harassment, are you?

..... seems like their egos were hurt just by the mere fact of having to drive in a gay pride parade. No, no one should be harassed, but I think there's a bit of breeder insecurity going on here. (And yes, I'm a breeder, lest someone attack me for being a heterophobe.)

According to many posters here. I don't know what they are calling "advances"...catcalls? Or did some of teh gays come up to their fire truck and ask them out on dates?

being subjected to either one. Men who act that way are obnoxious.

"invitations" as I walked in my town.

It was NOT fun. And it was not because of what I was wearing; I've always dressed conservatively. I think it was because I was young, and attractive in the way that most young healthy people are.

It was unnerving and insulting -- not flattering at all. The men who do this are obnoxious, whether their targets are young women or young men.

Also for any counseling you hade to endure because of the hooting and whistling.

the employer of the men who were SUBJECT to the harassment.

Similarly, if I had been required by an employer to walk through the gauntlet I described -- even though it wasn't part of any job description -- then I would have deserved compensation.

As it was, this was just part of being a teenager or young woman in my town in that era.

I'd like 34 G's.

sexual harassment laws.

When it happened to me repeatedly, decades ago, I complained to my boss. Fortunately, he responded strongly and the harassment stopped immediately. If it hadn't, I'd don't know what I'd have done; sexual harassment laws weren't in place to protect women like me then.

Just because women get it all the time, doesnt mean thats right.

Wow, it's expensive to endure a "sexual advance" by a gay.

"Hey, Mr. Firefighter, can I play with your hose?
You can put out my fire anytime baby!"

San Diego? Ooops, sorry, that was the wrong gay pride parade! :-(

in one thread at DU in practically, a day. :eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

you, I and everyone else would applaud the law suit and rightfully so. The same with the African American case, I'm trying to give example that you won't miss with your obvious blind spot.

David

I figured you and everyone else would find that completely offensive and maybe see how idiotic it was for the city to order these firefighters to participate in this parade after they had requested otherwise.

David

Right now I have to watch Top Chef and play in a poker tournament.


:toast:

David

Black History Month because they didn't believe that "people who don't like blacks should have to participate", would they have the right to sue if they were ordered to participate?

I think that analogy is closer to the actual circumstance. Both groups are discriminated against and at one time, or currently, both groups have their civil rights denied.

The sexual aspect to this one is what makes it different.

David

They should have asked for volunteers.

David

Next year they should hire a bunch of women firefighters, including lots of lesbians, and there wont be any problem at all.

Seriously.
Those boys are way too easily damaged.

and the 4th of July voluntarily and with pay??? tax payers money???

I wonder if this is the reason they had to go to this one, because everyone ofthem would go to the other parades and shun the gay community?

'Cause Gay Pride is just like a Klan march.

:eyes:

Par for the course.

The fact that the award was on average $5,000, with one exception, "for $14,200 because he felt compelled to transfer to a different fire station after the incident, and another will receive $100 as reimbursement for a co-pay for a counseling session," suggests that no serious psychologial harm was done and the award was more symbolic.

a domino affect throughout the country.

"Fuck that, I'm not driving down a road lined with faggots who want to suck my dick .. and you can't force me because look what happened in San Diego.

But then again, you know all of this. :pals:

Sorry, but this thread sets me off.

:toast:

David

At least the firefighters will show up.

admits to not helping "undesireables" thought it was funny , I didn't as I would probably be denied service as well. That Queens house got busted up and they got transfered to somewhere where they might have to work\, in Manhattan . If it were up to me he'd be transfering to Van Cortland Park station.

In order to get a transfer, he had to take a lower job classification.

I don't know when the threats occurred however, or how they related to the parade.

Did I miss it or is there a separate link to another source?

As I said, the article doesn't say very much.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/feb/18/1n18parade235421-jury-awards-34300-firefighters-ov/?zIndex=54586

Each firefighter was awarded $5,000 for emotional distress. An additional $100 went to Allison to cover 10 $10 co-pays for appointments with a social worker. Ghiotto received an extra $14,200 because he lost his designation – and 5 percent of his pay – as a battalion medical officer when he switched stations after the parade after receiving anonymous threats.

to perform work outside of their duties, for no additional pay?

Why do you think that there should be a double standard regarding sexual harassment?

Neither of those are the issue here, and I believe that you must know that.

To claim that these men were in any way harassed is to render the concept of sexual harassment meaningless. Feeling offended - which at the very worst is all that these men endured - is to be seen as the equivalent to sexual harassment? You cannot be serious.

They didn't sue because they weren't paid. So that is a red herring.

Every malicious and hateful stereotype was dragged out by the firefighters to "support" their "case." They hoped to invoke and inflame hatred and bigotry and then profit by that. It is the bringing of the case that is itself the perpetration, the persecution, the harassment of people. The case is an example of persecution and spreading hatred. They are not the victims her by any stretch of the imagination.

The whole thing is so cleverly put together that it would not surprise me at all to learn that some right wing hate group is behind it. Dragging in all of those hateful anti-gay stereotypes into court - that can't be an accident. It is all just a little too well done. a little too clever.

Can you imagine if white city employees brought suit because they were forced to attend an event where most of the people were Black, and that Black people were doing Black people things and that made them offended? And claiming to be "victims" who had been persecuted or traumatized by the experience? That sort of thing used to happen. What do we call the people who did those things? Bigots. What do we call people who still spread those views today? White Supremacists.

Oh, wait, these are men being subjected to unwanted sexual comments on the job--that's different. I take it back.

Even if it's raunchy flirting. I once had a big bear-type guy tell me he'd like to "tear my ass up." I knew what he meant, and we laughed, and I said no thanks. I certainly didn't feel threatened.

themselves...maybe find a GLBT person in the Department...

Having followed the story-- this story ain't over by a long shot and they may lose the pittance 8.500 vs. the million they were asking for-- in the end.

the most dissent had the same three dissenters -- all male. This was on the issue of whether or not the harassment was pervasive or serious (I don't remember the exact words).

I wonder if the women were more sympathetic to the claims of the fire fighters because women were more likely to have been harassed themselves.

2009-02-08: Gay Parade's Case's Jury Facing Key Question

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/feb/08/1m8parade232633-gay-parade-cases-jury-facing-key-q/?zIndex=49869



2009-02-12: Gay Pride Parade Case Goes to Jury

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/feb/12/1m12parade223147-parade-case-goes-jury/?uniontrib

And directly contradicts most of pnwmom's claims.

and put on head phones.

This is another over blown bit of anti-gay muckracking.

I must have a case! :sarcasm:

And transfer to a new job.

:rofl:

They should be moved to clerical postions , and relpaced in the field by big strong lesbians.

It was all about having to be in the fag parade.

and a 33% cut for his services. This story reeks.

The first jury threw it out, BTW.

Taking a case all the way to trial TWICE? We're talking $250,000, minimum.

In the old days the symbolic verdict was a dollar.

So, they got $34,000 minus 33%, split four ways?

BWAHAHA!

Loser.

"$100 as reimbursement for a co-pay for a counseling session."

"The jury ruled that each of the four should receive $5,000. One should receive an additional $14,200 because he felt compelled to transfer to a different fire station after the incident, and another will receive $100 as reimbursement for a co-pay for a counseling session."

who gets what after the attorney's fees. :evilgrin:

That was from the defense lawyer. It seems odd for union guys on the job to attack their own union?

"He also said the firefighters lied on the stand when they testified that their union wouldn't help them because it was in contract negotiations with the city. The negotiation period had ended a month before the 2007 parade."
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/feb/12/1m12parade223147-parade-case-goes-jury/?uniontrib

I think it was that in the IAFF newsletter but I could be wrong. They are probably backing some other guy for president of the local or some such mess.

David

Either way, 1st or 2nd trial, it's hard to imagine turning on your brother (and sister) fire fighters and lying on the witness stand.

I guess the promise of a cool million makes people do odd things.

It was part of his court room clsoing argument.

"In his closing, Deputy City Attorney Don Shanahan attacked the credibility of the firefighters by pointing out inconsistencies in their testimony and suggesting that they lied on the stand. He said they were uncomfortable at the parade but not sexually harassed."