Legal challenges targeting two LGBT civil-rights ordinances in Pennsylvania are winding their way through the courts.
In Haverford, Fred W. Teal is seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the township from implementing an LGBT antibias ordinance enacted there in February.
In Conshohocken, James D. Schneller wants a judge to invalidate the borough’s LGBT antibias ordinance because it allegedly conflicts with several state laws.
The Haverford ordinance extends existing antibias protections in employment, housing and public accommodations to members of the LGBT community.
It also establishes a local Human Relations Commission to investigate bias complaints, and allows for civil fines of up to $5,000 for each discriminatory act.
The ordinance adds “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or gender expression” to the categories of race, color, religious creed, ancestry, age, sex, national origin, handicap or disability, and use of guide or support animal.
Teal contends the township needed specific authorization from the state legislature before adding the LGBT categories.
“Haverford doesn’t have permission from the legislature to create the [LGBT] categories,” he told PGN. “They can create the Human Relations Board, but not the [LGBT] categories.”
Teal also alleges the township didn’t provide adequate opportunity for public comment when enacting the ordinance.
Additionally, the complaint contends that two township commissioners should have refrained from voting on the ordinance because they have an LGBT relative and/or colleague — thus posing an alleged conflict-of-interest.
Teal’s complaint is pending before Delaware County Common Pleas Judge George A. Pagano.
Last month, Pagano refused a request from township attorneys to toss out Teal’s complaint.
Township attorneys argued that Teal lacked standing to challenge the ordinance, that his complaint contained “impertinent allegations” about relatives of township officials and that Commonwealth Court upheld a similar antibias ordinance in Allentown.
Teal said he intends to pursue his case to the state Supreme Court if necessary.
“I’m a junkyard dog,” he said. “When you get me mad, look out. I’m not a violent person, but once I get ticked off, I don’t back down.”
Teal is representing himself in the matter, but hopes to secure the services of an attorney, he added.
Township manager Larry Gentile referred all questions to township attorneys, who didn’t respond to requests for comment by press time.
In Conshohocken, the borough council enacted a similar LGBT ordinance in April. But four months later, Schneller, founder of the anti-LGBT Philadelphia Metro Task Force, filed a complaint challenging its validity.
The Conshohocken ordinance authorizes criminal penalties for discriminators, including a $300 fine and 90 days in jail for each discriminatory act.
According to Schneller’s complaint, the Conshohocken ordinance is harmful to children, fosters the spread of diseases (physical and mental), and infringes on protected religious freedoms.
The complaint also alleges the ordinance is “unconstitutional in its promotion and encouragement of immoral acts and lifestyles,” and is preempted by the Pennsylvania Constitution, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and the Pennsylvania Religious Freedom Protection Act.
Additionally, his complaint states that borough officials didn’t provide ample opportunity for public comment prior to enacting the ordinance.
Schneller’s complaint is pending before Montgomery County Common Pleas Judge Bernard A. Moore.
Schneller, who couldn’t be reached for comment, is representing himself in the litigation.
Michael J. Savona, a borough attorney, said Schneller’s complaint has no merit.
“The state has given local municipalities general police powers, which enable Conshohocken to extend antibias protections to the LGBT community,” Savona said.
Savona also expressed optimism that Schneller’s complaint will be dismissed by the court in due time.
“Conshohocken has recognized that its population is diverse and is entitled to equal protection under the law,” Savona said. “That’s the best public policy to have.”
He also said the borough followed procedural requirements when enacting the ordinance.
David M. Rosenblum, legal director for Mazzoni Center, has reviewed both complaints.
“There is strong settled case law in Pennsylvania that local municipalities have the right to enact protections that are broader than the present state law,” Rosenblum said. “Indeed, this is precisely what has already happened in 23 different jurisdictions within Pennsylvania, since the state hasn’t yet added protections for sexual orientation and gender identity to existing discrimination laws.”
Tim Cwiek can be reached at [email protected].