A local employer continues to seek the dismissal of a gay man’s federal antibias lawsuit, arguing that antigay discrimination isn’t equivalent to sex discrimination.
“John Doe,” a data analyst at Elwyn, a nonprofit organization, says he works in a hostile environment and he’s been denied promotional opportunities because he’s gay.
In January 2016, Doe tried to file an antibias complaint with the city’s Human Relations Commission, but the city declined to process it because Doe already filed a complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Doe sued in federal court, seeking damages in excess of $75,000 and a court order for the city to investigate his complaint. He is suing under a pseudonym, as he is HIV-positive.
Antibias litigants typically are expected to exhaust their local remedies prior to suing in federal court. It remains in dispute whether Doe did.
In a brief filed Sept. 16, Elwyn cited several court cases indicating sexual-orientation discrimination is not equivalent to sex discrimination.
The brief notes federal laws don’t forbid antigay employment discrimination, and urges the suit’s dismissal.
Attorneys for Elwyn had no comment for this story.
Elwyn’s filing emphasizes that Doe didn’t file a complaint with the city’s Human Relations Commission prior to filing in federal court.
Justin F. Robinette, an attorney for Doe, said on two separate occasions, Doe tried to file antibias complaints with the city, but the city refused to process them, Robinette said.
Doe is currently seeking a court order from a federal judge for the city to investigate his antibias complaint, Robinette noted.
“What more can we do?” Robinette posed. “We’re trying to get city officials to do their job. The city’s position is that they don’t need to investigate my client’s complaint because it already was comprehensively investigated by the EEOC. That’s all well and good. But why can’t the city simply investigate my client’s complaint to close any loopholes that Elwyn is trying to exploit?”
Rue Landau, executive director of the city’s Human Relations Commission, issued this statement: “Since this case is now under seal by the court, I am not permitted to comment on the substance of the issues. However, as I previously stated on the procedure, counsel for Doe chose to file this complaint with the EEOC and the Pennsylvania Commission, not the Philadelphia Commission. The PCHR is prohibited from accepting cases already filed at the PA Commission based on Section 9-112 (4) of the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance. We wish counsel would have filed this case with our office. We gladly would have investigated it. But, unfortunately, it was not [filed with our office].”
Doe’s suit remains pending with U.S. District Judge Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro. His request for a court order for the city to investigate his antibias complaint against Elwyn remains pending with U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert.
Elwyn is a human-services agency based in Media, with an office in West Philadelphia, where Doe works.
Doe allegedly was referred to as “girl” by coworkers, warned about the “tearing” effect of anal sex, asked details of his anatomy, and repeatedly told that “all gays are going to hell,” according to his suit.
“Mr. Doe has endured reprehensible and unspeakable harassment simply because he’s gay, and he truly deserves his day in court,” Robinette said.