What the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision will mean for LGBTQ employees

Written by: Matt Gramly 

On Monday June 15, 2020, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision stating with firmness and clarity that any employer who fires an employee for being gay or transgendered is in violation of the law. The law being violated in that instance would be the Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title VII makes it “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The basic argument is that if an employer has two employees, one male and one female, but only fires the male employee because he dates men, but doesn’t fire the female employee because she dates men, the employer has discriminated against the male employee on the basis of his gender. The employer accepts behavior from the female employee that he does not accept from the male employee and the only difference between the two employees is their gender.

This ruling is monumental for LGBTQ rights. The full complement of anti-discrimination employment protections found within the Civil Rights Act have now been extended to the LGBTQ community across the country. It is now illegal in the United States for any employer to fire an employee on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Prior to Monday’s decision it was still legal for an employer to do so in 26 states. With Pride celebrations and parades being canceled across the country because of the coronavirus pandemic, it is also fitting that this decision was handed down by the Court during Pride month.

Also of great importance is which Court Justice wrote this opinion. The decision itself was a 6-3 majority with conservatives Chief Justice John Roberts and Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch joining the Court’s four more liberal members.  The forceful, no-nonsense opinion was written by Justice Gorsuch in very clear language leaving no ambiguity to the Court’s decision.

An immediate backlash formed on the right in this country. Many religious conservatives decried the ruling as an attack on religious freedom. Evangelical leader Franklin Graham issued a fiery response to the ruling on Facebook, stating, “I believe this decision erodes religious freedoms across this country. People of sincere faith who stand on God’s Word as their foundation for life should never be forced by the government to compromise their religious beliefs. These are the freedoms our nation was founded on.”  He is arguing that his religious freedom is negatively impacted and should be prevented from firing someone from his church for being gay or transgender. The law now disagrees with him.

His argument strikes at a fundamental misunderstanding of the term “religious freedom” specifically as used by someone like Mr. Graham. Religious freedom means the freedom to practice whatever religion you choose. It also means, as stated in the First Amendment, that the government cannot force you to practice any particular religion against your will. For example, “I cannot do something because it goes against my religious beliefs,” is a perfectly distilled illustration of this. However, “YOU cannot do something because it goes against MY religious beliefs,” the position taken by Mr. Graham, is twisting the concept of religious freedom to a degree that is both unacceptable in this country and is in violation of the ideals of individual freedom embodied by our Constitution and Bill of Rights, as affirmed Monday by the Supreme Court. Very often, those who use the term “religious freedom” the loudest and most frequently leave off the two words that actually define this idea for them, “religious freedom to discriminate.”

Many take the position that their religious freedom, their freedom to BE a religious person and to practice their religion in the United States, is being destroyed because they will no longer be permitted to discriminate against members of the LGBTQ community in their hiring practices. Understand that no rights have been taken from Mr. Graham’s evangelicals or any other religious group in this Court ruling. Justice Gorsuch, as he wrote in his opinion, simply read the plain text of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and said, “it is a violation of the law for any employer to discriminate against an employee because of their gender,” which is exactly what the Act says. One astute observer put it this way; Equal rights for others does not mean fewer rights for you – it’s not pie. Another observer, Jesus Christ, put it this way, “You must love your neighbor as yourself.”

The Dolan Law Firm has fought tooth and nail for the rights of the LGBTQ community for decades and will continue to do so. We celebrate the Supreme Court’s ruling as we celebrate Pride month with our families, friends, co-workers, and community. Happy Pride everyone!

read more

Is it legal to shoot video of police?

This week’s question comes from Kimmy who writes:

Q: “I have attended recent Black Lives Matter protests to bring awareness to excessive force by Police against African Americans. At the last protest I attended, a police officer blocking an intersection told me to put my phone down and said I couldn’t film him. I have seen many videos from these protests and I wanted to document the protest myself. Am I allowed to film police officers?”

A: Kimmy, you raise a very important question. Many have seen the sickening cell phone footage of George Floyd with a police officer’s knee on his neck. We have seen even more cell phone video images of police abuse during some recent protests. These recordings have made a significant impact in the public perception of systemic racism within police forces and are acting as an import catalyst for change. This makes the conditions under which citizens may rightfully document the activities of law enforcement officers increasingly important to understand. Especially when, as happened to you, the police ask you to stop filming. The right to film police officers raises a number of legal questions including Constitutional First Amendment issues as well as California state laws.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the Government from passing laws that would infringe upon, among other things, free speech, and the freedom of the press.

Most courts have held that the First Amendment gives individuals the right to document police officers in public while they are performing their duties.

Inherent in the First Amendment is the right to freely discuss our government, as well as the freedom of the press and right to public access to information. Now that cell phones and other compact filming devices are ubiquitous and social media has become a primary source for people to receive their information, “news” is increasingly gathered and disseminated by members of the public. Fittingly, courts have recognized this change and held that the freedom of the press also applies to citizen journalists and documentarians just as it does to formal members of the press. (Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011).)

There are limits, however. In California, an individual may record an on-duty police officer, but may not do so surreptitiously (the camera must not be concealed or hidden). Under California Penal Code Section 647, audio recording, and potentially videotaping, a police officer with a concealed camera may constitute a misdemeanor. While openly recording an officer is legal, the conduct of others included in the audio and video may be protected. California Penal Code 632 makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the participants’ consent.

When filming the police, one must not interfere with the duties the officer is performing. It is not legal to interfere with those duties simply because one is recording. For example, an officer may need a reasonable amount of space to effectively detain a person. Even if one disagrees with the right of an officer to detain a person, it is not lawful to interfere with an arrest. If the officer is not impeded, it is entirely legal to record the officer.

Another important limitation to the right to film police is that it is lawful only on public areas such as streets, sidewalks, or other public lands. California has anti-stalking and “anti-paparazzi” laws which make it unlawful to record anyone on private property without consent. These laws also apply to off duty officers. To lawfully document a police officer, the officer must be in the performance of their duties and on public land.

While it is entirely legal for a person to film a police officer in California within these restrictions, it is important to use common sense. As you discovered, the right to film does not mean that the police will not confront a person who is filming them and ask them to stop. If this happens, it is best to remain calm and polite, and simply explain that you are exercising your First Amendment rights. It is always important to make sure the officer does not perceive a physical threat. If using a phone or small recording device such as a GoPro, have a colorful case or cover and never hold it in a manner that may allow it to be confused by an officer as a weapon. It is not advisable or legal to threaten an officer’s safety.

Finally, even though filming is lawful, a citizen journalist may still lawfully be questioned by a law enforcement officer, though there is no requirement to respond or answer any questions. And, unless a person is driving, there is no California law that requires a person to provide an officer with identification. If questioned or asked for ID, simply ask “am I being detained, or am I free to go.”

read more

Constitutional rights must balance with need to protect public health

Written by Matt Gramly and Christopher B. Dolan:

Does the First Amendment’s “right of the people to peaceably assemble” still apply during a pandemic or to protest marches during a pandemic?

The First Amendment to the Bill of Rights as attached to the Constitution of the United States of America reads as follows:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

However, as with any right also comes responsibility. Rights may be regulated by the state. The First Amendment also guarantees freedom of speech, but it is illegal to yell “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater if there is no fire. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, but private ownership of military style assault rifles or machine guns in California is heavily regulated if not outright banned. Such is the case with the right to assemble. The right is guaranteed under the Constitution, but it can be regulated by the state, especially if the public health is at issue.

The First Amendment right to assemble is as important today as it was when it was written in 1791. The state’s right to regulate this right is particularly important today as we confront a global pandemic and nationwide protests in response to the murder of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis, Minnesota. This issue was addressed directly by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1905 case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts. The question before the court was whether or not the state could force people to get the measles vaccine during a measles epidemic even if they did not want the vaccine.

Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote the following in the decision to allow states to require measles vaccinations: “The Constitution does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. A community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic and may, at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.” The Court ruled that the state may regulate or curtail an individual’s freedom, even though it is guaranteed within the Constitution, in the context of preventing the spread of disease during an epidemic.

The same principle has been applied to the coronavirus pandemic with states issuing shelter in place orders. One type of gathering of particular significance is church gatherings. The First Amendment guarantees the right to free expression of religion, along with the right to peaceably assemble, such as in a church. Shutting down religious services is a very important issue for millions of Americans who argue that nothing is more individual or important than religious faith. Many argue that church services are essential and must remain open to worshippers. How can a Safeway or a Home Depot or a marijuana dispensary be deemed essential, but not a church? It’s a valid question but the courts have mostly sided with the states’ right to regulate.

Churches involve gatherings of large numbers of people in confined spaces indoors and frequently involve singing. Since the coronavirus can spread easily through respiratory system activities such as talking or coughing, singing is an ideal way to spread it, especially indoors. Churches that continued to meet in violation of state orders have become virus transmission “hot spots” as a result.

On May 25, George Floyd, an African American man, died in police custody. Following soon after the killing of Breonna Taylor by Louisville, Kentucky police as she lay sleeping in her bed, and the murder of Ahmaud Arbery by three white men in Georgia, we have seen many protests against police brutality and the killings of African Americans by police. Large protests, like church gatherings, seem like the perfect environment for spreading the coronavirus, except for the fact that they take place outside instead of indoors.

Protest marches with people assembling peacefully petitioning the government for redress of grievances are a clear example of our First Amendment rights; but, we are still in the midst of a dangerous global pandemic. Thousands of people marching in very crowded settings are a big concern for medical professionals and many believe the marches will become hot spots of disease transmission.

Why can the government shut down churches and businesses, but not protest marches? One major distinction is that protests occur outdoors unlike churches and church services, which are generally indoors. Ultimately, local governments struggling to protect their citizens’ First Amendment rights to protest or worship must balance those rights with the important need to protect public health.

Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker said on June 1: “As we combat the pandemic, we remain in a real struggle with how to carry out the bedrock principles of democracy with the best medical guidance available to fight an infectious, contagious disease.”

The bottom line is that the First Amendment’s right to assemble can be regulated or curtailed by the state, especially during a pandemic. As of the writing of this article, the U.S. has more than 2 million confirmed coronavirus cases and 112,000 deaths from the disease.

read more

Our first amendment right to peacefully protest is sacrosanct

By: Lourdes DeArmas and Christopher Dolan

For the past 9 days, in response to the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police, people across the US and throughout the world have taken to the streets to demand racial justice and an end to police brutality and systematic racism against Black people. Some of the responses of our Federal, State, and Local governments in the past 72 hours are raising red flags and calling into question the police response to the protests and the curfews that have been imposed.

The right to protest is fundamental to our democracy and sacrosanct. The Founding Fathers thought that the right was so important that they wrote it into the first 45 words of the Bill of Rights and labeled it the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

As the Supreme Court observed in 1958, “It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech.”

In an eerie coincidence of numerical proportions, the 45th President is aiming to thwart, limit, or outright eviscerate the fundamental right to protest and have grievances heard. On Monday, President Trump left the White House, walked across Lafayette Park in Washington, D.C. and posed in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church while holding a Bible. The path to this photo op was cleared by the U.S. Park Police, Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies. The overwhelmingly peaceful protesters and members of the media were driven from the area using aggressive and violent crowd control tactics which included tear-gas, rubber bullets, smoke canisters, pepper spray pellets, and good ole’ brute force.

It has been widely debated as to whether tear gas or smoke were really used on the protesters. However, that debate is hollow. It was a crowd of American citizens engaged in constitutionally protected protests against police violence. So it does not matter what was used because it was fired into a crowd of people just wanting their voices to be heard and fighting to prevent the injustice that was suddenly thrust upon them. Imagine the heartbreaking absurdity of sanctioning police brutality at a protest against police brutality.

The simple reality cannot be brushed aside by rhetoric or partisan sound-bites. The clear and undeniable fact remains that law enforcement officers who harass peaceably assembled citizens are violating the First Amendment, no matter the tactic used. It is unlawful and those rights must be protected.

Even though the incident on Monday in Washington, D.C. occurred before the curfew set by the mayor, curfews in and of themselves violate civil liberties. Public officials at every level of government are making arbitrary decisions about when, where, and what time citizens are allowed to have their voices heard. Just like it is wrong to forcefully disperse protesters before curfew, it is just as wrong to disperse them after curfew.

Under state law, cities and counties can impose curfews during a state of emergency “to provide for the protection of life and property.” However, there must be actual or imminent violence beyond the means of the government to address the issue.  That threshold must be met. Unfortunately, curfews are enforced in very arbitrary and discriminatory ways. Historically, curfews have been used to suppress the voices of the people.

Even if curfews are being enacted for a legitimate purpose, there is an added danger for continued police misconduct. This is not a fear but a reality that is broadcast not only on the television news but throughout social media. The chilling scenes play out daily since the imposition of curfews where law enforcement rush crowds of peaceful protesters as soon the curfew time begins. Like a ticking time-bomb that explodes as soon as the clock strikes. Many of the violent confrontations have occurred under the cover of curfew enforcement. Unfortunately, depending on the particular law enforcement officer enforcing the curfew, a crowd could encounter a warning to go home, a ticket, mass arrests, or even rubber bullets. Those are just the mild encounters.

But the risk is not just one sided. We cannot also deny that a heavy-handed response to protests and the imposition of curfews also place the lives of law enforcement officers at risk. Violent confrontations sometime become unavoidable when fight or flight takes over. Additionally, there are those that are just waiting for an opportunity to inflict harm on law enforcement. Those consequences are not considered by those in power when the goal is to eviscerate the fundamental right to protest government action. It is very easy to make demands and insist on “dominating” the protestors with a heavy hand of “law and order” when you sit behind a desk or hide in a bunker.

In short, there is no denying that government and law enforcement have a goal of curtailing the rioting, looting, and destruction of property. But those interests must be weighed against a sweeping infringement of a fundamental right. The use of force, such as arrests, or the use of less-lethal weapons, should not be imposed against protesters unless strictly unavoidable. Otherwise the intended effect would be muzzling voices that need to be heard and censorship.

We will gladly represent anyone whose rights have been infringed.

read more