Forced Outing Results in $270K for Gay Man
This is interesting….. I’m glad I’m not involved in the forced outing of gay men. This would be a lot of money for someone to have to shell out in a civil settlement.
Gay Man Outed on Radio to Receive $270,000 – FOX News
Arbitrator Rebecca Westerfield found on Friday that Hernandez had suffered emotional distress but dismissed claims of sexual harassment. She said that Hernandez had no choice but to quit his job and was owed workers’ compensation.
Hernandez was awarded $250,000 and nearly $20,000 in economic damages because of the emotional distress that led to seven months of unemployment after quitting his job.
Now imagine if a bunch of forced-outed gay men got together and filed a class action lawsuit. Whew. Maybe there *is* money to be made in the blogosphere?
-Bruce (GayPatriot) – gaypatriot2004@aol.com
20 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
This is an interesting legal theory that they arbitrated under for me as a law student. A claim of slander would have most likely been overcome as truth is an absolute defense to slander in most jurisdictions.
What is sad to me in this story is that any person thinks that they have the right to out another person, especially on such a program. Coming out as GLBT is difficult enough for a person and to have it forced upon oneself is simply sick. I’ll freely admit that in every situation it’s not easy to hold high the banner of moral decency when you hear about certain people (i.e., the mayor in Washington State) who have villified the GLBT community to their gain whilst trickin’ on the side. This was apparently not the case, however, so yet again I’m getting off track and jumping on my soap box.
Good for this guy. The radio station deserves to have it broke off in them.
Comment by ARCountryBoy — August 15, 2005 @ 10:45 am - August 15, 2005
You mean she found a right to privacy in the workplace?
How amusing:)
=
Comment by chandler in hollywood — August 15, 2005 @ 11:05 am - August 15, 2005
Indeed they did, Chandler…..and the amusing thing is, I would imagine that the workplace laws about harassing individuals in the District of Columbia are, if anything, even STIFFER than California’s. Indeed, with the data provided, it should be clear that Rogers and Aravosis targeted based on political affiliation — which is an even bigger no-no in DC.
Based on this, all that I would say has to be done is for people to get together Rogers and Aravosis’s outing targets, then document the damage to their workplace and job performance that their actions caused, then file a lawsuit.
There are more specific details on the case in question here.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 15, 2005 @ 11:33 am - August 15, 2005
Good on him! But I’m sure some cretin(s) here will call him a ‘self-hating closet case’ for daring to live his own life on his own terms. Hopefully this case will set a legal precedent for all the others who’ve been forcibly “liberated” at the hands of creeps like the two mentioned above. The ACLU’s probably having an emergency meeting about it as we speak.
Comment by glisteny — August 15, 2005 @ 12:38 pm - August 15, 2005
Firstly, ND30, thanks for actually providing an original document that isn’t the usual heresay that is circlejerked about here. And it is a STATE law, Californis go figger, that is so LIBERAL with the right to PRIVACY. As much as you like to salivate about Rogers and Arivosis, and to a lesser exten tKos, they report on NATIONAL PUBLIC figures. Different laws for different people.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — August 15, 2005 @ 1:55 pm - August 15, 2005
Ah, but you see, Chandler, that’s not who they’ve been “outing”. Who they’ve been “outing” in most cases are staffers of national public figures and organizations, most of whose workplaces are located in Washington D.C., which means the laws of the District of Columbia are what would apply. — and trust me, they make California’s look EASY.
What Rogers and Aravosis may be pinning their hopes on is that, in several cases, laws governing workplace conduct and privacy do not apply to Congress. However, in this case, where their intent was clearly partisan in nature and designed specifically to cause people discomfort, I think the law would apply.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 15, 2005 @ 2:10 pm - August 15, 2005
While I do not support what the station did, was it a “forced” outing? That implied they somehow made him out himself. They didn’t force him to do anything; they betrayed a confidence that he shared with a indivual, and deliberately outed a private individual. Threre was no public figure involved or public-interest.
Let’s use clear, concise language here. They simply “outed” him, and now have to pay the consequences.
Comment by Ted B. — August 15, 2005 @ 2:52 pm - August 15, 2005
“Rogers and Aravosis…”
Speaking of the devils, read this!
http://www.watchingthewatchers.org/comments/2005/8/10/22245/2023/5#5
Comment by Nope — August 15, 2005 @ 4:07 pm - August 15, 2005
Who they’ve been “outing” in most cases are staffers of national public figures…
=========
Most of these people, if they have given a press conference, briefed the press, represented their boss in public, are considered public, public-citizens. A lesbian republican judge here, a chief of staff there, all public people. People in the public eye are subject to public scrutiny. Now that old, alleged closet queen Matt Drudge, do you consider HIM a private person?
Comment by chandler in hollywood — August 15, 2005 @ 5:00 pm - August 15, 2005
Most of these people, if they have given a press conference, briefed the press, represented their boss in public, are considered public, public-citizens.
By whose definition — yours? Bring forward a real link that says these people qualify as “public figures”.
Furthermore, Chandler, in your clever wordplay, you admitted that “most” fall under your definition of “public figure”. “Most” is not “all”; therefore, Rogers and Aravosis have “outed” people which, even by your unusual definition, do not qualify as “public figures”, by your own admittance.
In short, why do you support the outing of non-public figures? Did you support the station’s outing of Mr. Hernandez as well or, since he worked for a radio-affiliated company and quite possibly represented radio figures, does that make him a “public figure”?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 15, 2005 @ 5:54 pm - August 15, 2005
Wouldn’t a more accurate analysis of this case be that the harrassment after being outed is what prompted the award and not the actual outing? I think that is what is more sad, that you have to stay in the closet to keep your job in the first place.
Comment by Britton — August 15, 2005 @ 6:11 pm - August 15, 2005
Here’s the problem, Britton:
“I couldn’t believe that human people would react like that when somebody is put down like this,” he said. “It was one of the most humiliating moments of my life.”
He filed a complaint with the company’s human resources department and was promised, he says, an investigation.
Several months later, after growing angry and depressed as he received no response, his sales performance suffered (as noted by his supervisor) and he quit.
Actually, the arbitrator said that he had NOT been harassed, as GP’s original article makes clear. However, because of these individuals’ actions, he had suffered emotional distress and had no choice but to quit his job.
And amazingly enough, Univision tried to use what I am now calling “the Chandler in Hollywood defense”….Hernandez qualified as a “public figure”, so it was OK to out him.
The FCC has a clear privacy rule barring putting people on the air without their knowledge. But Univision argued that because Brindis and Hernandez both worked for the same company, they were covered by an exception to the privacy rule that exempts those “associated with the station (such as employees or part-time reporters).”
You see, under Chandler’s dictum, Hernandez was a “public figure”, since he was an ad salesman for a radio station and, as such, represented said station to the public.
The FCC rejected the argument. It was intended to cover reporters at stations talking about stories, not everyone throughout the extended company, it said.
This shows clearly how horribly devastating and mean-spirited outing can be. For those of us who oppose it in every circumstance, it’s proof positive. For those who want the right to do it, twists and excuses must be made as to why it’s somehow all right.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 15, 2005 @ 6:37 pm - August 15, 2005
And now that it isn’t illegal to be homosexual, thank God for an activist court that so soon after Hardwick reversed itself with Lawrence, there is little basis for litigiousness anymore. Now it is just a big non issue most of the time. It has all the weight of calling someone “a bad Christian”.
But concerning Lawrence, I love reading Nino’s dissenting opinion. It reads like a comic book from the fifties.
It amuses me so.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — August 15, 2005 @ 7:51 pm - August 15, 2005
Chandler-
Not sure what your point is. Calling someone a homosexual is no longer slander per se — since it is no longer accusing someone of a crime.
But… slander per se isn’t the only kind of slander; slander isn’t the only kind of actionable speech; and sodomy laws formed no part of the argument in this case, as far as I can tell. So… what was your point?
Comment by Clint — August 16, 2005 @ 5:47 am - August 16, 2005
His point, as usual, is that conservatives are evil. You see, in his world, the entire office where he worked should have immetiately thrown a GBLT party to celebrate his newly discovered diversity.
Of course, if he wanted his sexual inclinations to be private, this is wrongthink and also proof that conservatives hate/demonize/burn alive gays.
Of course, one wonders weather Chandler has shared HIS sexual preferences with his co-workers. How ’bout it, Chandler? Do the other members of your morning shift at McDonald’s know what breast (or penis) sizes you like best? Weather you think Asians or Latinos are hotter? Or are you a flaming hypocrite in this subject too?
Comment by Ryan Waxx — August 18, 2005 @ 10:00 am - August 18, 2005
nice to be seen
Comment by good to heard — September 2, 2005 @ 10:53 am - September 2, 2005
nice nice!
Comment by Carole — March 2, 2006 @ 10:07 pm - March 2, 2006
Hello my name’s Tammie Bradshaw…and I’m totally blown away with your blog design! Great JOB!
Comment by Workmans Comp — March 21, 2006 @ 12:10 am - March 21, 2006
Hey ALL! Lisa Evans here and I’m a newbie to this. I just have to say this is one of the better blogs I have visited. I have subscribed to your feed!
Comment by Workmans Comp — March 21, 2006 @ 2:44 pm - March 21, 2006
Cheers and greetings everyone! I’m Cynthia Werner, and today I am looking at various blog designs because I am trying to learn new things. Very nice blog design Guys! I just added your blogs feed to my rss reader!
Comment by comic books — March 30, 2006 @ 11:37 am - March 30, 2006