Miami Anchor Files Sexual Orientation Bias Charge

UPDATE: This story has been updated here.

One of the few openly gay TV anchors in the country–Charles Perez of WPLG in Miami–has filed a charge with the local human rights authority alleging sexual orientation and gender discrimination by station managers that resulted in his demotion from weeknight anchor.  Perez says his openly gay news director made comments about his performance and on-air presence that reflected anti-gay animus and that he was treated differently from heterosexual news employees.

According to the intake questionairre filed with the Miami-Dade Equal Opportunity Board–Florida does not protect employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation and so the claim would gay bias claim would be brought under local law–Perez says that beginning in March 2009 he was subjected to bias at the hands of news director Bill Pohovey.  The turning point appears to be an e-mail that was distributed by Perez’s ex-partner implying Perez was seeking the assistance of a therapist for issues relating to “gender identity issues.”

The allegations–and they are allegations at this point–suggest that Perez had been criticized for being “too anchor-like” and that he needed to lighten up with his female co-anchor, but then was told he should not interact with his co-anchor like “girlfriends.” He also alleges the news director made comments to him about marriage and family that he would never make to a heterosexual employee.

The complaint paints a picture of the news director showing photographs of “conquests” and talking explicitly about sex at one moment and then suggesting Perez was “too soft” the next.

In a statement from the station, Pohevey said “[a]s a gay man myself, I can safely say the Station does not discriminate against gay people.  Charles’ claim that the Station discriminates against gay people is untrue and offensive. WPLG has a reputation of being a leader in this community with a very diverse staff. The Station does not discriminate.  The Station will bring the facts out in the appropriate legal forum and fully expects to be completely vindicated.”

At this stage of the game, these are classic “he said, she he said” allegations. Perez provides a lot of evidence of conversations between him and the station and makes a number of inferences about the meaning of those conversations. There isn’t a lot of case law to parse out what is considered evidence of sexual orientation discrimination, although he clearly is making the argument that inferences of him being “soft” and “girlfriends” has homophobic overtones.

It’s also not true that a member of the same protected class–another openly gay man, in this case–cannot also discriminate.  From same-sex sexual harassment cases to race discrimination cases, courts have never been persuaded that someone of the same protected class can’t also be a harasser or a discriminatory actor.

5 Responses

  1. Interesting. Maybe it’s best, though, not to call them ‘he said, she said’ allegations…

  2. Har. Good catch. I changed it.

  3. […] article was originally posted at RE:ACT on August 4, 2009 and is reprinted here with permission fromt he […]

  4. There is some confusion regarding the law and what “protected class” means, and probably a good example of this is: “It’s also not true that a member of the same protected class–another openly gay man, in this case–cannot also discriminate”.

    Despite the widespread misunderstanding, nobody is a member of a protected class. Class in this context does not refer to a group of people, such as “middle class”, “working class”, etc.

    Instead, it refers to a classification, such as race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin.

    So the law doesn’t protect any particular religious group, for instance, from discrimination based on religion. It outlaws discrimination based upon religion.

    So with sexual orientation, it doesn’t grant any special rights for any particular sexual orientation, if the law in this case lists sexual orientation as a class. The alleged or perceived sexual orientation of the accused does not, or should not matter. If sexual orientation is a protected class, then nobody can discriminate based on sexual orientation.

    So if I, as a heterosexual male, have a crazy boss who is making my work life unbearable BECAUSE I am heterosexual, or male, then in places were discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender is illegal I might have a case if the reason for the harassment can be proven. It doesn’t matter if my boss is a transgendered female, homosexual male, lesbian, or an asexual person of indeterminate sexual identity, the law still applies.

    Of course, these things can be difficult to prove, unless the perp is overt about it.

    The confusion about the meaning of protected class is often used by conservatives to claim that special rights are being granted to a particular class of people, when in fact the meaning is entirely different in this context.

    Of course, if this were true, then laws against bias related violence or discrimination would be illegal, because of equal protection under the law.

    Same thing with laws defining hate crimes. No particular minority or plurality is protected more than any other.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: