San Diego Firefighters Win Harassment Suit

Jim Burroway

February 18th, 2009

A San Diego jury yesterday found that four firefighters were sexually harassed after being ordered to participate in a gay pride parade. The jury awarded the four $34,300 in damages, which must be split between the group. That works out to a little over $8,500 per firefighter, before attorney fees. Plaintiff’s attorney Charles LiMandri has indicated he will ask the judge to have the city of San Diego pay his legal fees.

The firemen claimed that they faced “faced pervasive or severe harassment from spectators and participants” while riding a fire engine in the July 2007 Gay Pride parade. The experience, they said, made them suffer stress-related problems such as headaches, anxiety and irritable bowel syndrome. But an examination of their original complaints revealed that their sense of being offended came from two fronts:

  • Even the most innocuous of calls (“Hey, Honey”, or “look at the big firemen”) were viewed as insults, affronts, or harassment. 
  • They were offended that they were lectured by anti-gay protesters. Since they were not gay, they felt that they didn’t deserve to be lectured — as if anyone deserves such a lecture, gay or straight.

The Jurors deliberated for about two and a half days before reaching the verdict. During an earlier trial last September, that jury was not able to reach a verdict. Plaintiffs’ attorney Charles LiMandri had asked for up to $1 million for each of this four clients. He didn’t ask for an award during the second trial.

Attorneys for the city have indicated that they will appeal the verdict. The San Diego Fire Department has since changed its policy, which now calls for volunteers to participate in parades.

a. mcewen

February 18th, 2009

The policy was only asking for trouble.

I hate when things like this happens because you just know it will be religious right talking points and fodder for videos like “Silencing Christians” no matter how silly it is.

David C.

February 18th, 2009

There are really two (at least) problems here: 1) abuse of statutes that were designed to protect workers from harassment by supervisors and coworkers, and 2) the interpretation of these as applying to a situation into which workers were assigned and over which their supervisors had no real control.

There is no way that the “abuse” could have been “pervasive” or “sustained”. The men in question were riding in a fire-truck traveling down the parade route, never even really close to spectators, and there was certainly never any physical contact. I think these men saw an opportunity to cash in on something and were likely prompted by a lawyer that saw an opportunity to get in on a piece of the action. There certainly was no work-related quid pro quo, and they were otherwise insulated from the crowd. If this is an example of straight machismo, well, I think these guys are cry-babies.

Nevertheless, the city should have always asked for volunteers and never “required” anybody’s participation in San Diego Pride. Of course, you don’t see police officers who are “required” to be there to maintain order complaining, but that’s a different story I suppose.

Timothy Kincaid

February 18th, 2009

This lawsuit had little to do with harassment of any sort and MUCH to do with establishing the existence of gay people as an offense to others.

“The money was never an issue for us. We never went in it for the money,” Ghiotto said. “We should never have even had to go to court.”

Ghiotto said the verdict “goes to show that there was some wrongdoing and we finally got the truth out and we prevailed and I’m happy with it.”

The amount of money is small, but LiMandri doesn’t care about that. LiMandri is on an anti-gay crusade and they have just won a VERY important victory.

The basis for this lawsuit was far less in what the fire-fighters might have heard or experienced from the middle of the street six feet up with the windows closed and earphones on and everything to do with “I don’t want to be around gay people”.

LiMandri’s goal all along was to find that gay pride parades are offensive and harassing. Once that is established, it provides a basis for every homophobe in the nation to sue their employer for the harassment of providing police or fire service in gay neighborhoods, the harassment of health inspectors going into gay restaurants or clubs, the harassment of social workers going to gay households.

Workers can now refuse to be around gay people or threaten to sue.

I very much hope the City wins on appeal.

Stefano A

February 18th, 2009

As an expat of Hillcrest, I could not agree with you more Timothy. Specifically with regard to the motivations underlying this trial.

LiMandri’s goal all along was to find that gay pride parades are offensive and harassing.

Part of this whole ordeal was him trying to get the courts to say that the firefighter’s participation was an infringement on their First Amendment rights as well.

Fortunately in that suit LiMandri and the firefighters also brought, San Diego Superior Court Judge Michael Anello noted in a written ruling that . . .

citizens must accept some limits on their constitutional rights when they enter government service.

According to that ruling, the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department acted in accordance with state and local anti-discrimination laws by participating in the parade. City officials considered the department’s presence in the event part of its “community-building activities.”

Also, reading the comments of the jurors, although they voted 12-0 only on the first and last questions (of the 9) they were asked to give a verdict on:

The first question asked: “Were the plaintiffs subjected to unwanted harassing conduct because of their gender?” The last question asked: “What are the plaintiffs’ damages?”

The question with the slimmest support was the second one, which was the question the jury in the first trial deadlocked on. It asked: “Was the harassment of the plaintiffs severe or pervasive?” For that question, the jury voted 9-3 for each firefighter.

It was perfectly clear that their verdicts were not really based on harassment, but what they were really voting on in this case was the issue of whether or not the firfighters should have been required to attend.

An already moot point by the time of this trial.

David Roberts

February 18th, 2009

Timothy said:

This lawsuit had little to do with harassment of any sort and MUCH to do with establishing the existence of gay people as an offense to others.



February 18th, 2009

I hope this wont be the beginning of a recoil effect on gay rights.

Truly sad.

Jason D

February 19th, 2009

I’ve said from the beginning that it’s rather ridiculous.

If you’ve ever been to any large parade or outdoor gathering the crowd itself is so loud that it’s deafening. It’s impossible to talk on the phone, and quite a challenge to hear someone standing right next to you unless they are shouting in your ear. Being the focus of the crowd’s energy, not to mention music from floats and nearby buildings, sitting six feet above the crowd in a noisy vehicle — it’s rather hard to believe they heard anything specific, and even more ridiculous that driving such an large and imposing vehicle they could feel at all threatened by the crowd.
They were essentially driving a tank through a disco.

Scott P.

February 19th, 2009

Timothy, I think it a real stretch to go from being required to attend a parade and fighting a fire, inspecting a club and providing services. Police, firefighters and social workers can’t decide which laws they’ll enforce, which fires they’ll fight or which services they’ll provide. That would be like a fry-cook refusing to cook a burger. It’s an essential part of the job, not a sideline. The cook may refuse to wear a mascot costume out front, but he can’t refuse to actually cook.

Timothy Kincaid

February 19th, 2009

Scott P.

Perhaps you were unaware that the firefighters that sued were stationed at the Hillcrest fire station at 9th and University. That part of University is called “Rainbow Mile”. The pride parade literally went past the building in which they work.

A jury has declared that they can refuse to associate with the people just outside the door. They can refuse to be part of community outreach to the community in which they are located.

Scott P.

February 19th, 2009

I see. So, if a fire breaks out in “their” neighborhood, you think this decision gives them the right to sit in their fire-station and refuse to do what they’re paid for. Is that what you’re saying?

Do you honestly think that if that happens each and everyone of them wouldn’t be fired? There’s a hell of a lot of difference between being in a parade, which is extraneous to their jobs, and actually refusing to do what they are PAID to do.

Again, no person can legally refuse to do the job they are hired to do without being fired with just cause.

I honestly think you are being hysterical in imagining that that would happen. I may be wrong, but I don’t think so.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.


Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.