Wash. high court: Gay rights law not retroactive
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - The Washington Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the state's 2006 expansion of the anti-discrimination law to include gays and lesbians is not retroactive.
The unanimous ruling is in response to a lawsuit filed by an employee of the University of Washington who alleged she was discriminated against by her supervisor and was subjected to a hostile work environment because she was gay. The high court said that while incidents that occurred before the law took effect cannot be retroactively remedied, they can be used in an overall hostile workplace case if the actions continued after June 2006.
The case originated in King County Superior Court, where Debra Loeffelholz sued in May 2009, alleging James Lukehart had discriminated against her.
According to court records, Loeffelholz said Lukehart asked her if she was gay shortly after she began working in the university's asbestos office as a program coordinator in 2003. She said that when she responded that she was, Lukehart told her not to "flaunt it" around him.
Lukehart was an Army reservist and before deploying to Iraq in June 2006, he reportedly said in a meeting that he was "going to come back a very angry man" from Iraq.
The King County court found in favor of the university, saying the gay civil rights law was not retroactive to when Loeffelholtz alleged the first incident. The court also found it was not reasonable to conclude the "angry man" comment Lukehart made after the law took effect was motivated by Loeffelholz's sexual orientation.
The Court of Appeals reaffirmed that the law was not retroactive but said that did not impact Loeffelholz's pre-2006 claim, so long as the "angry man" comment was made after the law's effective date.
The Supreme Court, led by Justice Susan Owens, agreed with the appeals court on the issue of retroactivity but said it "erred in allowing recovery for pre-amendment conduct."
Because the expansion of the anti-discrimination law "applies prospectively only, Loeffelholz cannot recover for acts that occurred prior to the amendment" of the law, Owens wrote. "To do so would hold the University liable for conduct that was not unlawful at the time it was committed. ... Before June 7, 2006, Lukehart's sexual-orientation-based harassment was merely reprehensible, not unlawful."
The case now goes back to King County Superior Court.
Loeffelholz's attorney, Mike Withey, said he was disappointed with the ruling on retroactivity, but was "very gratified that Debra Loeffelholz will have her day in court to redress the bullying and homophobic tactics of a senior manager at the University of Washington."
Withey said that while Lukehart is no longer Loeffelholz's supervisor, he remains employed at the university. Officials with the University of Washington did not return a phone call seeking comment, and an attorney who represented them said he couldn't speak without authorization from the school.
Blacks, women, etc. are minorities, not by choice. Â Gay people are gay by choice and should never be compared to people who are actually discriminated against.Â
Is the battle that the LGBT community is facing on religious, political and cultural fronts equal to what Black people in America had to face and continue to face? No, but it cannot and should not be minimized by that fact. Injustice is injustice, whether due to the color of our skin , the content of our character or sexual orientation. Letâs not be on the wrong side of history.
So this man told his employee "not to flaunt" her gayness??? That's quite mild as comments go. So glad this woman gets what her attorney calls her "day in court", to address such grievous violations of her civil rights . . . . NOT. I'm okay with it, but try as they do, the LGBT people cannot make me feel the same indignation at assaults on their "civil" rights, as I felt in the 50's and 60's when seeing black people's civil rights violated in the South. It's just not the same.
This comment has been deleted
 @cptmac11  @felines99Nope. No one is telling them that they cannot vote, or use the same water fountain as others do, or that they must sit in the back of the bus, because of their skin color. The cause of sexual preference does not evoke in me the same passions which the black civil rights movement did. It's a question of degree, I suppose.
 @Harvey 1701  @cptmac11 Regarding questions from one's employer about one's sexual preference, I cannot imagine anyone stupid enough not to get it, by now, that such questions are not allowed at the workplace. When wronged individuals start filing lawsuits, employers become very fast learners.
I realize that this is about treating people with dignity. I am not saying that gay people's rights are not civil rights; I am simply saying that I personally do not find the cause equally noble. If that is because of a problem on my part, so be it. But I simply cannot get as enraged at slights which pertain to one's sexual nature, as those which pertain to using one's mind and body to ennoble oneself, as one does in voting and in getting an equal education. Sorry.
 @felines99  @cptmac11 No, but in many states, gays still have to hide who they are. If a man has been in a relationship with another man for 20 years, he can be fired for this in many states (including Idaho, our neighbor to the east). What is flaunting gayness? How does one "flaunt" that? Under such rules, what is one supposed to do if they are asked if they are married? Or what their spouse does for a living? Does "not flaunting" mean they can't have a picture of their spouse on their desk at work, while their straight peers can? This is about treating people with diginity, which is very much what the civil rights movement was about.  So, yes, I think they are very much the same thing.
"Loeffelholz's attorney, Mike Withey, said he was disappointed with the ruling on retroactivity,..."
Â
Are you kidding me? Is this guy a total idiot or what? There is no case law that allows laws to be retroactive. The SCOTUS has actually addressed this issue and says that crimes committed 30 years ago have to be tried with the laws that were in place at the time.
Â
This is one really stupid lawyer.
@RalphCramden Beg to differ, Ralph. PERS pension revisions can undo past promises.
 @jpk Â
Â
We are talking about civil and criminal laws here. Not promises of retirement.
Â
Government, at least the current form, cannot go back and retroactively charge someone with a crime that wasn't a crime at the time of the offense. Same with civil liabilities like discrimination that was not illegal in the past but is illegal now.
 @cptmac11    @jpkÂ
Â
Because he could. Once convicted they can be pardoned. But no one can be convicted of a crime that didn't exist at the time.
@RalphCramden @jpk So why did bush pardon people from 1967??