In the News

The legal rights of the LGBTQ+ community are being challenged every day across the country including right here in San Diego. Haeggquist & Eck are in the process of filing a case against the Grossmont Union High School District for banning resources, banning books, and terminating contracts of LGBTQ+ members despite them working for the district for decades. Grossmont Union High School District school board members have been actively and publicly condemning the LGBTQ+ community declaring they don’t reflect their “East County Values.” At HAE, we are committed to fighting for the rights of the LGBTQ+ community and employees.

In recent months, the fight for LGBTQ+ rights has faced significant challenges, particularly with the blocking of a Title IX rule intended to protect LGBTQ+ students in some states. This rule was designed to ensure that students are not discriminated against based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, fostering a safe and inclusive environment for all. Unfortunately, these judicial blocks threaten the well-being and educational opportunities of LGBTQ+ students, highlighting the urgent need for advocacy and action.

Adding to this concern, there has been a surge of anti-trans legislation proposed or recently passed across the country. In 2024, a total of 604 anti-trans bills have been introduced in 43 states. Forty-two have passed, 221 bills have failed, and 341 are still active. These laws often aim to restrict access to education, legal recognition, gender-affirming healthcare, limit participation in sports, and undermine the rights of transgender individuals to live authentically. Such legislation not only infringes on the fundamental rights of transgender people but also perpetuates stigma and discrimination.1

FREE CASE EVALUATION

The Statistics on Violence Against the LGBTQ+ Community are Alarming

LGBTQ+ individuals face four times the rate of violence compared to cisgender counterparts. In the workplace, 37% of LGBTQ+ employees reported experiencing at least one form of harassment at work because of their sexual orientation or gender identity at some point in their lives. Additionally, the rates of harassment significantly increase for transgender individuals and LGBTQ+ people of color.2

These sobering facts underscore the critical importance of standing up for LGBTQ+ rights, regardless of one’s status or identity.

How Haeggquist & Eck (HAE) Advocates for the LGBTQ+ Community:

· HAE fights for the rights of LGBTQ+ employees who have experienced harassment and discrimination.

· HAE provides a free Know Your Rights webinar for the LGBTQ+ community.

· HAE proactively recruits people from the LGBTQ+ community. We believe that people from historically marginalized communities have a special insight into the experiences and oppression that our clients have faced in their workplaces.

· HAE employees volunteer their time to LGBTQ+-centered organizations such as the San Diego Pride Survivor Task Force and She Fest.

· HAE sponsors and donates to LGBTQ+-centered organizations annually such as the Tom Homann Legal Association and San Diego Pride.

· HAE donates to organizations that serve LGBTQ+ and other marginalized communities such as Your Safe Place and Think Dignity.

· HAE follows proposed legislation, informs the public, and writes letters supporting the LGBTQ+ community.

· HAE publishes blogs and posts with information for the LGBTQ+ community regarding their rights.

· HAE marches in the annual San Diego Pride Parade.

· HAE has quarterly training for their employees on unconscious bias, cultural humility, intersectionality, and providing trauma-informed services.

· HAE listens to LGBTQ+ leaders and organizations to understand the issues they are facing and how they wish to be supported and advocated for.

Our unwavering commitment aims to foster equality, celebrate diversity, and support the LGBTQ+ community in every possible way.

“No pride for some of us, without liberation for all of us.” Marsha P. Johnson

If you have experienced harassment or discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, there are federal and state laws that protect your rights.

In California, several laws protect LGBTQ+ employees, ensuring their right to work in a safe and inclusive environment. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prohibits harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. The Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits arbitrary discrimination in public accommodations and business establishments. The Ralph Civil Rights Act prohibits violence or threats against a person due to sexual orientation, gender identity, and other protected characteristics. Employees also have protections under federal law known as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Examples of LGBTQ+ Discrimination and Harassment in the Workplace

· Refusing to hire

· Denying promotions

· Unequal pay

· Targeted harassment

· Failure to address anti-LGBTQ+ harassment that creates a hostile work environment

· Refusing bathroom access

· Intentionally misgendering

· Denying health benefits

· Wrongful termination

If you have experienced harassment or discrimination in the workplace based on your sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, give Haeggquist & Eck a call for a free no-obligation case evaluation. When you’re ready to stand up, we will stand with you.

Sources:

1) Trans Legislation Tracker

2) UCLA School of Law Williams Institute

Haeggquist & Eck, LLP is proud to co-counsel on this landmark case with Bailey & Glasser, LLP and Casey Gerry 

Press Release from Bailey & Glasser 

In the case’s second key ruling in the past month, U.S. District Court Judge Todd W. Robinson held yesterday that all the female student-athletes who filed the precedent-setting Title IX sex discrimination class action against San Diego State University can sue the school for retaliating against them for asserting their rights. 

On April 12, 2023, the Court held the five Plaintiffs present on a Zoom meeting during which a coach made threatening remarks could sue for retaliation. At that time, however, it held the other twelve Plaintiffs could not. Yesterday, October 10, 2023, the Court amended its previous order and held that all seventeen Plaintiffs could pursue retaliation claims. It noted that SDSU’s actions allegedly “dissuaded some team members from joining the lawsuit or participating as witnesses,” which hampered all Plaintiffs’ “ability to proceed with their Title IX lawsuit without interference.” It ruled that all of the Plaintiffs could seek damages from SDSU for retaliation in the past and those who were enrolled at the school when the case was filed could seek a court order barring SDSU from retaliating in the future.    

“The Court has now made clear that all of the women athletes will be able to hold SDSU accountable for retaliating against them and interfering with their ability to prove their claims,” said Bailey Glasser partner and Title IX Team Leader Arthur Bryant, lead counsel for the women. “Title IX is the law. It prohibits sex discrimination. SDSU should be complying with the law, not retaliating against its female athletes for trying to make it do so.” 

“Our justice system depends on the simple point that litigants cannot intimidate or scare away potential witnesses,” said Bailey Glasser partner Joshua Hammack in Washington, D.C., who took the lead in briefing and arguing the issues. “SDSU tried to do exactly that, and the Court agreed all Plaintiffs deserve their day in court on the resulting retaliation claim.” 

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits all educational institutions that receive federal funds, including SDSU, from discriminating on the basis of sex. It requires schools to provide male and female student-athletes with equal participation opportunities, athletic financial aid, and treatment, and prohibits them from retaliating against anyone for challenging sex discrimination at the school. In the SDSU case, the women are suing for equal athletic financial aid, equal treatment, and retaliation. 

Plaintiffs’ retaliation claims arise from the following facts: The lawsuit was filed on February 7, 2022, charging the school with depriving women of equal opportunities to compete for athletic financial aid. At that time, SDSU knew the women were preparing to add an equal treatment claim unless SDSU agreed to stop discriminating against female student-athletes. 

Just over a week later, on February 16, 2022, members of the women’s varsity track and field team were called to an impromptu Zoom meeting. At the start of that meeting, SDSU made clear to the five Plaintiffs on the call and nearly forty of their teammates that it was disappointed with the team members who had filed the Title IX suit and cautioned the team that athletics participation was a privilege, not a right, implying that those who assisted with the lawsuit could be removed from the team. This threat made some members of the team wary of joining in the case or helping the women who had filed suit prove their claims. When Plaintiffs asked SDSU to take specific steps to minimize the harm these comments caused, SDSU refused. 

Plaintiffs in the case are former SDSU women’s rowing and track and field team members Madison Fisk, Raquel Castro, Greta Viss, Clare Botterill, Maya Brosch, Olivia Petrine, Aisha Watt, Helen Bauer, Carina Clark, Natalie Figueroa, Erica Grotegeer, Kaitlin Heri, Kamryn Whitworth, Sara Absten, Eleanor Davies, Alexa Dietz, and Larisa Sulcs. 

In addition to Bryant and Hammack, the women are represented by Bailey Glasser’s Lori Bullock in Des Moines, IA, and Cary Joshi in Washington, DC, along with co-counsel Amber Eck and Jenna Rangel of Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, and David S. Casey, Jr., and Gayle Blatt of Casey Gerry in San Diego. 

Less than a month ago, on September 15, 2023, the Court ruled on SDSU’s motion to dismiss in part Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint and found that all Plaintiffs can seek money damages from SDSU for depriving women athletes of equal athletic financial aid. 

Now, with the equal athletic financial aid, equal treatment, and retaliation claims moving forward, the case will proceed to discovery and a decision on the merits.   

Haeggquist & Eck, LLP is proud to co-counsel on this landmark case with Bailey & Glasser, LLP and Casey Gerry.  

Press Release from Bailey & Glasser: 

The precedent-setting Title IX sex discrimination case against San Diego State University for discriminating against its female-student athletes continues to move forward. On April 12, 2023, U.S. District Court Judge Todd W. Robinson confirmed female student-athletes deprived of equal athletic financial aid can sue their schools for damages—and held ten of the women suing SDSU could do so. Late Friday afternoon, September 15, 2023, ruling on SDSU’s motion to dismiss in part Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, Judge Robinson held that all seventeen of the women suing SDSU can seek such damages. 

The court also rejected SDSU’s argument that, because the case had already taken so long that the women are no longer student-athletes, they could not seek a court order stopping the school from discriminating in the future. It held that, if the case went forward as a class action, those who were student-athletes when the case was filed could also seek a court order protecting future student-athletes. 

“This is a huge victory for the women athletes and everyone who cares about stopping sex discrimination at SDSU and nationwide,” said Arthur Bryant of Bailey Glasser, LLP, in Oakland, CA, lead counsel for the women. “The school has cheated its female student-athletes out of millions of dollars of equal athletic financial aid in the past few years alone—and it still hasn’t changed its ways. Now, all the women who decided to stand up and fight can make SDSU pay. And the school won’t be able to keep discriminating in the future just because it’s delayed judgment day so far. “ 

“This critical ruling confirms what we’ve said all along—these brave women deserve their day in court to hold SDSU accountable for its past discriminatory behavior and to prevent it from engaging in discriminatory behavior in the future,” said Joshua Hammack of Bailey Glasser, LLP in Washington, DC, who took the lead in briefing and arguing the issues. “This order ensures Plaintiffs can pursue both goals in court, which is an important victory for them, for justice, and for women everywhere.” 

“We hope and believe this ruling will make a big difference,” said Plaintiff and former SDSU rower Natalie Figueroa. “A key point of our suit is that women were not given an equal opportunity to receive athletic financial aid. That was discrimination. I and other female student-athletes could and would have gotten more aid if we were given an equal opportunity to do so.” 

In addition to Figuero, the lawsuit was filed by past and then current SDSU student-athletes Madison Fisk, Raquel Castro, Greta Viss, Clare Botterill, Maya Brosch, Olivia Petrine, Aisha Watt, Helen Bauer, Carina Clark, Erica Grotegeer, Kaitlin Heri, Kamryn Whitworth, Sara Absten, Eleanor Davies, Alexa Dietz, and Larisa Sulcs. 

In addition to Bryant and Hammack, the women are represented by Bailey Glasser’s Lori Bullock in Des Moines, IA, and Cary Joshi in Washington, DC, along with co-counsel Amber Eck and Jenna Rangel of Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, and David S. Casey, Jr., and Gayle Blatt of Casey Gerry in San Diego. 

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits all educational institutions that receive federal funds, including SDSU, from discriminating on the basis of sex. It requires schools to provide male and female student-athletes with equal participation opportunities, athletic financial aid, and treatment, and prohibits them from retaliating against anyone for challenging sex discrimination at the school. In the SDSU case, the women are suing for equal athletic financial aid, equal treatment, and retaliation.