GLAA demands that Metro abide by D.C. Human Rights Act
Related Links

When Is a Subway System Like a State? It's Not a Silly Question (The Washington Post) 06/09/02

D.C. Housing Authority still misses mark on Human Rights Act 05/23/02

Howell testifies on Office of Human Rights FY 2003 Budget 04/19/02

GLAA testifies at performance oversight hearing on Office of Human Rights 03/01/02

GLAA to Post: United Way doesn't follow its own rules 01/26/02

OHR on Anti-Discrimination Issuances & EEO Notices 08/22/01

Summersgill: Proposed Rules for the DC Housing Authority Ignore Mayor's Order 08/22/01

Catania admonishes Corp. Counsel for non-enforcement of Mayor's Executive Order on Human Rights 07/16/01

Summersgill writes Mayor on failures to obey executive order on non-discrimination statements 07/12/01

GLAA testimony: Corporation Counsel has conflict of interest 06/14/01

Text of executive order on non-discrimination 08/21/00

GLAA asks Mayor for Executive Order on commitment to Human Rights Law 03/17/00

DC Human Rights Law

GLAA on Human Rights

GLAA demands that Metro abide by D.C. Human Rights Act

Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, DC
PO Box 75265
Washington, DC 20013

June 17, 2002

The Honorable Jim Graham
Council of the District of Columbia
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004

Gladys Mack
Deputy Director
United Planning Organization
301 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Room 2004
Washington, D.C. 20001

Dear Councilmember Graham and Ms. Mack:

The Outlook section of the June 9 Washington Post included a column entitled "When Is a Subway System Like a State? It's Not a Silly Question," by Douglas Huron, a partner with the law firm of Heller, Huron, Chertkof, Lerner, Simon & Salzman.

We were shocked to learn from this article that Metro "has successfully argued for immunity [from a host of civil rights laws], relying on ambiguous language in the agreement creating the transit authority to persuade several federal trial judges that it is not even subject to the D.C. human rights law, even for wrongs committed in the District."

Although Mr. Huron's focus is on the impact of Metro's anti-civil rights stance upon litigation based on age and disability discrimination, we are too painfully aware of this contemptible policy's effect upon the rights and interests of gay men and lesbians in our area, whether as customers or as Metro employees. In effect, what we are seeing is: "Metro to Gays and Lesbians: Drop Dead."

Mr. Huron suggests, as one possible remedy: "Metro could seize the initiative and say that it will not assert immunity in any lawsuit brought under a civil rights statute....[I]t may be enough if Metro's board declares forcefully -- and officially -- that immunity will not be asserted." We think this is an excellent idea. Accordingly, we ask both of you, as D.C.'s official representatives on the Metro board, to promptly place an appropriate binding resolution before the full board and see that it is passed and enforced.

We realize that the Metro board not long ago passed a resolution affirming a policy of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (among other grounds). While this policy is obviously good to have in place, its usefulness is sabotaged if Metro's lawyers are allowed to assert in court that it is under no legal obligation to respect the D.C. Human Rights Act. For years, we have fought a similar bias against our own Human Rights Act within the D.C. Corporation Counsel's office, and we are not about to tolerate the same kind of runaway lawyering from Metro's attorneys.

The Metro board directs its lawyers -- not the other way around. It is time to reassert that fundamental fact.

We hope for a speedy remedy.

Sincerely,

Bob Summersgill
President

cc: The Honorable David Catania
Calvin Nophlin
Douglas Huron


pageok