A lesson to employers 👉 A D.C. Superior Court jury on March 15 handed down a verdict favoring former AARP employee Richard A. Deus Jr. based on a “preponderance of the evidence” that Deus’s sexual orientation was a “substantial contributing factor” in the company’s decision to fire him. 🔗 https://www.washingtonblade.com/2023/07/27/aarp-services-lawsuit/ #hrissues #lawsuit
How they determined it as the main cause? Their CEO is gay, hard to imagine employees can't be gay
Thru discovery process. Presume someone mentioned in email or text messages
You're making stuff up, OP. If that was indeed the case it would be all over the article. "The jury also chose not to hold AARP Services responsible for paying punitive damages to Deus, whose lawsuit called for $5 million in compensatory damages and an additional $5 million in punitive damages. In its verdict, according to online court records, the jury awarded Deus $1,612,916.18 in compensatory damages and $578,351 in damages for emotional distress that AARP Services is required to pay Deus. The court records show the jury awarded Deus another $1,118.89 to be paid by AARP Services for its alleged breach of contract with him in its decision to fire him. Deus’s lawsuit accused AARP Services of targeting Deus for discrimination based on his marriage to another man as well as for his sexual orientation. The jury did not find that AARP Services engaged in discrimination against Deus based on his marital status. He noted in his testimony that his decision to fire Deus was based, in part, on the recommendation of AARP Services’ human resources or personnel director, Michael Loizzi, who is an openly gay man. Loizzi, who also testified at the trial, said that as a gay man he would never have called for Deus or anyone else to be fired because of their sexual orientation. He stated in his testimony that he recommended to Flanagan that Deus be fired because Deus violated AARP Services travel policy and lied to his supervisor about the details of the travel to get his supervisor’s approval under false pretenses." In other words, there was direct evidence or records like you claim. Otherwise, he likely would have been awarded another 10M. His side in court was able to show unequal treatment where he was fired for the alleged business trips while other non-gay employees did not (at most they were disciplined). Whether he was targeted because of being gay is an open question. Considering that AARP hired him, appointed a director (including over non-gay employees) and employed for 11 years it is very unlikely that he was targeted for being gay. Very likely he had a feud with someone from the upper management and they fired him for the first alleged policy violation (shady business trips). If he wasn't gay it would be a non-story. Since he was gay and since sexual orientation is a protected class he was able to show other instances where non-gay employees weren't fired for the same actions and claim discrimination, unequal treatment.
So AARP employed him, promoted to a director and kept for 11 years. Very unlikely that he was fired for being gay. More likely he had some feud with the upper management and company used "shady business trips" as a poor excuse to fire him.