Connect with us

U.S. Federal Courts

Bisexuality not covered by federal employment law lawsuit claims

“There is nothing in Title VII that prohibits employers from discriminating because of the employee’s sexual or romantic partners”

Published

on

John Minor Wisdom United States Court of Appeals Building in New Orleans, Louisiana (Photo Credit: U.S. Courts/GSA)

NEW ORLEANS – Lawyers in a Texas case filed a brief last week arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, in June of 2020, does not apply to bisexual men. In that ruling the High Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because they are gay or transgender.

Lawyers for Braidwood Management, a business owned by hardline anti-LGBTQ activist Steven Hotze, and Bear Creek Bible Church in Keller, Texas, argued in their brief that “An employer who discriminates on account of an employee or job applicant’s bisexual orientation (or conduct) cannot engage in ‘sex’ discrimination as defined,” the lawyers wrote, “because that employer would have taken the exact same action against an identically situated individual of the opposite biological sex.” In other words, employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity does not apply to bisexuals — as long as bi men are being discriminated against “on equal terms” as bi women.

The Dallas Morning News reported the brief was filed on the day it was due, Sept. 21, by former Texas solicitor general Jonathan Mitchell and Gene Hamilton, with the Trump affiliated American First Legal, are representing the plaintiffs. midway through Bisexuality Awareness Week.

The Dallas Morning News noted that:

Mitchell sued the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2018, arguing that employers with religious objections should be able to hire and fire employees based on their gender identity or sexual orientation. Last year, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled largely in his favor.

But the judge sided with the federal government on two issues — so-called bisexual conduct and certain transgender health care procedures.

In their reply to that ruling with the Fifth Court of Appeals, Hamilton and Mitchell argue the Texas judge erred on these issues. The lawyers explained their reasoning like this: The Supreme Court’s decision said that an employer cannot treat two people differently solely based on their sex under federal employment discrimination rules known as Title VII.

This means, according to their argument, an employer cannot fire a gay man for being attracted to men if it would not also fire a woman for being attracted to men. But that same employer is in the clear if it discriminates equally against all bisexuals because it is not treating bi men and bi women differently, the lawyers argued.

“The text of Title VII prohibits sex discrimination only with respect to the sex of the affected employee or job applicant,” they wrote. “There is nothing in Title VII that prohibits employers from discriminating because of the ‘sex’ of an employee or job applicant’s sexual or romantic partners.”

One of the foundational arguments in their brief the lawyers cite is the fact that U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch who wrote the majority opinion in Bostock, outlined the fact that “The key to determining whether sex discrimination has taken place is determining whether a worker of the opposite sex would be treated the same.”

“An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex,” Gorsuch wrote, leaving out any mention of bisexual workers. “Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

The lawyers are arguing the difference between romantic or sexual partners and gender identity or sexual orientation as it applies under those circumstances.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Federal Courts

Florida gay man found guilty of threatening a member of Congress

Lawyers for Stanzione noted that he told federal agents that “he feels offended by Santos and does not want him in his (gay) community”

Published

on

USCG Station Eatons Neck Officer-in-Charge BMCS Erich White, disgraced former U.S. Rep. George Santos, and Capt. Eva J. Van Camp, former Commanding Officer U.S. Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound, April 2023. (Photo Credit: USCG Public Affairs)

MIAMI, Fla. – On Feb. 22, following a two-day trial, a federal jury in Ft. Lauderdale convicted a man for calling the office of a Congress member in Washington, D.C. and threatening to kill the member of Congress and another person. 

On Jan. 29, 2023, Frank Stanzione, 53, of Boynton Beach, Florida, made a telephone call from his residence in Boynton Beach to the office of a member of the United States House of Representatives. Stanzione left a voice message for the member that stated the following:

[Victim 1 former Rep. Santos] you fat fucking piece of shit fucker. You better watch your mother fucking back because I’m gonna bash your mother fucking fucker head in with a bat until your brains are splattered across the fucking wall. You lying, disgusting, disgraceful, mother fucking fucker. You mother fucking piece of shit. You’re gonna get fucking murdered you goddamn lying piece of garbage. Watch your back you fat, ugly, piece of shit. You and [Victim 2 Redacted] are dead.

The Congress member’s chief of staff reported the message to the United States Capitol Police (USCP) the next morning. The USCP began investigating the voice message as a threat and determined that it was made from a telephone number assigned to Stanzione. 

On Jan. 31, 2023, USCP special agents went to the address associated with the telephone number and interviewed Stanzione. USCP confirmed that Stanzione had left the voice message for the Congress member. Stanzione found the telephone number on an online search engine. 

In a motion to dismiss, lawyers for Stanzione noted in the interview he told federal agents that “he feels offended by Santos and does not want him in his (gay) community.” He said he left the message to make Santos “feel like a piece of shit.”

The court filing described Stanzione as “a long-standing, active advocate for gay rights.”

In the motion to dismiss, Stanzione claimed his prosecution was “retaliatory and vindictive” and “based upon his exercise of political speech related to gay rights.”

Related

“Others who have allegedly committed similar acts,” his attorneys stated in the motion, “have not been prosecuted.”

U.S. Attorney Markenzy Lapointe for the Southern District of Florida and Chief J. Thomas Manger of USCP announced the guilty verdict. The USCP – Threat Assessment Section investigated the case.

Stanzione will be sentenced in May and faces penalties including up to five years in federal prison, a fine of up to $250,000, or both.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Appeals court allows Indiana’s ban on gender care for Trans youth

“This ruling is beyond disappointing and a heartbreaking development for thousands of transgender youth, their doctors, & their families”

Published

on

Main courtroom, for the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Indianapolis, Ind. (Photo Credit: U.S. Courts/GSA)

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. – The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals today issued a stay that will lift a lower court’s injunction blocking Indiana’s gender-affirming care ban. The law, originally set to take effect on July 1, 2023, will now take effect immediately.

In June 2023, Judge Patrick Hanlon, a Trump-appointed federal judge, issued a temporary restraining order halting Indiana’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth. The request for a preliminary injunction against SB 480 came in a lawsuit brought by four transgender youth and their families, as well as a doctor and health care clinic,

The law prohibits medical providers from providing gender-affirming health care to transgender youth, effective immediately.

“This ruling is beyond disappointing and a heartbreaking development for thousands of transgender youth, their doctors, and their families. As we and our clients consider our next steps, we want all the transgender youth of Indiana to know this fight is far from over and we will continue to challenge this law until it is permanently defeated and Indiana is made a safer place to raise every family,” said Ariella Sult, a spokesperson for the ACLU of Indiana in a joint statement issued with the American Civil Liberties Union on Tuesday.

related

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Guilty verdict in first federal trial of murder based on gender identity

After a four-day trial a jury found a South Carolina man, Daqua Lameek Ritter, guilty of all charges in the indictment

Published

on

Dime Doe (Family photo)

COLUMBIA, S.C. — A federal jury handed down a guilty verdict of a man accused of murdering a Black transgender female in what is classified as the first in the nation federal trial over a hate crime based on gender identity.

After a four-day trial in a federal hate crime case, a jury found a South Carolina man, Daqua Lameek Ritter, guilty of all charges in the indictment, which included one hate crime count, one federal firearms count, and one obstruction count, all arising out of the murder of Dime Doe, a transgender woman.

“Acts of violence against LGBTQI+ people, including transgender women of color like Dime Doe, are on the rise and have no place in our society,” said Acting Associate Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer. “The Justice Department takes seriously all bias-motivated acts of violence and will not hesitate to hold accountable those who commit them. No one should have to live in fear of deadly violence because of who they are.”

According to court documents and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, evidence presented at trial showed that Ritter was upset that rumors about his sexual relationship with Dime Doe were out in the community. On Aug. 4, 2019, the defendant lured Doe to a remote area in Allendale, South Carolina, and shot her three times in the head. At trial, the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Ritter murdered Doe because of her gender identity. Ritter then burned the clothes he was wearing during the crime, disposed of the murder weapon, and repeatedly lied to law enforcement. 

This was the first trial under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act for violence against a transgender person. The Shepard-Byrd Act is a landmark federal statute passed in 2009 which allows federal criminal prosecution of hate crimes motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.

“A unanimous jury has found the defendant guilty for the heinous and tragic murder of Dime Doe, a Black transgender woman,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The jury’s verdict sends a clear message: Black trans lives matter, bias-motivated violence will not be tolerated, and perpetrators of hate crimes will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This case is historic; this defendant is the first to be found guilty by trial verdict for a hate crime motivated by gender identify under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. We want the Black trans community to know that you are seen and heard, that we stand with the LGBTQI+ community, and that we will use every tool available to seek justice for victims and their families.”

Ritter faces a maximum penalty of life in prison. A sentencing hearing will be scheduled at a later date. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Pair of lawsuits filed against Virginia guidelines for trans students

Equality Virginia and other advocacy groups claim the guidelines, among other things, would forcibly out trans and nonbinary students

Published

on

Los Angeles Blade graphic

RICHMOND, Va. – The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia and a private law firm on Thursday filed two lawsuits against the state’s guidelines for transgender and nonbinary students.

One of the plaintiffs, a high school student in York County to whom the press release refers as “Jane Doe,” claims “at least one teacher refused to address by her correct first name.” The second plaintiff, “Lily Loe,” a middle school student in Hanover County, “is not allowed to participate in a girls’ sports team.”

“When you look at the ways that VDOE’s (Virginia Department of Education) model policies are hurting transgender and nonbinary students like our clients, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that their authors were purposefully trying to erase gender non-conforming students from the classroom,” said Andrew Ewalt, co-counsel and partner at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, which has an office in D.C. “That flouts both existing nondiscrimination law and the Virginia law that directed VDOE to develop model policies in the first place.”

The Virginia Department of Education last July announced the new guidelines for which Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin asked. 

Equality Virginia and other advocacy groups claim the guidelines, among other things, would forcibly out trans and nonbinary students. Arlington County Public Schools, Fairfax County Public Schools and Prince William County Schools are among the school districts that have refused to implement them. 

“It was clear since the day that he took office that Gov. Youngkin and his Department of Education would target LGBTQ+ Virginians and single out transgender and nonbinary students for discrimination, and now that some school boards are implementing and enforcing their model policies for public schools, it’s even more clear that the harm is real,” said Equality Virginia Executive Director Narissa Rahaman on Thursday in a statement. 

“We applaud the ACLU of Virginia for taking on these harmful policies and for fighting for the health and well-being of students,” added Rahaman. “We’re proud to work toward those goals, together.” 

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Federal appeals court upholds block on Idaho trans care ban

The law bans puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and certain surgeries if they are used to affirm the gender of trans people under 18

Published

on

James R. Browning U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Courthouse San Francisco (Photo Credit: US Courts/GSA)

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. – The Ninth U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld a lower court’s ruling blocking enforcement of an Idaho law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender people under 18.

HB 71 bans puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and certain surgeries if they are used to affirm the gender of transgender people under 18, and threatens medical providers who provide this widely accepted care with a felony conviction and up to 10 years in prison.

Chief United States District Judge for the District of Idaho, B. Lynn Winmill, in December ruled that HB 71, a ban on gender-affirming care in the state violates the equal protection and due process rights of parents and their transgender children.

Related

The state of Idaho asked the Ninth Circuit to stay that injunction pending the appeal and allow the law to go into effect immediately, and today’s order refuses to do so.

“This ruling should be celebrated by everyone who decries discrimination,” said Paul Carlos Southwick, ACLU of Idaho Legal Director. “We celebrate alongside transgender youth and their families throughout Idaho who will continue to have access to the health care they need and deserve.”

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

18 Years in Federal prison for firebombing LGBTQ friendly church

“Penny is being held accountable for trying to burn down a house of worship because he disagreed with the church hosting certain events”

Published

on

Aimenn D. Penny (center) of Alliance, Ohio is shown here with fellow extremists and neo-Nazis at anti-drag protest rally. (Photo Credit: FBI)

CLEVELAND, Ohio – The neo-Nazi who attempted to burn a church to the ground after learning the church was holding multiple drag show events was sentenced yesterday to 18 years in prison followed by three years of supervised release for attempting to burn down a church because of its support for the LGBTQ+ community.

Aimenn D. Penny, 20, of Alliance, Ohio, was arrested and charged last year with one count of violating the Church Arson Prevention Act, one count of using fire to commit a federal felony, one count of malicious use of explosive materials, and one count of possessing a destructive device.  On Oct. 23, 2023, Penny pleaded guilty to the church arson hate crime and using fire and explosives to commit a felony. 

“Aimenn Penny will spend the next 18 years in prison because he committed crimes fueled by hate, attempting to burn down a church because its members supported the LGBTQI+ community,” said U.S. Attorney Rebecca C. Lutzko for the Northern District of Ohio. “Hate crimes like Penny’s hurt not only the individual target, but the entire community, causing people to fear attack based on who they love and undermining the sense of safety within places of worship. Violent, bias-motivated extremism has no place in our country, and our office will aggressively prosecute those who commit such crimes.” 

According to court documents, Penny attempted to burn the church to the ground after learning the Community Church of Chesterland, in Chesterland, Ohio, was holding multiple drag show events the following weekend. He was initially arrested and charged with federal offenses on March 31, 2023.

The FBI Cleveland Field Office, which is investigating the case, finding a Nazi flag, a White Lives Matter of Ohio T-shirt, and other hateful memorabilia in Penny’s home. During the interviews with the FBI, he told FBI agents his only regret was that the church didn’t burn to the ground.

“We hope this significant sentence sends a clear and resounding message that this type of hate-fueled attack against a church will not be tolerated in our country,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “This defendant tried to burn down a church simply because its members created space for and provided support to the LGBTQ+ community. The Justice Department will vigorously investigate and prosecute such senseless, bias-motivated violence against people exercising their constitutionally protected right to practice their religion and express their beliefs.”

The FBI Cleveland Field Office investigated the case.

“Aimenn Penny is being held accountable for trying to burn down a house of worship because he disagreed with the church hosting certain events,” said Executive Assistant Director Larissa L. Knapp of the FBI’s National Security Branch. “Individuals who commit acts of violence, destroy property, and interfere with the free exercise of religion will face justice for those crimes. As in this case, the FBI, together with our law enforcement partners, will use our lawful authorities to protect our communities from such violence, and ensure those responsible pay the price.”

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

BBC: Ex-A&F CEO denies trafficking allegations- FBI investigates

The BBC reported the FBI has begun an investigation and that agents have been interviewing & issuing subpoenas to potential witnesses

Published

on

Former head of Abercrombie & Fitch facing sexual abuse allegations by former male models. (Screenshot/YouTube NBC News)

NEW YORK – Abercrombie & Fitch (A&F), the American lifestyle retailer based in New Albany, Ohio, along with its former CEO Mike Jeffries, and his partner Matthew Smith, have petitioned a federal court in New York to dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging the fashion brand company, Jeffries and Smith were complicit in a multi-decade-long sex trafficking scheme.

The class action suit was brought by a former model for Abercrombie & Fitch, actor David Bradberry, whose account of the abuse was documented by BBC journalist Rianna Croxford, in the BBC Select film documentary:  The Abercrombie Guys: The Dark Side of Cool

According to a BBC follow-up report this past week, Jeffries alleges the claims of the suit fall outside the statute of limitations, and are “meritless.” The company says the lawsuit failed to show it knew about the alleged exploitation, and cannot be held liable.

Jeffries transformed Abercrombie and Fitch from a failing retail chain to a multibillion-dollar empire and the epitome of cool. He built Abercrombie into a global brand during his tenure as CEO from 1992 until 2014 when he departed.

In the lawsuit’s court documents, it states that Jeffries allegedly had modeling scouts scouring the internet and elsewhere to identify attractive young men seeking to be the next face of Abercrombie and Fitch. Often these prospective models became sex-trafficking victims, sent to New York and abroad and abused by Jeffries and other men, all under the guise that they were being recruited to become the next Abercrombie model, the lawsuit contends.

“Jeffries was so important to the profitability of the brand that he was given complete autonomy to perform his role as CEO however he saw fit, including through the use of blatant international sex-trafficking and abuse of prospective Abercrombie models,” the suit contends.

Former model for Abercrombie & Fitch and actor, David Bradberry.
(Screenshot/YouTube BBC Select)

In the recent court filings the BBC reported that Jeffries’ lawyers state that he “vehemently denies every allegation made against him” in the civil lawsuit, and “asks the court to look beyond the sensationalized narrative presented by the plaintiff, and to address the glaring legal deficiencies in the complaint, which necessitate the dismissal of this action”.

A separate legal document filed on behalf of Smith also asks for the lawsuit to be dismissed because the allegations “concern events that allegedly occurred in 2010,” and claim they have been “time-barred since 2011.” That court document also states that the claim “does not detail any specific, factual occurrences” of an alleged sexual offence by Smith.

Related

The BBC noted that A&F filed a separate response, arguing that the retailer had no knowledge of the “supposed trafficking venture” or alleged sexual misconduct, and “up until the moment that the BBC’s reporting was released in October 2023, there was nothing public about the allegations against Jeffries.”

The BBC is also reporting that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has begun an investigation, and that FBI agents have been interviewing and issuing subpoenas to potential witnesses.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Trans veterans sue the VA for coverage of surgeries

The lawsuit, filed by the Transgender American Veterans Association, aims to reduce the risk of adverse health outcomes

Published

on

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough (Screen capture/YouTube)

WASHINGTON – A group of transgender veterans on Thursday sued the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to compel the agency to cover gender affirming surgeries, following verbal assurances that it would begin providing these services.

The lawsuit, filed by the Transgender American Veterans Association, aims to reduce the risk of adverse health outcomes that can result from lack of access to medically necessary healthcare interventions for people with gender dysphoria.

This includes suicides, depression and psychological distress.

In its complaint before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, the group argued gender affirming surgeries are often prohibitively expensive when administered by private doctors.

Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough in 2021 said the agency was engaged in a rule making process to provide these services to trans veterans such that they can “go through the full gender confirmation process with VA by their side.”

The process, he said, would take a few years to “develop capacity to meet the surgical needs.”

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

5th circuit court blocks Texas from enforcing book rating law

Plaintiffs: Law required book vendors to rate the explicitness of sexual references in books sold to schools- was unconstitutionally broad

Published

on

Vandegrift High School Austin, Texas library on March 2, 2022. (Photo Credit: Lauren Witte/The Texas Tribune)

By William Melhado | NEW ORLEANS. La. – The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the Texas Education Agency on Wednesday from enforcing a state law requiring booksellers to rate the explicitness and relevance of sexual references in materials they sell to schools.

The appellate court, one of the most conservative in the nation, sided with booksellers who sued the state after claiming House Bill 900 violated their First Amendment rights. The court affirmed a lower court’s decision to prevent TEA Commissioner Mike Morath from enforcing the 2023 law.

Wednesday’s decision was somewhat surprising since the appellate court blocked the lower court’s ruling in November. Addressing the reversal, Judge Don Willett with the 5th Circuit wrote that a “different panel of this court” had granted the state’s appeal to block that ruling.

The plaintiffs — which include bookshops in Houston and Austin, the American Booksellers Association, the Association of American Publishers and the Authors Guild — argue that it is logistically impossible and cost-prohibitive to comply with the law.

The law requires vendors to rate all their books and materials for appropriateness, based on the presence of sex depictions or references, before selling them to school libraries. The law’s definitions of sexual conduct lean on state criminal statutes that are somewhat vague and open to interpretation to outline what might be considered “sexually explicit” or “sexually relevant” content.

“The ratings [HB 900] requires are neither factual nor uncontroversial,” the court’s ruling read.

The law requires booksellers to submit ratings of materials to the TEA for review, which the state can correct and then publicly post online. The appellate court agreed with the vendors’ argument that the rating system violates their free speech protections and amounted to compelled speech that forced vendors to support a certain point of view.

The court also agreed that complying with the law would be an undue economic burden on the vendors.

Wednesday’s decision did not completely block the law. Still in effect is a component of HB 900 that requires the Texas State Library and Archives Commission to create new library collection standards. The new rules must prohibit school libraries from acquiring or keeping sexually explicit materials.

Plaintiffs originally sued Keven Ellis, chair of the Texas Board of Education, and Martha Wong, chair of the Texas State Library, alongside Morath. The 5th Circuit on Wednesday dismissed claims against Ellis and Wong because those officials don’t have purview over the book ratings that the court found to be unconstitutional.

Supporters of HB 900 have argued the law restores parents’ rights to protect their children from certain themes, rather than exposing them to potentially inappropriate material in publicly funded books. Book bans have gained steam across the state since the Texas law was passed, The Texas Tribune and ProPublica found.

Opponents, which include librarians, literacy advocates and other parents, say laws like HB 900 often target books and materials that explore sexuality and race — topics that, while uncomfortable to some, they say are important for youth who may not typically see their lived experiences reflected in literature.

*************************************************************************************

William Melhado is an Austin-based general assignment reporter. He originally joined the Tribune in 2022 as a Poynter-Koch fellow. He previously worked as a staff writer at the Santa Fe Reporter, an alt-weekly newspaper in New Mexico. A native of Boulder, Colorado, William graduated from Middlebury College with a bachelor’s degree in chemistry and earned a master’s in secondary science education at CUNY Lehman College.

The preceding article was previously published by The Texas Tribune and is republished by permission.

*************************************************************************************

Quality journalism doesn’t come free

Perhaps it goes without saying — but producing quality journalism isn’t cheap. At a time when newsroom resources and revenue across the country are declining, The Texas Tribune remains committed to sustaining our mission: creating a more engaged and informed Texas with every story we cover, every event we convene and every newsletter we send. As a nonprofit newsroom, we rely on members to help keep our stories free and our events open to the public. Do you value our journalism? Show us with your support.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Federal hate crime charges against Club Q mass-shooting killer

“The attack on Club Q was a horrific act of hate — the kind of anti-LGBTQ+ hate we must work to combat across the country”

Published

on

Assistant U.S. Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. (Screenshot/YouTube U.S. Justice Dept)

DENVER, Colo. – Assistant United States Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division announced Tuesday federal hate crimes and firearms charges were made against the shooter related to the mass shooting at Club Q, an LGBTQ+ nightclub in Colorado Springs, Colorado, on Nov. 19, 2022.

Anderson Lee Aldrich, 23, is currently housed in a Wyoming State Correctional facility after pleading guilty to Colorado’s state-level charges in the Club Q shooting which garnered him a life sentence without the possibility of parole.

Aldrich was moved to the Wyoming Correctional facility last year according to the Colorado Department of Corrections due to concerns about threats to Aldrich’s safety in Colorado’s prison facilities.

In this latest legal development, the Justice Department entered 50 hate-crimes charges and 24 weapons charges — Aldrich used a semiautomatic rifle in the attack. According to the announcement by Assistant U. S. Attorney General Clarke, Aldrich filed a notice of disposition and requested that the court schedule a change of plea hearing.

In consultation with the victims of this incident, the parties jointly filed a motion requesting that the U.S. District Court schedule the change of plea and sentencing hearings on the same date, which the court granted.

The parties further informed the court that there is a plea agreement in this matter, and it is anticipated that the defendant has agreed to plead guilty to all charges in the information. The time for the entry of the guilty plea has not yet been set.

Brandon Wolf, the National Press Secretary for the Human Rights Campaign in an emailed statement to the Blade reacted to the news saying:

“The attack on Club Q was a horrific act of hate — the kind of anti-LGBTQ+ hate we must work to combat across the country. It matters to have a Justice Department pushing back against hate instead of fomenting it. It matters to have policies like the Matthew Shepard/James Byrd Jr Hate Crimes Prevention Act that protect communities and hold perpetrators accountable. These charges won’t bring back those stolen from their loved ones, but they mark a step toward justice. Our fight to honor the victims and survivors with action continues.”

The court filing charges that Aldrich murdered five people, injured 19 and attempted to murder 28 more in a willful, deliberate, malicious and premediated attack at Club Q. According to the filing, Aldrich entered Club Q armed with a loaded assault weapon and began firing. Aldrich continued firing until Aldrich was subdued by patrons of the Club. The information also alleges that Aldrich committed this attack because of the actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity of any person.

During the state court trial in El Paso County Superior Court in Colorado Springs last year, Aldrich identified as nonbinary. El Paso County District Attorney Michael Allen told reporters that he believed Aldrich claimed to be nonbinary to avoid being charged with hate crimes under the state’s laws. There was no indication Aldrich identified as nonbinary before the shooting, the District Attorney added.

The FBI Denver Field Office and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives investigated the case.

Continue Reading

Popular