Microsoft Sued Over Homophobia Claims [Resolved]

[Treemonkeys]

Yeah I agree heartsofwar, sex just doesn't belong in the workplace. I don't get to talk about it anymore than a gay guy because I'm straight, it's just not something you bring up and it is stated in our employee handbook. That said, you wouldn't have to talk about it necessarily for people to find out you are gay. I talk to fellow employees about day to day bull**** and in that process they of course find out that I live with my g/f so it is assumed without actually bringing up sex, so I could see how people would find out that he was gay without him purposefully making it a public issue.

[C_Guy]

you're making a private matter public and setting yourself up to those that prey on it

I agree. A workplace should be free of harassment but also free of flaunting. However, there are supervisors for a reason. There is a mature and professional approach to both sides of the situation. Harassment is not it. There are workpalce policies and laws against discrimination for a reason.

the employees should be equally responsible for their actions

Absolutely. But this can be done without harassment.

Agree 100% with your arguments on marriage/civil unions. Let's see that so-called 'separation' of church and state.

[Treemonkeys]

I would take it one step farther and say the government should treat everyone as individuals regardless of who they live or have sex with, and not even have civil unions. But civil unions would certainly be better than the current marriage system.

[bobbba]

one of three things happened:

• This entire complaint is a lie...
  
• Some workers 'guessed' he was gay and started to sexually harass him
  
• The gentleman suing Microsoft was open about his sexuality at work and was sexually harassed
  

two of the three possibilities involve sexual harassment, but only one is 100% the fault of the employees; however, the other would be 50% fault on both parties.

If you're willing to talk / flaunt your sexuality at work, you're making a private matter public and setting yourself up to those that prey on it. At the same time, it's wrong to sexually harass anyone for any reason, and thus the reason the employees should be equally responsible for their actions. If Microsoft didn't respond in a timely fashion, they too should be jointly responsible.

What i said is exactly the stance the U.S. Military takes, "Dont ask, don't tell".

Now, I am going to jump on a soapbox even further though...

Every person should be afforded the same and equal rights as the next (without a doubt). The #1 problem today when most homosexuals discuss their rights being abused, they're referring to the inability to marry. The problem with this 'right to marry' is that marriage originated from religion, and the government has no business encroaching upon this sacrament. We have separation of Church and State in the U.S. for reasons...

I have no problem with homosexuals being allowed the same legal rights afforded to heterosexual married couples; however, I do have a problem with homosexuals using the term 'marriage'. Homosexuals aren't doing this on purpose, it's a product of how the government borrowed from religion when it shouldn't have; however, in my religion 'marriage' is the definition of the church providing their blessing.

In other words, the government should only be allowed to recognize 'civil unions', and any person should be allowed to enter into a 'civil union' with another to receive the same legal benefits; however, 'marriage' should be reserved for those whose religion affords them the right to marry.

Once again, a christian heterosexual married couple would have the same legal rights as that of a homosexual couple under a 'civil union'; however, the christian heterosexual married couple would NOT have the same religious rights as that of a homosexual couple... and vice verse, depending on the religions involved

How is he equally responsible for being harassed if he was open about his sexuality??? Sure there are degrees of being open but you could just be seen holding hands or make a comment about having a same sex partner and that would hardly make someone "equally responsible" for any harrassment that they recieve.

[Treemonkeys]

How is he equally responsible for being harassed if he was open about his sexuality??? Sure there are degrees of being open but you could just be seen holding hands or make a comment about having a same sex partner and that would hardly make someone "equally responsible" for any harrassment that they recieve.

Well I'm not allowed to hold hands with a girl at work, it just isn't acceptable. But your are right, he could have just told someone "I live with my boyfriend" and that someone could have told everyone and then everyone knows he's gay, that wouldn't be his fault at all.

[ahhell]

Probably sensationalist reporting trying to make Microsoft look bad.

Exactly.

A non-story blown out of proportion in order to generate page hits.

[rednekcowboy]

How is he equally responsible for being harassed if he was open about his sexuality??? Sure there are degrees of being open but you could just be seen holding hands or make a comment about having a same sex partner and that would hardly make someone "equally responsible" for any harrassment that they recieve.

I agree with you 100%, however if he "started" this by joking around about it, he definitely has culpability in the situation. I "poke fun" at myself all the time about having a big nose, my ears stick out. I make a joke about "being slow" on some occasions. I also know people who joke about their own sexuality, gays and straights, and by doing so say, without even realizing it, that it's OK to do so. People send out signals all the time about what is OK to them and what is not. If and I stress IF he did this, then he is just as guilty as those involved and has no claim to harassment.

[bobbba]

I agree with you 100%, however if he "started" this by joking around about it, he definitely has culpability in the situation. I "poke fun" at myself all the time about having a big nose, my ears stick out. I make a joke about "being slow" on some occasions. I also know people who joke about their own sexuality, gays and straights, and by doing so say, without even realizing it, that it's OK to do so. People send out signals all the time about what is OK to them and what is not. If and I stress IF he did this, then he is just as guilty as those involved and has no claim to harassment.

That's a pretty finite "IF" there...

[rednekcowboy]

That's a pretty finite "IF" there...

How so? You don't know what happened anymore than I do. This whole story could be balogna. All we have to go on is his word. Why is this anymore plausible than his coworkers being monsters and his company not doing anything to rectify the situation?

[bobbba]

How so? You don't know what happened anymore than I do. This whole story could be balogna. All we have to go on is his word. Why is this anymore plausible than his coworkers being monsters and his company not doing anything to rectify the situation?

It's my personal view, I think it's unlikely(but admittedly not impossible) for him to have gone around making signals about being happy to be joked about being gay and then complained when he's been subject to harassment about it.

Even then, a joke is a joke and when it goes beyond that those making the joke and the organisation should respond to someone saying please stop.

.

Edited March 25, 2009 by bobbba

[rednekcowboy]

It's my personal view, I think it's unlikely(but admittedly not impossible) for him to have gone around making signals about being happy to be joked about being gay and then complained when he's been subject to harassment about it.

Even then, a joke is a joke and when it goes beyond that those making the joke and the organisation should respond someone saying please stop.

I agree with you %100, if he did actually do this. Again, we only know what he is saying. Why is it that people actually believe it? That boggles my mind. I don't know if he's telling the truth. I'm not saying he's not, I'm not saying he is. All I'm saying is there is something lacking here and that doesn't sit well with me.

Not only that, but the fact that he waited seven months to file suit makes me think the whole thing is bogus. Why wouldn't he do it right away? I think it's very plausible that he fabricated the whole thing to extort money because he got laid off. I think he thought that the company wouldn't want the bad press and that they would pay him to keep his mouth shut and it back-fired on him.

Why else is there no comment from Lionhead, not even a "no comment" type of comment. Why would they have let it get this far if it were true? With MS as their parent company, something like this would have been known within the company and I'm sure this man would have been paid handsomely to keep quiet had his claim had any basis.

We know nothing of this man, his job performance, his attitude, or the reason why he was let go. There has to be more to this story than what he is saying.

Edited March 25, 2009 by rednekcowboy

[Emn1ty]

Because straight people dont get as much resentment as you just said, they dont get beat up or murdered for being straight, they dont get or lose jobs because they are straight, they dont get abused, ridiculed, discriminated against because they are straight. For the same reason you dont see racial marches as much anymore because black people or people of any race have the rights they were fighting for like equality.... homosexuals dont.

Straight people don't get beat up? Sure, maybe not for being straight, but that statement is a big stretch. Straight people are the majority. Many of them are of different races and therefore suffer abuse, discrimination and the like. You can make the claim about sexual orientation, but that claim stops there. I am the average caucasian male, and even I have gone through some pretty intense bullying when I was younger, as well as ridicule and discrimination merely for playing Magic the Gathering and Yu-Gi-Oh card games. You wouldn't believe the sheer amount of ridicule and hate that goes around for almost any reason in the world. So sitting here ****ing and moaning that the world doesn't have to deal with one specific kind of discrimination is really not going to do anything for you.

Most every different kind of person aside from the straight caucasian male has benefits for being different. Be it gay, black, or poor. They all get benefits both in employment and federally just for being different and making enough noise for people to say "Ok fine, just shut the hell up already!". If you think for one second there is any "equality" among race and/or sexuality you are sorely mistaken. There are hundreds of thousands of scholarships for schools which are made solely for the "minority" races. Most jobs will hire you based on your race, since hiring minorities makes them look better to the community. Maybe being gay hasn't hit that point yet, but the fact of the matter his being gay in itself makes for an unhealthy PR situation waiting to happen if anything is to go wrong while they are employed. Then again they can't not hire you for that reason since the preasure of that also gives them good reason not to turn you away.

All this political correct BS just pressures everyone into accepting alternate races/sexes even if they have legitimate arguments against hiring them. Discrimination is such a vague word when it comes to employment and that is the main reason why people use it when they are either a) not hired b) let go or c) fired. Merely mentioning discrimination when you are anything but a straight, white caucasian puts half the world on your side as well as the government at times. This is why I am entirely against "fighting for rights", or at least to a certain extent. It leads to unbalanced opportunities for the entire country, maybe even the world. The only rights people need to fight for are those that are purposefully held from them by the government. Most of the rights right now are just rights that didn't anticipate homosexuality being an issue. Marriage has nothing to do with the government, so I think that gays should just shut up about it. If it weren't for the separation of church and state marriage wouldn't be an issue.

Im tired of hearing about straight people "bragging" about their sexual escapades, the latest 'chick' they have 'banged' but i have to put up with it, i have to put up with advertisements, films, tv shows, music all aimed at straight people because they are the dominant sexuality.

Well, you know... thats because the dominant sexuality is also the dominant viewer base. I makes them more money, it isn't about discrimination.

No we dont and im sick and goddamn tired of people automatically assuming it was the gay person making small jokes, why is it always the gay person who a large portion of people dont like anyway just because he is gay who has to start the thing. He worked there for 11 years and the discrimination only started happening a year ago its safe to say for those 11 years he didnt make jokes or mince about the office, his co-workers found out probably other means like social networking sites or other 'friends' who he has told he is gay and then the abuse starts.

This could very well be true. There are very many possibilities here, such as the e-mails being faked as memo's through forwarding, or the possibility that he was going through some rough times in the last year, like everyone else has in the recession, and something that normally wouldn't get on his nerves did. This might mean that these events are merely the trigger of his depression, not the cause. If any of these ideas are true, then he has no reason to sue MS over a personal matter between him and another employee. And if he really did have proof, than he should have gone directly to someone, not just to HR who has hundreds of other responsibilities at such a large company. I wouldn't be surprised if he left a mere verbal complaint and someone just "forgot" to right it down. There are waaaaay to many undisclosed factors here to make an accurate judgement of who is at fault or even an analysis of character for the person complaining.

Theres a difference between misconstruing something and discriminating against someone because he is gay forcing him into a depression.

Its hard to force anyone who puts up with discrimination into depression, especially at later ages since they have learned to put up with those discriminations. I'm thinking it was this combined with out issues that made him depressed, not to mention we have other factors mentioned in this thread. Why didn't he find a new job? Why would he risk his current 11 year employment over something so trivial? The frequency of the harassment's seem pretty low in terms of this article, especially for a move like this.

Agree 100% with your arguments on marriage/civil unions. Let's see that so-called 'separation' of church and state.

Marriage and "civil union" is a perfect example of separation of church and state. The only difference between the two things is the name, really. Marriage itself is something performed by the church, and therefore the church can deny it to anyone they choose based on their doctrine. They don't support homosexuality, so they don't perform weddings for them. But the instant the government decides to say, "well here is something equivalent, we just can't call it marriage" the gay community gets mad about the name and a couple of minor abnormalities. If it weren't for the separation of Church and State, than gay marriage would be a reality already.

[dead.cell]

I see a lot of irrelevant discussion here.

Doesn't matter whether it was because he was gay or not, the fact of the matter is that they were creating a hostile work environment, he reported it to his superiors, and it's THEIR RESPONSIBILITY to take care of issues brought to them by their employees, especially in cases like this. Should they fail to do so, then they must suffer the consequences.

In these economic times, there's no sense in having to put up with this kind of nonsense simply because it's too hard to find another job, especially within a reasonable amount of time.

[rednekcowboy]

I see a lot of irrelevant discussion here.

Doesn't matter whether it was because he was gay or not, the fact of the matter is that they were creating a hostile work environment, he reported it to his superiors, and it's THEIR RESPONSIBILITY to take care of issues brought to them by their employees, especially in cases like this. Should they fail to do so, then they must suffer the consequences.

In these economic times, there's no sense in having to put up with this kind of nonsense simply because it's too hard to find another job, especially within a reasonable amount of time.

I know this is a re-post, but just in case you missed it:

I agree with you %100, if he did actually do this. Again, we only know what he is saying. Why is it that people actually believe it? That boggles my mind. I don't know if he's telling the truth. I'm not saying he's not, I'm not saying he is. All I'm saying is there is something lacking here and that doesn't sit well with me.

Not only that, but the fact that he waited seven months to file suit makes me think the whole thing is bogus. Why wouldn't he do it right away? I think it's very plausible that he fabricated the whole thing to extort money because he got laid off. I think he thought that the company wouldn't want the bad press and that they would pay him to keep his mouth shut and it back-fired on him.

Why else is there no comment from Lionhead, not even a "no comment" type of comment. Why would they have let it get this far if it were true? With MS as their parent company, something like this would have been known within the company and I'm sure this man would have been paid handsomely to keep quiet had his claim had any basis.

We know nothing of this man, his job performance, his attitude, or the reason why he was let go. There has to be more to this story than what he is saying.

[bobbba]

We know nothing of this man, his job performance, his attitude, or the reason why he was let go. There has to be more to this story than what he is saying.

Actually, there doesn't.

Also, none of the articles say that he was fired/dismissed/let go(he's suing them for discrimination not for unfair dismissal).

[rednekcowboy]

Actually, there doesn't.

Also, none of the articles say that he was fired/dismissed/let go(he's suing them for discrimination not for unfair dismissal).

It says he hasn't worked for 7 months, I may have made an incorrect leap. I took it as him being laid off. Actually it says he is a former employee, so I incorrectly assumed he was laid off. Yet another thing this article is not clear on, however.

Edited March 25, 2009 by rednekcowboy

[hotdog666al]

Hurt Feelings == $$$

I'm sure that's all he is thinking about.

[Rudnartim]

Did I miss something, since when is depression a reason for getting time off? Has depression become a disability now?

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Did I miss something, since when is depression a reason for getting time off? Has depression become a disability now?

/facepalm

I know people who've taken unpaid leave from work due to depression.

If you're genuinely in a dangerously low position, how on earth can you operate and work effectively in some lines of work?

I'm not talking girlfriend dumps boyfriend, I'm talking serious life issues.

[bobbba]

Did I miss something, since when is depression a reason for getting time off? Has depression become a disability now?

If you have not realised that depression is an illness, then yes you have missed something.

[Dischordiant]

[WastedJoker]

Gay.

Hurt feelings.

*insert joke here*

[M_Lyons10]

They may have to travel, but yes, they most certainly can get married! EVERYONE can adopt.

You are just so clueless Red Neck... They CANNOT adopt in many states and countries. Period. Research it before you spout off uneducated remarks please... And they CANNOT get married either. If they do go somewhere to get married it now isn't valid when they go home... So what is the purpose of that? They are not equal and you're comments show only how unaware you are of the situation. I honestly don't know why you feel you should even be responding to a thread you know absolutely nothing about... I don't respond to threads about things I have no idea whatsoever about (And I certainly am not arrogant / ignorant enough to claim that I know what I'm talking about)...

As for your ridiculous claims that people are twisting your posts or meaning, that is simply not true. You've made it quite clear in your posts how you feel. You claim to feel that everyone should be treated equally (Unless of course they "flutter"...), but the rest of your posts say otherwise. I'm not reading anything that you're not writing...

[M_Lyons10]

one of three things happened:

• This entire complaint is a lie...
  
• Some workers 'guessed' he was gay and started to sexually harass him
  
• The gentleman suing Microsoft was open about his sexuality at work and was sexually harassed
  

two of the three possibilities involve sexual harassment, but only one is 100% the fault of the employees; however, the other would be 50% fault on both parties.

If you're willing to talk / flaunt your sexuality at work, you're making a private matter public and setting yourself up to those that prey on it. At the same time, it's wrong to sexually harass anyone for any reason, and thus the reason the employees should be equally responsible for their actions. If Microsoft didn't respond in a timely fashion, they too should be jointly responsible.

What i said is exactly the stance the U.S. Military takes, "Dont ask, don't tell".

Now, I am going to jump on a soapbox even further though...

Every person should be afforded the same and equal rights as the next (without a doubt). The #1 problem today when most homosexuals discuss their rights being abused, they're referring to the inability to marry. The problem with this 'right to marry' is that marriage originated from religion, and the government has no business encroaching upon this sacrament. We have separation of Church and State in the U.S. for reasons...

I have no problem with homosexuals being allowed the same legal rights afforded to heterosexual married couples; however, I do have a problem with homosexuals using the term 'marriage'. Homosexuals aren't doing this on purpose, it's a product of how the government borrowed from religion when it shouldn't have; however, in my religion 'marriage' is the definition of the church providing their blessing.

In other words, the government should only be allowed to recognize 'civil unions', and any person should be allowed to enter into a 'civil union' with another to receive the same legal benefits; however, 'marriage' should be reserved for those whose religion affords them the right to marry.

Once again, a christian heterosexual married couple would have the same legal rights as that of a homosexual couple under a 'civil union'; however, the christian heterosexual married couple would NOT have the same religious rights as that of a homosexual couple... and vice verse, depending on the religions involved

I fail to see how it is 50% the fault of the employee discriminated against if he lets coworkers know that he is gay. They are allowed to discuss their relationships, partners, etc., gays should be able to do the same. This is not about getting preferential treatment. Gays only want what everyone else has. If either of these scenarios are true, he is not at fault at all...

As for the marriage argument, "marriage" is a legal term as well and as a result in order to have the same rights, that term needs to be used. Just because the government awards us a marriage certificate doesn't mean that the church would recognize our marriages. I don't expect that to ever happen. But the government should recognize our marriage and recognize it as what it is. The church / religion isn't even involved. There are countless issues with using the civil union term, but I don't think we need to get into those here... It's shown to not work though. Other countries, much more religion based countries (Spain comes to mind), have been able to give us marriage... The states are far more removed from religion and so this should be easier for them... The problem is that people still want to discriminate against us. That's why we don't have equal treatment.

Yeah I agree heartsofwar, sex just doesn't belong in the workplace. I don't get to talk about it anymore than a gay guy because I'm straight, it's just not something you bring up and it is stated in our employee handbook. That said, you wouldn't have to talk about it necessarily for people to find out you are gay. I talk to fellow employees about day to day bull**** and in that process they of course find out that I live with my g/f so it is assumed without actually bringing up sex, so I could see how people would find out that he was gay without him purposefully making it a public issue.

I'm glad to see someone gets it. I doubt seriously he was flaunting it, but that's his life. Why would discrimination be acceptable because someone doesn't agree with your lifestyle? It's ridiculous.

Well I'm not allowed to hold hands with a girl at work, it just isn't acceptable. But your are right, he could have just told someone "I live with my boyfriend" and that someone could have told everyone and then everyone knows he's gay, that wouldn't be his fault at all.

Yeah. I don't know what happened exactly, but I've had straight coworkers revel in trying to "out me" in the past, so I know that this does happen. It's all for gossip... One coworker even contacted my father... And it's all fun and games. It was enjoyable to her...

***Edited for brevity...***

Marriage has nothing to do with the government, so I think that gays should just shut up about it. If it weren't for the separation of church and state marriage wouldn't be an issue.

Marriage and "civil union" is a perfect example of separation of church and state. The only difference between the two things is the name, really. Marriage itself is something performed by the church, and therefore the church can deny it to anyone they choose based on their doctrine. They don't support homosexuality, so they don't perform weddings for them. But the instant the government decides to say, "well here is something equivalent, we just can't call it marriage" the gay community gets mad about the name and a couple of minor abnormalities. If it weren't for the separation of Church and State, than gay marriage would be a reality already.

It certainly does have something to do with government, as it is a legal term. It isn't about religion anymore because marriage means something to the government... It doesn't matter if the churches recognize it, they likely never will, but the government should. The government awards marriage certificates, not the church. The government administers this right and it should be available to everyone. It isn't about the church or their acceptance. I do not expect that. But the government should award marriage to everyone. The difference between marriage and civil union is more than the name too by the way.

Edited March 26, 2009 by M_Lyons10

[rednekcowboy]

I fail to see how it is 50% the fault of the employee discriminated against if he lets coworkers know that he is gay. They are allowed to discuss their relationships, partners, etc., gays should be able to do the same. This is not about getting preferential treatment. Gays only want what everyone else has. If either of these scenarios are true, he is not at fault at all...

As for the marriage argument, "marriage" is a legal term as well and as a result in order to have the same rights, that term needs to be used. Just because the government awards us a marriage certificate doesn't mean that the church would recognize our marriages. I don't expect that to ever happen. But the government should recognize our marriage and recognize it as what it is. The church / religion isn't even involved. There are countless issues with using the civil union term, but I don't think we need to get into those here... It's shown to not work though. Other countries, much more religion based countries (Spain comes to mind), have been able to give us marriage... The states are far more removed from religion and so this should be easier for them... The problem is that people still want to discriminate against us. That's why we don't have equal treatment.

Take your head out of your a@@ and read what I have wrote. The only people who are being biased here are you and one other member on here. The fact that you can only see one side of this story speaks volumes sir. In case you haven't noticed, I use the word "IF" very often. The fact that you believe everything this guy says is your problem. If you believe everything you read, I would hate to see you with a tabloid in your hands!

The facts here are that you are being ignorant here, not me. You let your emotions cloud your judgement and causes you to be biased in this case. I have yet to see a law anywhere forbidding someone to adopt a child because of their sexual orientation!! I have NEVER, EVER used the term "fluttering about" in any of my posts. I have NEVER said any deflamatory or discriminatory remarks about anyone in regards to their sexual orientation. I'm not going to repeat these same arguments over again because you are simply to lazy to read what was written here before. Take a deep breath, count to 10 and then maybe we can have an open, unbiased discussion about this.