HOPE TAKES ON HATE
Gay man wins $1.9 million in discrimination case

by: Chris Finnie

After 18 years as a cook or chef in various restaurants, Bruce Hope “wanted something more permanent”--a lifetime job with retirement and a pension. So he applied for a position as a cook with the State of California and qualified.

A gay man diagnosed as HIV positive just before he started working for the state, Hope initially did on-call and temporary work. But he eventually accepted lower pay for a permanent position at the Fred C. Nelles Youth Correctional Facility in Whittier. He even moved so he could be within walking distance of Nelles.

Unfortunately, what Bruce Hope thought was his dream job with stability and opportunity to advance turned into a nightmare of discrimination and harassment. When the pressure damaged his health, he had to leave. But, though he lost the fight at Nelles, Hope won $1.9 million in court!

Bruce Hope v. California Youth Authority

While at California Youth Authority at Nelles in Whittier California, Hope was subjected to derogatory remarks based on his sexual orientation. A gay man, Hope testified that his immediate supervisor, Felipe Marcellino, called him a “mother-fucking faggot” and a “homo.” Santos Ortiz, a security officer assigned to the kitchen, did the same. Ortiz also commonly used other derogatory terms.

But it wasn’t just the names. Hope was on the eligibility list for promotion. He had taken and passed the test. When an opening occurred, food supervisor Maggie Yamamoto told her secretary to type up the paperwork promoting Hope. The promotion paper was signed and Hope's supervisor congratulated him on the promotion. Four days later, Hope’s promotion was revoked. “He is just not right,” his supervisor stated.

In March 1999, Hope was denied a merit salary adjustment, in part because his “working relationship with staff and wards has been substandard. For instance, you have had several disagreements with Mr. Santos Ortiz [and] Mr. Felipe Marcellino [among others].”

Michael Hedgepath, a Supervising Cook I and one of Hope's supervisors, later testified that Ortiz was sometimes “cruel” to Hope and that Ortiz frequently “mistreated” Hope. The behavior spread.

At Nelles, the juvenile wards assist the cooks with cooking and cleanup. That changed when Ortiz told the wards not to help Hope anymore. Dennis Mitchell, another security officer assigned to the kitchen, as Group Supervisor, testified that it would be a “hardship” for a cook to work without the assistance of wards.

Ortiz also told a group of wards in the main kitchen that Hope looked at them because he thought they were pretty. Hope's coworkers and at least one of his supervisors heard that remark. After that, the wards began treating Hope differently, calling him a “faggot” and ignoring his instructions. For example, one ward publicly said, “What's up girlie-girl? I'm talking to you Bruce.”

Hope testified that Ortiz “would take trash and throw it all over my area.” Each time, Hope had to clean the area without help.

Hope repeatedly reported the abuse to supervisors. But, after the only investigation, he was told his concerns were unsubstantiated.

Hopelessness turns to health problems
Hope had been diagnosed with HIV two months before starting work at Nelles. However, his health improved after taking medication and he had an excellent attendance record during his first year of employment.

But in October 1997, Hope began missing work. When Hope called in sick and spoke to Hedgepath, Hope occasionally blamed job stress for his absence. In January 1998, Yamamoto told Hope that, based on his number of absences in September and October 1997, he was approaching the point of abusing sick leave.

According to Hope's treating psychiatrist, anxiety caused Hope to develop a bleeding blister in the retina of his right eye, leading to a permanent loss of vision. Other than hand motions within a few feet of his face, Hope cannot see anything through his right eye. Hope's physician told him that this type of blindness is typically caused by job stress.

In July 2001, Hope was placed on a medical leave of absence. He did not return to work. He gets $ 757 a month from the state.

In October 2001, Hope filed an action against the California Youth Authority (CYA) for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and failure to prevent harassment. In general, Hope alleged that he had been mistreated because of his sexual orientation and HIV status.

Hope gets his day in court
A jury returned a verdict in favor of Hope on both harassment and retaliation tried the case. The jury awarded Hope $917,104 in economic damages and $1 million in noneconomic damages. The judgment was upheld on appeal.

The Court concluded that the CYA created a hostile work environment and that the harassment was severe and pervasive. The Court further criticized CYA's failure to take corrective measures.

Though the state appealed both the verdict and the awards, Hope and his legal team prevailed on all counts--proving once again that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is against the law.

Snip, Snip, Oh What a Relief It Is

This summer, the Bush administration revealed that it will use part of its $15 billion a year global AIDS program to promote male circumcision in! sub-Saharan Africa as an HIV prevention tool. The news is a welcome development that, for once, puts science at the forefront of the administration's response to this epidemic.

However, both abroad and here at home, educating people about circumcision as a way to slow HIV's spread is a necessarily sensitive endeavor. Everybody involved will have to abandon old bad habits if we are to have a sober dialogue about reducing risk for HIV. Public health must respect communities' traditions and individuals' choices; communities and individuals must discard reflexive distrust of public health.

The facts today are hard to dismiss. Study after study has found that HIV transmits far less easily through the skin of a circumcised penis than it does when the foreskin is still intact. Circumcision is a procedure in which the foreskin covering the tip of the penis is removed.

The most widely reported studies establishing the prevention benefits of circumcision come from Kenya, South Africa and Uganda, completed in 2005 and 2006. Researchers tracking groups of circumcised and uncircumcised men in those countries found the rate of HIV infection among men who had their foreskins removed to be anywhere from 51 percent to 76 percent lower. Those are big numbers, and they're just the latest studies to come up with such striking results.

Why does circumcision make such a difference?

Laboratory studies have established that the foreskin's inner lining has a high density of the cells that HIV targets. Researchers also believe foreskin is more likely to tear during intercourse, allowing openings for the virus. More studies should pursue the question.

Meanwhile, public health must begin to make people aware of the dramatic difference circumcision appears to make in HIV risk. In doing so, however, the scientific community must respect the justified concerns both communities and individuals may present-too many years of abuse at the hands of pseudoscience have left communities of color around the world distrustful of health officials. Any outsider-driven, top-down campaign urging men to have skin removed from their penises will no doubt deepen that skepticism. I'm sure every man reading this column is crossing his legs right now.

So as public health officials gear up their response to the compelling data on circumcision, it is important that our leaders do the leading, including investing in raising the HIV science literacy among local leaders and supporting culturally appropriate venues where local communities can develop the tools needed to interpret the science.

At the same time, people of color around the world no longer have the luxury of allowing other folks' mistakes to hold us captive. If we're going to survive this epidemic, we must begin taking responsibility for our own lives. That means, no matter what the scientific community does, and no matter what any local health department does here in the U.S., we must learn the facts about circumcision and HIV.

It is an entirely appropriate choice for any individual to opt against circumcision as a method of HIV prevention. But he must make that choice based on the facts, not as a self-defeating reaction to fears about government abuse and conspiracy theories, misplaced or not.

Forms of HIV/AIDS-related
stigma and discrimination

In some societies, laws, rules and policies can increase the stigmatisation of people living with HIV/AIDS. Such legislation may include compulsory screening and testing, as well as limitations on international travel and migration. In most cases, discriminatory practises such as the compulsory screening of &Mac226;Äòrisk groups&Mac226;Äô, both furthers the stigmatisation of such groups as well as creating a false sense of security among individuals who are not considered at high-risk. Laws that insist on the compulsory notification of HIV/AIDS cases, and the restriction of a person&Mac226;Äôs right to anonymity and confidentiality, as well as the right to movement of those infected, have been justified on the grounds that the disease forms a public health risk.

Perhaps as a response, numerous countries have now enacted legislation to protect the rights and freedoms of people living with HIV and AIDS and to safeguard them from discrimination. Much of this legislation has sought to ensure their right to employment, education, privacy and confidentiality, as well as the right to access information, treatment and support.

Governments and national authorities sometimes cover up and hide cases, or fail to maintain reliable reporting systems. Ignoring the existence of HIV and AIDS, neglecting to respond to the needs of those living with HIV infection, and failing to recognize growing epidemics in the belief that HIV/AIDS &Mac226;Äòcan never happen to us&Mac226;Äô are some of the most common forms of denial. This denial fuels AIDS stigma by making those individuals who are infected appear abnormal and exceptional.

Stigma and discrimination can arise from community-level responses to HIV and AIDS. The harassing of individuals suspected of being infected or of belonging to a particular group has been widely reported. It is often motivated by the need to blame and punish and in extreme circumstances can extend to acts of violence and murder. Attacks on men who are assumed gay have increased in many parts of the world, and HIV and AIDS related murders have been reported in countries as diverse as Brazil, Colombia, Ethiopia, India, South Africa and Thailand. In December 1998, Gugu Dhlamini was stoned and beaten to death by neighbours in her township near Durban, South Africa, after speaking out openly on World AIDS Day about her HIV status.