Do you think that Perez has a winnable case? Yes. Based on the response I read from the TV station, that basically said that they moved Perez to anchor the weekend show to save money. The only problem is Perez has a long-term contract with the station, so they wouldn’t be saving any money by moving him.
I really don’t think the “undue embarrassment” policy came into play here. I’m not sure if the public was even aware of what was going on behind the scenes. On the TV station’s website a lot of people that posted comments didn’t even know that Perez was gay; and those that did know couldn’t care less.  

One correction, PamPena is Perez’s former partner. Perez has discussed having a child with his new partner.
And, yes, this is a lot of messy hot drama.
1)I think that Perez’s case is very winnable, maybe a slam dunk.
2)Mmm-hmmm. See it on CNN and Fox quite often. But is this issue specifically with all gay people or just gay men?

Initially I would have written this off…His initial claim of descrimination was without merrit and would not have gotten far in court. His real problem was that he had a messy personal life that found its way into his professional life. I would say that his bosses originally had cause to remove him from the top spot based solely on his inability to keep his personal life private. A a private entity, the station was well within its rights to decide that it wanted nothing to do with that mess.
HOWEVER, the station screwed the pooch the moment they fired him and explicitly stated that it was because he brought up charges. They slit their own throat on that.
This however leads back to what I’ve said before about people needing to learn how to keep their private life out of their work place.
LEAVE IT AT HOME PEOPLE!
Unless you work in Hollywood, most employers want the drama to end at the front door. People who cannot keep that crap limited to their own personal time are begging to get fired.
I also disagree with Pam (surprise surprise) about “pandering to bigotry.” Employers have every right to demand that ANYONE not bring their personal life into the work place. One must declare one’s sexuality which is not really appropriate at work (and is really not necessary for a news reader). Many offices have issues with people being inappropriately vocal about their religious beliefs at work.  

Popularity will determine winable or notSomeone who is beloved in the community would have a good case, if he isn’t no one will care if he’s  fired.
I’ve always believed a company will FIND or MANUFACTURE a reason to fire anyone they choose, unless it will cost them business.

It really does not matterif the public new about it. The problem was that it was playing out in front of the staff. Its about maintaining a certain standard of conduct in the workplace.

I do agree with thisAfter all, most companies could care less about other personal issues but when it starts to impact job performance and other co-workers, employers can lay down the hammer pretty quick.

this dance with the professional closet – look at this post from 2006From my 9/2006 post “Where are the lesbian anchorwomen?” —

I attended an interesting panel today at the NLGJA convention, “Off Camera: The Challenges for LGBT TV Anchors,” which featured four anchors, all men.

Moderator: Patrick Nolan, Main Anchor, WFTX-TV, Fort MyersMike Dunston, Weekend Anchor, WTVD-TV, Raleigh [he's from our local ABC affiliate, and it's actually based in Durham, not Raleigh.] Thomas Roberts, Anchor, CNN Headline NewsCraig Stevens, Main Anchor, WSVN-TV, Miami

The discussion was lively, and it offered the insight on what it’s like to be an anchor where your choice to be out — and how out — of the closet varies a great deal. All of them are in various stages, from completely closet-free (Stevens, who has appeared in Pride parades) to a belief your colleagues and bosses know and don’t care (Dunston, who hasn’t specifically outed himself to his co-anchor Shae Crisson, assumes she knows because of common acquaintances).
Most of them made clear distinctions between their comfort with their work colleagues knowing about their orientation versus the general viewing public knowing. Part of the discussion, for those who are not out to the public, revolved around how or if any feel free to out themselves on the air, even though their jobs wouldn’t be in jeopardy. There was clear discomfort with this, but it was hard to tell whether the stressor was about personal disclosure, versus a passive indication from management that casually outing oneself would affect ratings or community relations — a fair question to ponder.
That said, everyone knows that, particularly in local news, local anchors have a “brand”, and are often featured in station promos with the family and the dog and marketed as “part of the community.” For gay anchors, there is a pressure — real or perceived (it was hard to tell from the panelists’ comments) to do a DADT on personal matters.
And you know Anderson Cooper came up as part of the discussion, referencing anchors who write bios that seem to skip an essential fact about themselves — being gay. It does boil down to a personal decision; all of the panelists wished there were more out anchor role models to help them navigate these choppy waters of personal and professional lives and disclosure of sexual orientation.
The irony is that all of these panelists have high enough profiles to be role models if they choose to do so. It’s a matter of degree. It’s about how you handle that newscast on Valentine’s Day when all the “happy talk” turns to what people are doing for their honeys. Do you dodge making a comment, or answer honestly about your partner? Thomas and Dunston choose to live privately out, but not publicly out — if someone finds out fine, they just aren’t necessarily volunteering information unless asked directly. The irony is that even a toe out of the closet counts for something, but there was a palpable uneasiness from the panelists about being a role model themselves by being publicly out, even as they wish for an out gay anchor’s lead to follow in their industry.
But to get back to the title of the post — where are the lesbian anchorwomen — at some point the question came up about the lack of a dyke presence on the panel (and other panels of this type at similar conferences). Moderator Patrick Nolan and Garrett Glaser, CNBC and former Entertainment Tonight reporter, who is out (and was present today), noted that they have tried to book out or semi-closeted lesbian anchors to participate in discussions and all of them have turned them down. Some refused to acknowledge that they were gay, others just didn’t want to discuss the issue in a public forum.

What does DADT on “personal matters” mean?I get that it wasn’t clearly defined at the conference.
Here’s a good FYI: I found this old article about fellow Detroiter Charles Pugh who has been anything but “closeted” in he career apparently.
http://www.pridesource.com/art…

mentioning partner stuff on-airDuring “happy talk” anchors frequently refer to their off-screen families and activities, and do promotional community events. The quandry was how free they were to be “personal” in contrast to their het colleagues.

But even then, aren’t there many straight anchorsthat are equally guarded about their privacy? Some people (gay or straight) want as little information about their personal lives out in the public sphere as possible.
I agree that a gay anchor should feel comfortable in “happy talk” discussing their families if they wish to do so. And yes, I am certain that some gay anchors who are otherwise out go through this specifically because they are gay. But others might go through to maintain some zone of privacy much in the way that straight anchors do.

I don’t know what the laws are like in Florida,but here in dear old Pittsburgh, if a company retaliates against someone who files a discrimination suit, they are all but handing their victim a victory, and probably tripling the amount of the settlement they’ll have to pay in the bargain.
The company that I filed a complaint against did just exactly that.  As soon as they found out about the complaint I’d filed, they fired me.  Big mistake–for them.

Why is nobody mentioning domestic abuse?If the station demoted this guy because of his “messy personal life”, then they demoted someone for being the alleged victim of domestic violence.
Gay, straight, trans, whatever–that is just plain wrong, but I doubt they would have done the same to a heterosexual woman in the same situation.

The retailiation gets them every time!

Yes, Perez has a winnable case.Sure, he does have a messy personal life. But then again, so do a number of straight anchors! In fact when I lived in Orange County, I heard a number of rumors about off-screen romances between local news anchors gone wrong… And the teevee stations did their best to keep it hush-hush.
So yes, I do think Charles Perez was wrongly demoted and then fired because of his sexual orientation. And yes, I do think much of the problem behind this mess is the still-large closet that’s shut tightly in the corporate media. For all the talk of “Liberal Hollywood” and “Liberal Manhattan”, the entertainment industry still largely frowns upon their shining stars bursting out of that closet. This still seems especially true in the infotainment (aka “news”) division.

Nope.

Gay, straight, trans, whatever–that is just plain wrong, but I doubt they would have done the same to a heterosexual woman in the same situation.

It probably wouldn’t have been. And there you have the double-standard. If you’re queer and the victim of domestic violence, then somehow you’re at fault for your “alternative lifestyle” and you just need to shut up and go away.
Sad.

“domestic violence?”Look at this carefully, Perez is being accused of being the perpatrator of domestic violence and not the victim.

Peña says in his domestic violence petition that Perez would “throw household items, punch[ed] walls and use demeaning and vulgar language.”

Assbackwards, as always….
Besides the fact that the station knew Perez…who has been publicly out for at least the last 17 years since he was identified as one of those dating the gay housemate on the original edition of MTV’s “Real World” … was gay when they hired him, there is nothing in this that accuses Perez of “bringing his personal life” into the work place; and even if there were the station would have to prove that they enforce the same for nongay personnel, e.g., no on-air banter like “My husband was really upset by the Dolphins’ loss. What happened, Bill the Sports Guy?” or “My little girl wanted to know why we weren’t invited to the White House Easter Egg hunt.”
Further, you forget Perez’ first assertions about the station’s inconsistencies:
First, he was told he was TOO anchor-like…too much like “Brian Williams,” even though his job was as an anchor and a recent poll showed Williams the most popular of the big three network anchors among Americans.
Then, within weeks, after the leaked e-mail story became public, he was told by the same person he wasn’t anchor-like enough…along with the “girlfriends” line. If he can prove those contradictions…and the judge isn’t homophobic…we sense some major employement law whipass coming.
Perez has also said this:
“One of my colleagues, a higher-up at the station, told me: ‘The weekends will be better for you, anyway, Charles. You and Keith [my partner] want to have kids. It’s a lot less high-profile there’.
It was a suggestion that never would have been made to one of my straight colleagues, male or female. The only thing I could take from it was that my profile as a gay man, especially if I were to have kids and, God forbid, get married, would render me less promotable and less advertiser-friendly.”
As well, that quoted above bears repeating:
In fact, over the previous five months, I’d been told, ‘Don’t get married, Charles. We don’t need that’. I’d also been told not to have children. In essence: ‘You’re the main anchor and you’re gay, but let’s not push it’.”
Finally, Pam, not Perez is the one going too far when she asserts

Wow, talk about trans-bashing. It wasn’t enough to say the charges were simply false and move on, but he clearly feels the need to defend his manhood in an aggressive manner.

“Aggessive[ly]” “defending his manhood” is YOUR hyperbolic characterization. It’s unfortunate you can’t see the line between his denouncing his ex’s attempt to exploit transphobia and him “trans bashing” himself.

What he said…Sorry Burnsey–I was still reading and writing when you posted.

“perpetrator”

Retaliatory filingRead above the fold. It says,

The MIami-Dade anchor’s name has been in the local news because of abuse charges against his former partner Dennis Ricardo Peña, whom Perez filed a injunction against for protection against domestic violence for  being ”stalked, harassed and threatened” by Peña. There are also charges and counter charges about whether Perez’s email was hacked and confidential information disclosed that the anchor felt could damage his professional rep.

The first line in the section you are referencing says,

Peña filed a 12-page motion to dismiss Perez’s petition.

Followed by dragging Perez co-worker’s name into it and other things that would appear to be specifically designed to get Perez fired or demoted–typical batterer behavior, which the station is tacitly condoning if it affected their decision.

Excellent idea, SciFi GeekI completely agree with you. I’ll suggest to my employer that photos of “opposite married” spouses and children be prohibited from display on employees’ desks and be replaced with generic wholesome pictures of cute animals or nature scenes. I’ll suggest that wedding bands be removed upon entry into the office, that “family day” picnics be cancelled in favor of team-building days, that all discussion concerning wives, husbands, girlfriends, boyfriends, children, babymamas, babydaddies, friends-with-benefits, “that chick I banged last night,” and exes be met with an official reprimand. Subsequent violations will be met with punitive action. Healthcare, insurance benefits, FMLA benefits for spouses and dependent family members will be cancelled, and any mention of next of kin be stricken from employees’ personnel files.
After all, everyone should just leave their sexuality and personal life at home, right?
Or does that only apply to ashamed, closeted filthy queers like us?

Businesses are well within their rightto limit the behaviour of their employees if they feel that it interferes with work or creates an uncomfortable work environment.
In this case, obviously staff were being unwillingly dragged into Perez’s personal dispute. If a staff member complained they they were being exposed to this against their will then the HR department of any business would have to lay down the law.

Perhapsbut that doesn’t mean that it’s Pena’s filing isn’t true on that grounds. If Perez was solely a victim of domestic violence, then that was wrong.
Was the “demotion” deemed necessary in order to further straighten out those personal issues? Was it temporary or permanent? Temprary assigning an anchor to weekends or even givig the anchor a few weeks off isn’t unheard of when private messiness goes public.

I don’t think Geek is saying that, KeoriI think what we don’t know in this case is the extent of to which the private messiness spilled into the job. The station, can’t, for example release any statements by Perez’s co-workers that would document the extent of that.
I don’t think he’s talking about the complete abolition of “sexuality” from the workplace, only that the public messiness has to be kept at a minimum.
Is there some type of “morals” clause in Perez’s contract? Those type of morals clauses get enforced even in the straight word (e.g. a football coach being fired for going to a strip club, etc.)  

And what is the National Gay and Lesbian Journalists Associationdoing about this?
(crickets chirping)

But they were not dragged into it by Perez.

He didn’t have toSciFi Geek’s schtick here has always boiled down to, “STFU and stay in the closet.”
And he’s not the first to insinuate – hell, straight up say outright – that LGBT people should not be out at work like our straight counterparts. When I had false sexual harassment allegations made against me (check the ACLU/ENDA thread), I was told that if I had just kept my mouth shut and never mentioned my Beloved, or if I had LIED and claimed she was male, that no one would ever been upset, that it was all my fault. My supervisor, like SciFi Geek, enjoyed victim-blaming and collusion because it gave him a smug sense of superiority. SciFi Geek admitted in his comment that sometimes messy personal life finds its way into professional space, then somehow he turned it around to blame the whole mess on Perez by saying he should have stayed in the closet.
WTF? It’s the same victim-blaming, “the slut/deviant/fag deserved it” meme. When a straight man goes through a messy divorce and the mess spills over into work, it’s not usually a big deal. Straight divorce is normalized, so people deal with it. And when the mess gets to be too much, the straight guy is told to take some time off and do what he has to do. He certainly isn’t demoted or fired at the first opportunity. But when a gay man goes through a domestic problem and the mess spills over, suddenly it’s “oh, well, he shouldn’t have been out to begin with” and “that’s what comes of deviant lifestyles.” It’s just another flavor of blame-the-fag/slut/bitch/whatever.
Fuck that noise. Fuck it sideways with a splintered piece of plywood. If Perez had been closeted and going through this same legal shit, we’d still be hearing about this, we’d just be hearing about an involuntary outing in addition to the retaliation from the station. Does SciFi Geek REALLY think that the station would have acted differently if Perez had been closeted? I’m not naive enough to think so.
We are not to blame for the actions of bigots. Bigots CHOOSE to act in bigoted ways. And they will use any excuse to do so. No amount of self-loathing and barricading ourselves within the closet is going to change that.

That part about Sci Fi’s statement I did disagree withAs well as the general tendency to blame out LGBTs for their plight.
But the personal messiness should stay as far from the workplace and public eye as possible, in that respect, I agree with him. Whether it’s personal relationship drama or substance abuse issues, once it starts to spill out on the job and affects the workplace, there are problems, no matter the sexual orientation.

When a straight man goes through a messy divorce and the mess spills over into work, it’s not usually a big deal.

But when its’ a public figure’s private life that spills into the public domain (gossip columns, etc.) then it is different than when “Joe Six Pack” at the factory goes through a messy divorce.

Thing isthis seems to have been in the news in the Miami/Dade County since early April. If it’s then that prominent in the news, why 1) demote him now 2) or fire him now, which was really stupid (unless Perez refused the demotion (whether temporary or permanent) to the weekend anchor position).

Forget the facts – whatever they may be

As a gay man myself, I can safely say the Station does not discriminate against gay people. Charles’ claim that the Station discriminates against gay people is untrue and offensive

Oh yeh – like no member of a minority has ever discriminated against members of his or her own minority.
The station deserves to lose just based on the idiocy of trying to foist that into the public discourse.

Am I missing some information?Which parts of this were played out in front of the staff? Everything I read about this related to private meetings with Perez’s bosses, and a few conversations with his co-anchor.
As far as I know, Perez tried to keep this as private as possible while doing his job. Regardless, the company specifically said that they were moving him to the weekend post to save money. That is clearly not true.

I know, right?That statement is totally false.  

Even Sarah Palin claims to have gay friends. (n/t)

If there were statements on thatwe would not have heard them, that would be confidential information (unless one of them went to the press, then their job would be jeapordized as well). Even Perez wouldn’t know the specifics of those reports.
I think there is a lot of information missing about this, personally, but when the station fired him that trumped everything.

On air personalities are a very special caseThey have VERY stringent contracts about appearance, moral turpitude, and other very vague clauses which gives the station nearly unlimited reasons, or no reason at all, to demote or fire them.
I wouldn’t hold my breath about him winning against a station. It’s not right, but that’s a part of being a  personality on TV.

I remember his talk show in the 90′sHe is a very talented man and this incident is not the end of his career.  Just the beginning.  I hope he wins the case, but if he doesn’t he will make a statement for advancing our civil rights.  He is great.

yep, that’s where Perez knows there’s a problemWe aren’t privy to his contractual obligations in the abovementioned areas– as I said above, they make those so clauses so broad and vague that the station would have more of a case here than in other professions. Again, not because it’s right — after all it’s based on the perception that the audience is squeamish rather than on any facts (unless ratings tanked when the Perez personal matters broke).  

Well, they might punish a woman similarly(and historically they have…)
But that doesn’t make it right.
I’m not really seeing the evidence that Perez dragged his co-workers into his mess and brought it too the office. Absent evidence, it does sound a bit like blaming the victim to say so.
Certainly such situations are very touchy for employers. But more enlightened employers have employee assistance programs that provide counseling and referals, and good managers will reach to their employees and suggest such things, maybe a little time off,  if their personal problems get out of hand.
They don’t handle the situation as Perez’s was handled.

ha ha, reminded me a Bill Bondsa Detroit institution. He reported on “groin warriors” in the 80s, gay men who were intentionally going out and intentionally infecting other people with HIV.
oh how I hated him. The gay community tried to protest him off the air, but his ratings held.
Then he got a couple of DIUs in a row and finally the station let him go.

“My experience is universal!”barf.

I totally agree with you SciFi GeekI am not a big fan of kids, so the next time one of my co-workers brings their kids to work, I’ll report it and get that person fired for my being unwilling dragged into their personal life.
So you’re saying that none or “us” have the right to hold a job. That the second we tell anyone (either purposefully or in passing) that we a LGBT; we should be fired? Because that is basically what you are saying.
Add to that, the co-workers dragged into anything, were not done so by Perez himself. It was a third party that did so. Unless you believe the backward logic that Perez by dating in the first place is at fault, that to keep his job he should remain in the closet and celibate?  
BTW SciFi, you should check and see if FOF is hiring. They would love you, just don’t expect to be paid right now.

Bill BondsThat old and crusty fart, I always had the feeling that he wasn’t too keen on black people, too.
But for some reason, he and Diana Lewis made a great newsteam.

+10 peteyBut…
From what I’ve seen, Perez was out, many people didn’t know that he was gay but many people did. And he seems to be popular in the Miami area.

I’m sorry no…You are hired to do a job and represent the organization that you work for…not a cause.
the moment you bring your personal life into the work place is the moment you risk losing your job. Its as simple as that. There is no fundamental reason that your private life needs to play out in a professional setting.
If a person were overly religious and spouting their dogma at work, other employees would have legitimate cause to have HR intervene and that person could be fired for repeated violations. Why…because you are in an office to work, not preach. People can be terminated for excessively bringing their homelife into work. ANYONE going through a messy divorce that plays out in the office can get fired.
Again, some folks seem to have a hard time keeping their private life private. That is a personal issue. There are plenty of straight people who do not talk about their homelife at work…and when you get down to it, its none of your coworkers business anyway. So why bring it to their attention?
In an era when everyone is replaceable, the wise move is to keep the outside crap away from your workplace.

Not alwaysWhere I live, whenever a straight couple breeds, the mom-to-be if she’s on air, is always talking about their bun in the oven… and when it’s time to deliver, there’s the mandatory, obligatory shot of the new mom.

from the horse’s mouth ….It actually says [that] if I should be involved in anything scandalous or perceived to be scandalous, whether or not I am the cause, I could be terminated within 24 hours. – Charles Perez, interview with Advocate.com
http://www.advocate.com/exclus…