• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • About Towleroad
  • Towleroad on Social Media
  • Privacy Policy

Towleroad Gay News

Gay Blog Towleroad: More than gay news | gay men

  • Politics
  • Health
  • Travel
  • Gay Pride
  • Music
  • Sports
  • Law/Justice
  • Celebrities
  • Men
  • Space
  • Science
  • Gay Iconography
  • Madonna
  • Books
  • Monkeypox
  • Film/TV

Gay Juror Gets Tossed for Being Gay: What It Means for Gay Rights

Ari Ezra Waldman September 19, 2013

By ARI EZRA WALDMAN

8238gov1abbottnorvirYesterday, we reported on an antitrust case that took an odd turn. The case may not initially strike us as the stuff of social justice: two multibillion dollar companies fighting over potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue while paying multimillion dollar law firms millions of dollars to do it. But in the blink of an eye, the lawyers went from talking about "unfair competition" to talking about "antigay discrimination."

The case revolves around the price of an HIV drug and whether one company's decision to quadruple the drug's price violates unfair competition laws. At jury selection time, one of the attorneys used his right to exclude certain members from the jury pool to, ostensibly, exclude a gay person. We don't know for sure that this is what happened; these are allegations and proof is always hard to come by in these circumstances. But if the allegations are true, the act is troubling, at best: the lawyer was suggesting that a gay person cannot be impartial in a case involving an AIDS drug.

The case now asks: Can a person be excluded from a jury simply because of his or her sexual orientation? The answer's importance extends beyond the narrow confines of the jury room. It reminds me of the Prop 8 proponents' distasteful motion to vacate Judge Vaughn Walker's decision declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional because he is gay and was at the time of the case in a long term same-sex relationship.

It speaks to the concept of identity in law and the status of gay persons in modern American society. It also shows what we won — and what we didn't — in the Supreme Court's recent marriage equality cases.

AFTER THE JUMP, I explain what happened in the antitrust case and relate it back to major legal questions in LGBT law.

CONTINUED, AFTER THE JUMP…

By ARI EZRA WALDMAN

8238gov1abbottnorvirYesterday, we reported on an antitrust case that took an odd turn. The case may not initially strike us as the stuff of social justice: two multibillion dollar companies fighting over potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue while paying multimillion dollar law firms millions of dollars to do it. But in the blink of an eye, the lawyers went from talking about "unfair competition" to talking about "antigay discrimination."

The case revolves around the price of an HIV drug and whether one company's decision to quadruple the drug's price violates unfair competition laws. At jury selection time, one of the attorneys used his right to exclude certain members from the jury pool to, ostensibly, exclude a gay person. We don't know for sure that this is what happened; these are allegations and proof is always hard to come by in these circumstances. But if the allegations are true, the act is troubling, at best: the lawyer was suggesting that a gay person cannot be impartial in a case involving an AIDS drug.

The case now asks: Can a person be excluded from a jury simply because of his or her sexual orientation? The answer's importance extends beyond the narrow confines of the jury room. It reminds me of the Prop 8 proponents' distasteful motion to vacate Judge Vaughn Walker's decision declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional because he is gay and was at the time of the case in a long term same-sex relationship.

It speaks to the concept of identity in law and the status of gay persons in modern American society. It also shows what we won — and what we didn't — in the Supreme Court's recent marriage equality cases.

AFTER THE JUMP, I explain what happened in the antitrust case and relate it back to major legal questions in LGBT law.

CONTINUED, AFTER THE JUMP…

Here's what happened: Abbott Laboratories makes an HIV drug called Norvir, which is widely used as a component in a cocktail of HIV drugs. It boosts the other drugs' effectiveness, so we call Norvir a "protease inhibitor booster". It's still effective, but it has side effects, sometimes significant ones. Today, Norvir has a lot of competition. Gilead Sciences, for example, offers the remarkable drug known as Truvada, which is the first drug approved by the FDA for preventing HIV from ever taking hold in the body. Norvir becomes less necessary when drugs start doing that.

Perhaps because its sales were falling or perhaps to recoup a significant research and development investment in Norvir, Abbott Labs dramatically increased the price of its drug. This had several effects: It bumped up their revenues, no doubt; it angered the HIV-positive community and its allies; it increased costs for other companies that used Norvir in its recommended cocktail of HIV/AIDS drugs.

The last effect was the straw that broke GlaxoSmithKline's back. Glaxo, one of Abbott's competitors, objected to the price increase and accused Abbott of violating antitrust laws. Glaxo's evidence of unfair competition was that Abbott increased Norvir's price, preventing other companies from offering their cocktail at a competitive price, while keeping Abbott's own cocktail that contained Norvir (Kaletra) at a steady, low price. Kaletra, then, under-priced every Norvir-containing cocktail. Sneaky, effective, maybe illegal.

JuryThe antirust and unfair competition laws are not my primary concern here. So let's skip ahead to jury selection in Glaxo v. Abbott, where Abbott attorneys decided to use one of their "peremptory challenges" to toss a gay man from the jury pool. A "peremptory challenge" is a tool lawyers use to exclude certain ostensibly biased people from juries without having to explain themselves. But there are certain things we can't do with peremptory challenges–namely, exclude jurors based solely on their race or gender.

The question raised by Glaxo v. Abbott, then, is this: Is sexual orientation going to be given the same treatment as race and gender when it comes to jury selection and peremptory challenges?

There's an obvious answer: Yes. Excluding someone from a jury simply because he or she is gay is just as silly and discriminatory as excluding someone from a jury simply because he or she is black, Jewish, or short. But what is legal and what is just is not always synonymous.

Did Windsor answer the question for us? Some, including Glaxo, argue that Windsor's rejection of discrimination against legally married gay couples means that the Constitution does not countenance discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. After all, the only thing that distinguished Edie Windsor from millions of other married woman was that Edie was married to a woman, not a man.

But it is not at all clear that this is a winning argument. We should be familiar with at least one important context in which race and gender, on the one hand, and sexual orientation, on the other, are treated differently: levels of scrutiny.

During our many discussions about the legal issues at play in the DOMA cases and in the Prop 8 case, we talked about the issue of scrutiny several times. Scrutiny levels are like hurdles on a track: the higher the hurdle, the fewer runners make it over. Similarly, the higher the level of scrutiny, the fewer laws pass constitutional muster. President Obama, in refusing to defend DOMA, argued that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation deserves "heightened scrutiny" as opposed to the lowest "rational basis review" and DOMA failed under that higher standard. Several lower courts, from California to New York, agreed with President Obama and declared DOMA unconstitutional under heightened scrutiny. They said that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation deserved special judicial attention because it violates deeply held constitutional principles of equality and raises suspicions of evil intent.

But the Supreme Court's Windsor decision did not endorse heightened scrutiny for sexual orientation discrimination. It kept the level of scrutiny somewhat lower–rational basis plus–but left it lower than that for gender (heightened scrutiny) and race (strict scrutiny, i.e., the highest level possible). Therefore, it is not clear that Windsor forecloses the possibility that sexual orientation can be treated differently than race and gender in other areas of law.

Vaughn-walker-largeThis shouldn't be the end of the debate. Abbott Labs's attempt to exclude a juror simply based on that juror's sexual orientation is based on the odious and discriminatory presumption that gay people cannot be impartial when it comes to a case about AIDS. This smacks of stereotyping, discrimination on the basis of status, and over simplification. It also reminds me of the attempts to undercut Judge Vaughn Walker's Prop 8 decision simply because he is gay and was in a long term relationship when he presided over the Prop 8 trial. 

As I argued at the time, the motion was offensive because it applied to all judges: The notion that judges cannot divorce their personal views from the legal matters before them is offensive, to lawyers and judges and our entire system of justice.

But the Prop 8 Proponents' argument and, by extension, Abbott Labs's, is worse. Their argument is not about women or African-Americans or Jews or former prosecutors or any other group that could be prejudiced. Their argument is about gays, a group uniquely vulnerable to insidious stereotypes in common discourse as promiscuous, weak, and sex-crazed. No one called Jews money-hungry during the Bernie Madoff scandal, yet mainstream conservatives took to FOX, CNN and MSNBC during the debate to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to warn of unit discord, deaths, and orgies under the presumption that gay men could not keep their hands off other men. And during every marriage equality debate, gays are the targets of vitriol about disease, selfishness, and perversion. Such patently offensive comments were taken as legitimate arguments despite being as illegitimate as other gross stereotypes.

We saw those stereotypes in the Prop 8 motion to vacate and in the Abbott Labs peremptory challenge. The motion is based on nothing more than the stereotype that gay men are consumed by their selfish desires, incapable of being professional, and incapable of reason.

***

Follow me on Twitter: @ariezrawaldman

Ari Ezra Waldman is the Associate Director of the Institute for Information Law and Policy and a professor at New York Law School and is concurrently getting his PhD at Columbia University in New York City. He is a 2002 graduate of Harvard College and a 2005 graduate of Harvard Law School. Ari writes weekly posts on law and various LGBT issues.

 

Topics: News More Posts About: AIDS/HIV, Ari Ezra Waldman, discrimination, Law - Gay, LGBT, News

Related Posts
  • Russia Blocks Facebook, Accusing it of Restricting Access to Russian Media;
  • BK 99’s Stephanie Beatriz Says Even Her Favorite Shows Spread Bisexual Myths That It’s A Hyper-Promiscuous , Manipulative Phase
  • ‘Freddie Mercury The Final Act’ Covers Singers Final Years, Done His Way. Bandmates, Assistants Detail The Joy, Strength , Stigma For New Doc
  • Johnson takes responsibility but won’t quit over lockdown parties

    Johnson takes responsibility but won’t quit over lockdown parties

    Published by Reuters By Elizabeth Piper and Muvija M LONDON (Reuters) -A “humbled” Boris Johnson said he took full responsibility but would not quit after a damning official report on Wednesday detailed a series of illegal …Read More »
  • Exclusive: Biden moves to fill key appellate seat vacated by U.S. Supreme Court’s Jackson

    Exclusive: Biden moves to fill key appellate seat vacated by U.S. Supreme Court’s Jackson

    Published by Reuters By Nate Raymond (Reuters) – President Joe Biden on Wednesday nominated three women to serve as appellate judges including Florence Pan, who would succeed U.S. Supreme Court-designate Ketanji Brown Jackson on the influential …Read More »
  • Monkeypox vaccine producer says enough supplies are available

    Monkeypox vaccine producer says enough supplies are available

    Published by DPA An illustration photo shows a medical syringe with the word Monkeypox virus in the background. Sufficient supplies of the Imvanex vaccine against monkeypox are available to handle the current outbreak, the producer of …Read More »
  • LGBTQ Community Urges Viewers To Boycott Controversial Comic Ricky Gervais After ‘Anti-Trans’ Jokes

    LGBTQ Community Urges Viewers To Boycott Controversial Comic Ricky Gervais After ‘Anti-Trans’ Jokes

    Published by Radar Online PTNY/©2013 RAMEY PHOTO Ricky Gervais sparked backlash for anti-trans jokes in his new Netflix comedy special, leaving some members of the LGBTQ community outraged. The controversial comic, 60, became a hot topic …Read More »
Previous Post: « Pope Francis on Gays: The Church Cannot ‘Interfere Spiritually in the Life of a Person’
Next Post: Seattle Mayor Holding ‘Stop Putin’ Sign Upsets Russian Consul General »

Primary Sidebar

News

  • Georgia rebukes Trump over US voter fraud ‘Big Lie’

    Georgia rebukes Trump over US voter fraud ‘Big Lie’

  • Nike halts sales to retailers in Russia

    Nike halts sales to retailers in Russia

  • Shunned! Caitlyn Jenner Denied Invite To Kardashian-Barker Wedding In Italy

    Shunned! Caitlyn Jenner Denied Invite To Kardashian-Barker Wedding In Italy

  • Paranoid Putin! Russian Leader Promotes Bodyguard To Minister Following Predecessor’s Sudden & Mysterious Death

    Paranoid Putin! Russian Leader Promotes Bodyguard To Minister Following Predecessor’s Sudden & Mysterious Death

Break

  • Dyson set to preview new robots to help with tasks at home

    Dyson set to preview new robots to help with tasks at home

  • Elvis fever set to shake Cannes

    Elvis fever set to shake Cannes

  • Battle Of The Billionaires! Elon Musk SLAMS Bill Gates After Article Claims Microsoft Mogul Is Funding Musk’s Critics

    Battle Of The Billionaires! Elon Musk SLAMS Bill Gates After Article Claims Microsoft Mogul Is Funding Musk’s Critics

  • Paula Abdul planning ‘spectacular’ 60th birthday bash

    Paula Abdul planning ‘spectacular’ 60th birthday bash

RSS Partner Links

  • Fleshback: Tom Of Finland
  • OMG, LISTEN TO THIS: Kelly Clarkson drops her cover of Billie Eilish’ ‘Happier Than You’
  • OMG, Heartstopper’s Kit Connor: “I’m comfortable in my sexuality & don’t need to label myself publicly”
  • Leslie Jordan shares funny memories of his mother, Peggy Ann, who passed away at age 86
  • Naked Anime + NYC Shooter Turns Himself In + Texas Shooter Had Body Armor + History's Evil Twinks + MORE! — 12-PACK
  • Birthday Sluts
  • Song of the Day: 'I Belong in Your Arms' by Chairlift
  • Page 1 Roundup (05/25)
  • Weekend Tennis Roundup

Most Recent

  • New York City removes last public phone booth

    New York City removes last public phone booth

  • Johnson takes responsibility but won’t quit over lockdown parties

    Johnson takes responsibility but won’t quit over lockdown parties

  • Exclusive: Biden moves to fill key appellate seat vacated by U.S. Supreme Court’s Jackson

    Exclusive: Biden moves to fill key appellate seat vacated by U.S. Supreme Court’s Jackson

  • Monkeypox vaccine producer says enough supplies are available

    Monkeypox vaccine producer says enough supplies are available

  • LGBTQ Community Urges Viewers To Boycott Controversial Comic Ricky Gervais After ‘Anti-Trans’ Jokes

    LGBTQ Community Urges Viewers To Boycott Controversial Comic Ricky Gervais After ‘Anti-Trans’ Jokes

  • NC Republicans push ban on teachers discussing LGBTQ issues, other rules for schools

    NC Republicans push ban on teachers discussing LGBTQ issues, other rules for schools

  • Bad Bunny refuses to give clothes a gender

    Bad Bunny refuses to give clothes a gender

Most Commented

Social

Twitter @tlrd | Facebook | Instagram @tlrd
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • About Towleroad
  • Towleroad on Social Media
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2022 · Log in