• 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
  • Bad Bunny refuses to give clothes a gender

    Bad Bunny refuses to give clothes a gender

    Published by BANG Showbiz English Bad Bunny refuses to give clothes a gender. The 28-year-old rap star – whose real name is Benito Ocasio – is unsure what defines “masculine” or “feminine” and cannot discriminate clothing …Read More »
  • Biden to issue policing order on George Floyd death anniversary -media reports

    Biden to issue policing order on George Floyd death anniversary -media reports

    Published by Reuters WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Joe Biden is set to issue an executive order on Wednesday directing federal agencies to revise use-of-force policies as the United States marks the two-year anniversary of the police …Read More »
  • Ellen DeGeneres starts her ‘career pause’ in Africa

    Ellen DeGeneres starts her ‘career pause’ in Africa

    Published by BANG Showbiz English Ellen DeGeneres’ “career pause” will begin with a luxury African vacation. The final episode of ‘The Ellen DeGeneres Show’ will air later this week, and Ellen and her wife Portia de …Read More »
  • ‘The Kids in the Hall’ review: Sketch comedy is a young person’s game — yet here are older guys just ripping into the form as if they never left

    ‘The Kids in the Hall’ review: Sketch comedy is a young person’s game — yet here are older guys just ripping into the form as if they never left

      Published by Chicago Tribune   The TV landscape tends to feel pretty dismal when “Saturday Night Live” is the only sketch comedy game in town. And often that’s the case. Over its four-plus decade run, …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

  • Pelosi hits back at San Francisco archbishop for banning her from Communion over pro-choice stance

    Pelosi hits back at San Francisco archbishop for banning her from Communion over pro-choice stance

  • Mick Jagger Cuts Harry Style Down To Size, Says He ‘Doesn’t Have A Voice Like Mine Or Move On Stage Like Me’

    Mick Jagger Cuts Harry Style Down To Size, Says He ‘Doesn’t Have A Voice Like Mine Or Move On Stage Like Me’

  • Summer Love? Rosie O’Donnell Teases Possible New Girlfriend With PDA Moment

    Summer Love? Rosie O’Donnell Teases Possible New Girlfriend With PDA Moment

  • U.S. commission recommends renaming nine Army bases to strip Confederate legacy

    U.S. commission recommends renaming nine Army bases to strip Confederate legacy

Break

  • Keanu Reeves hailed one of world’s nicest men

    Keanu Reeves hailed one of world’s nicest men

  • Toni Collette, Mark Ruffalo and Noami Ackie join ‘Parasite’ Filmmaker Bong Joon-ho’s new movie And it Sounds Mind Blowing

    Toni Collette, Mark Ruffalo and Noami Ackie join ‘Parasite’ Filmmaker Bong Joon-ho’s new movie And it Sounds Mind Blowing

  • Starbucks to completely exit Russia after Ukraine invasion

    Starbucks to completely exit Russia after Ukraine invasion

  • Evan Spiegel & Miranda Kerr Pay Off $10 Million In Loans Of Otis College’s Graduating Class

    Evan Spiegel & Miranda Kerr Pay Off $10 Million In Loans Of Otis College’s Graduating Class

RSS Partner Links

  • Morning Wood
  • “The latest ‘Thor: Love and Thunder’ trailer finally reveals the villain” links
  • Duchess Meghan kissed Harry, then wiped her lipstick off of his mouth
  • Kristen Stewart, Scott Speedman & Tom Sturridge Match In Sharp Sunglasses For Cannes 75th Anniversary Event
  • Diane Kruger & Norman Reedus Are Couple Goals at Cannes Film Festival 2022
  • Jennifer Connelly Recalls Meeting Princess Diana When She Was A Teenager
  • CBS Pulls 'FBI' Season Finale After Elementary School Shooting in Texas
  • Scenes from Greg Berlanti’s 50th birthday!
  • Texas: 14 Children, 1 Teacher Shot Dead In Uvalde Elementary School; Shooter Dead

Most Recent

  • 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

  • Biden to issue policing order on George Floyd death anniversary -media reports

    Biden to issue policing order on George Floyd death anniversary -media reports

  • Ellen DeGeneres starts her ‘career pause’ in Africa

    Ellen DeGeneres starts her ‘career pause’ in Africa

  • ‘The Kids in the Hall’ review: Sketch comedy is a young person’s game — yet here are older guys just ripping into the form as if they never left

    ‘The Kids in the Hall’ review: Sketch comedy is a young person’s game — yet here are older guys just ripping into the form as if they never left

  • Opinion: The Right-Wing Airing of Imaginary Grievances Like Sex Ed Is Not and Never Has Been Used To Groom

    Opinion: The Right-Wing Airing of Imaginary Grievances Like Sex Ed Is Not and Never Has Been Used To Groom

  • Tan France gets parenting advice from Gigi Hadid

    Tan France gets parenting advice from Gigi Hadid

Most Commented

Social

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

Copyright © 2022 · Log in