Crude, Profane Lesbian With Supportive Boss Harassed Employees With Impunity at Historically Black Alabama College

State Rep. John Knight, Alabama State University's second in command, says a lawsuit contending that three female university employees suffered repeated sexual and racial harassment that was condoned by ASU supervisors and officials is frivolous and possibly the handiwork of a disgruntled former university trustee.

The federal court suit contends that a female supervisor subjected one current and two former university employees to a wide variety of racial and sexual harassment, ranging from verbal harassment to inappropriate touching, and that ASU officials not only did little to correct the situation but retaliated against the employees who reported it.

But Knight, who is the executive vice president and chief operating officer at ASU, said it is political season and accused former university board member Joe Reed and the Alabama Education Association of using the lawsuit to fight progress at the university.

"There are people who served on the board in the past who do not like progress and are basically committed to fund any lawyers that want to have a lawsuit against Alabama State University," Knight said. "That is AEA and Joe Reed."

In the lawsuit, the three women contend that Lavonette Bartley, an associate executive director at the university, who at one time served as their supervisor, repeatedly harassed them -- even to the point of giving one of the women revealing clothing that she wanted her to wear to the office.

The women allege in the suit that they complained to at least three members of ASU's board of trustees, and Reed wasn't one of them. The complaints of harassment and discrimination go back to March 2008, and continue beyond the time Reed was forced to relinquish his seat on the board in September 2008.

Reed said none of the women ever made their complaints known to him while he was on the board.

Cynthia Williams, Jacqueline Weatherly and Lydia Burkhalter allege that Knight and other ASU supervisors not only condoned but also encouraged and sometimes participated in these abuses. Burkhalter alleges that Bartley made overt and Knight more subtle sexual advances toward her.


The women filed the lawsuit against the university on March 4 and are seeking compensation that includes back pay.

The suit contends that instead of trying to resolve complaints that were made in good faith concerning the problems, Knight and Bartley repeatedly retaliated against the plaintiffs. The suit also contends ASU's conduct was so "pervasive as to create a racially and sexually hostile working environment."

Candis McGowan, attorney for the three women, said they have a federally protected right to report discrimination and should not have been retaliated against for doing so.

Knight, who told the Montgomery Advertiser he was speaking on behalf of himself and not the university, said the lawsuit was frivolous and he was "shocked at some of the allegations that are in there."

Most of the allegations are aimed at Bartley, who is alleged to have regularly used the N-word when referring to the plaintiffs, other employees and even students. It also is alleged that Bartley routinely referred to female employees as "bitches," and often made sexually suggestive comments about their anatomy. She is even accused of inappropriately rubbing her breasts against Burkhalter.

According to the suit, Bartley allegedly once complained about employees' work performance, saying, "Y'all n******s gon' learn I ain't nothing to play with. When I need y'all bitches you better be there."

The Montgomery Advertiser, through Kenneth Mullinax Jr., director of public information and media relations, requested interviews with Knight, Bartley and President William Harris. Knight was the only official from ASU to respond.

Burkhalter alleges in court documents that on different occasions Knight made advances that she perceived as sexual in nature, and he once allegedly asked her to "dance for me" and promised that he could take her to parties she'd otherwise never get to attend.

In specifically addressing the allegations against him, Knight said they are "absolutely false. There is no validity to it at all."


"If anybody ever felt that was happening, then they were certainly dreaming," Knight said. He said he has tried his best during his professional career to treat employees with respect and dignity.

Knight said Williams and Burkhalter were terminated and are disgruntled employees. The lawsuit alleges that Williams and Burkhalter were both fired without cause as retaliation for reporting Bartley's alleged behavior.

When asked if he ever witnessed any improper behavior by Bartley, Knight said "absolutely not."

Knight said he became aware of the allegations when Weatherly filed her complaint with the university. He said the university encourages employees to report complaints about sexual harassment or a hostile work environment, as Weatherly did.

He said the university took the appropriate actions. The plaintiffs dispute Knight's recollection of events, alleging that attempts to transfer to other departments or to reach out to other officials were often thwarted by Knight. They also say it was nearly impossible for them to file additional complaints against Bartley and that they were told not to take their complaints further.

But Knight said the university followed procedures when Weatherly filed her complaint. He said after four days of testimony, the committee did not find any sexual harassment, but recommended sensitivity training for Bartley. He said he insisted she go to sensitivity training, that she has attended one session and that she is supposed to attend more training.

The lawsuit alleges that Bartley had not attended any training as of May 2009, which is the same month that Burkhalter was fired for allegedly abandoning her position.

In documents acquired by the Montgomery Advertiser about EEOC complaints against Bartley that were investigated by the university, the human resources director wrote in August 2008 that "Mrs. Bartley's intense involvement with various personnel was humiliating, condescending, intimidating and unwelcome behavior. This type behavior does and will interfere with one's work performance."

The EEOC committee at the university recommended, according to the August memo, giving Bartley a written reprimand "from her immediate supervisor."

Harris approved the recommendation in September 2008. The suit alleges that it took nearly eight months for Knight to act on the committee's recommendation, and when he did write the recommended reprimand, he allegedly wrote that it "does not result from my belief that you have created a hostile work environment within the context of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

Knight said Bartley, whom he said he's known "a long time," continues to work under his supervision, but in a different position. He said she no longer supervises employees.

In California, Assisted Fertility Industry is No Place for Christian Conscience

The coercive Sodomite State of California has brought two Christian physicians to heel, at last, following a California Supreme Court decision that Christian conscience is no excuse to refuse artificial insemination to a lesbian in a domestic relationship with another lesbian. Christian physicians Douglas Fenton and Christine Brody were obligated to indulge a homosexual woman who requested to be artificially impregnated in order to produce children that she and her lesbian companion would raise without a father.

This follows the pattern that has been so fruitful for coercive Sodomites: first seek tolerance, as objects of pity, then demand validation and approval and, finally, coerce active collaboration and punish any who decline to cooperate. Tolerance is just a transitional phase en route to the Sodomites' imposition of their will on every person they encounter.

Lesbian's suit over procedure is settled
By Greg Moran, Union-Tribune Staff Writer

A long-running lawsuit between an Oceanside lesbian couple and two doctors that pitted the civil rights of same-sex couples against religious freedom for physicians has been settled.

The terms of the settlement were not disclosed. It ends a lawsuit filed in 2001 by Guadalupe Benitez against Drs. Douglas Fenton and Christine Brody at North Coast Womens Care in Vista.

Benitez alleged that the doctors told her they would not inseminate her because their religious convictions — they are Christians — prohibited them from doing the procedure for a lesbian couple.

Benitez went to another doctor, got pregnant and had a child with her partner, Joanne Clark. The boy is now 7. The couple also have 4-year-old twins.
But she sued the doctors and clinic, arguing that the state's civil rights laws do not allow doctors to discriminate against patients based on their religious beliefs.

A state appeals court in San Diego ruled in 2006 in favor of the doctors. But in August 2008, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously for Benitez, saying that religious-liberty claims cannot excuse illegal discrimination.

Both the doctors and the couple released a joint statement in which the doctors said they were sorry that Benitez and Clark felt they were being treated differently because of their sexual orientation.

The doctors said they want “all of their patients, including those who are lesbian and gay, to feel welcome and accepted in their medical practice, and are committed to treating all of their patients with equal dignity and respect in the context of the highest quality of medical care.”

The doctors contended as the case went on that they declined to do the procedure because Benitez was unmarried — not because of her sexual orientation. But there was also evidence in the case early on that the doctors had acknowledged that they did not inseminate her because she is a lesbian.

Benitez said yesterday that she is pleased that the case is over. “It was a really hard thing to go through, but it was worth it because we have hopefully paved the way for other people, and made sure that this is not going to happen to someone else,” she said.

The lawyer for the doctors could not be reached for comment yesterday. Throughout the litigation, the physicians have declined to comment publicly on the case.
The state's civil rights law prohibits discrimination in businesses that cater to the public. The law does allow doctors to opt out of some kinds of medical procedures, such as abortion.

But if a physician does offer to do certain procedures, they must be made available to all, said Jennifer Pizer of Lambda Legal, an advocacy group for same-sex rights.
While the exact amount of the settlement is private, Pizer said it was enough so that the couple's children “will be able to have whatever type of education they want to have in the future.” The doctors did not admit any wrongdoing, she said.

Union-Tribune
Greg Moran: (619) 542-4586;

Hell to Pay: Intolerant Homosexuals Deploy State Government Against Principled Christians

There will be Hell to pay if churches in New Jersey, home of disgraced bisexual former Gov. Jim McGreevey, fail to accomodate and cater to homosexual "civil union" ceremonies on church premises.

Charlie Butts wrote in OneNewsNow.com last week that a Methodist Church camp has lost to the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights in a federal district court after two lesbians complained to the government agency that the church camp resisted their demand.

Lesbian couple wins suit against Methodist camp
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow
The Methodist Church has lost a round over homosexual unions.

In March 2007 the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association refused to permit two lesbians -- Harriet Bernstein, 67, and Luisa Paster, 61 -- to stage a civil union ceremony at the church-owned Boardwalk Pavilion, and returned their check for $250. Subsequently, says Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, the lesbians filed a legal complaint against group. However, Association officials countered that the decision was based on their religious beliefs.

"That didn't make any difference to the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights," says Staver of the group that issued its determination on Monday. "They said there's no First Amendment defense here and in fact the church violated the public accommodation law in New Jersey," the attorney notes. "After New Jersey adopted the same-sex civil union law, no longer could the church allow its facility to be used in ministry to the public because to do so would open them up to these same-sex civil unions."

Staver says that puts the church in a quandary. "The church has really been put in the situation where the clash between the same-sex civil unions and the religious liberty is forcing the church to either violate its own religious freedom or open up its facility to the community," he points out.

The church lost a federal court decision dealing with the same matter, and that case is on appeal. The Camp Meeting Association is represented in the case by the Alliance Defense Fund, which has argued that a Christian organization has a constitutional right to use its facilities in a manner consistent with its beliefs.

Founded in 1869, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is affiliated with the United Methodist Church.