A DART board member said Thursday evening that he was “duped” by the agency’s attorneys into approving a nondiscrimination policy that wouldn’t protect gay or transgender employees.
In an exclusive interview with Dallas Voice, DART board member Claude R. Willams Jr. said he didn’t learn until earlier in the day that neither gay nor transgender workers would be protected under the new policy.
The board’s goal was to add gender identity to the nondiscrimination policy, which has included sexual orientation since 1995. However, a one-word amendment approved by the DART board on Tuesday night would nullify protections for both gay and transgender employees.
Williams, who represents the city of Dallas on the DART board, blamed himself for not catching the amendment, which he said was recommended by the agency’s attorneys. But Williams also vowed to fix it. The DART board is scheduled to take a final vote on the new policy Tuesday, June 22.
“I feel duped and misled,” Williams said. “The new language does not embrace the thoughts and the philosophy we wanted embraced into the policy change. We depended on legal and our general counsel to come up with the wording that would embrace that philosophy, and obviously that wasn’t done.”
Williams was reluctant to point fingers at specific DART staff members, but the agency’s general counsel is Hyattye O. Simmons. Simmons is also one of the attorneys who drafted a motion opposing a transgender bus driver’s gender-marker change in family court last year. The motion and other alleged discrimination against the transgender bus driver led to the proposal to add gender identity to the nondiscrimination policy.
“Now that I”m aware of it and now that other members who supported the policy change are aware, we’re going to have to go back and have language put in that embraces our philosophy, and it’s apparent that we might have to have an attorney we can trust who will put that in,” Williams said.
“It’s sad that now you’ve got to depend on outside attorneys to be brought in to the process,” he added. “Right now, everyone who voted for it is probably as shocked and disappointed as I am. I’ve lost a lot of confidence right now — and trust.”
To read my full story on the trans protections, go here.
16 Comments
Then he needs to fix the proposal and then move to fire the attorneys. These attorneys are either incompetent or intend to discriminate against DART employees and riders.
People are being so polite about this here. On the Advocate report taken from John’s report, people are talking about shutting down the DART lines by protesting on Pacific Avenue. There are threats to sue for holding an illegal, closed-door meeting and calling council members to recall their DART board appointees.
@DAVID: Is it the same people being polite here and impolite there? Maybe they know if they make the comments here, people are going to take them seriously and hold them to it. You can say whatever you want on The Advocate.
We are doing this for Ms. T Dart, not our vindication.
Ms. T asked me personally NOT to protest. This is about a transgender woman who is in a terrible position. She must work for DART. She is the reason for our advocacy.
We will win our day. We have the very best Gay, Lesbian and Transgender advocates in our corner who will not accept less than transgender equality.
We have Gay, Lesbian and Transgender advocates that will not leave anyone behind, including fighting for domestic benefits.
We can win these issues inside of the meeting rooms while this is still a option, not outside protesting. That would be the very last resort only used if no other means of advocacy were available.
We can spread the word tweet it facebook it email it GO to the DART meeting on the 22. You will have 3 minutes to tell the board what you want before they act on it.
You want to take action NOW? Go to this URL and contact the listed Dallas City Council members. They are our best direct route to the DART Board. https://bit.ly/a6lCyA
Mr. Williams shared the same sentiments with me earlier this evening that he did with John in this interview. I am heartened that he is continuing the fight on behalf of the LGBT community, and that he is marshalling his allies on the board. Thank you, sir.
And as for you, Mr. Simmons, how do you sleep at night knowing your counsel has raised the ire of 7-10% of your employer’s potential customers, and an untold number of its employees? Your actions are doing great harm to your agency, and cast a cloud on your nearly two decades of service to DART. Please step aside on this matter, and allow another attorney to deal with this issue.
Looks like we weren’t the only people who got conned.
DART can win back our trust by putting in new wording – and I think they just might be a little pissed at their corporate lawyers now. They’ve proven they put their own ideology ahead of their clients’ welfare.
I agree with Kelli. We need to honor the wishes of the DART employee so that she does not lose her job. The best thing we can do is for the WHOLE community to show up in numbers at the Board meeting to show our opposition to the inclusion of the word “except’. I also think we need to insist that they fire the attorney that keeps putting his nose where it does not belong…basic human rights. I have court on Tuesday or Wednesday but I am going to try to be there,
It certainly appears that Dallas DART is being disserved by someone on its legal staff who is not really acting in the best interest of the client. Duping one’s client into doing the opposite of what it intended to advance one’s own personal agenda of hate and intolerance, at the expense of making one’s client the villain in the public eye, sounds like an ethical offense that could lead to discipline before the Texas State Bar. If Mr. Williams does feel duped and misled by DART’s legal counsel, then perhaps he should file a complaint reporting the individual attorney or attorneys to the Texas State Bar in weird old Austin.
This type of action by the DART attorneys begs the question of what else have they put over the board over the years to discriminate in other ways. Using the opportunity to amend the wording to not only deceptively deny the addition of gender identity to the non-discrimination policy, but also to erase current protections related to sexual orientation is unconscionable.
I’m trans, but it angers me as much that they are trying to take away hard-won non-discrimination protections for sexual orientation as well as deny those protections for gender identity. This is a major affront to the community as a whole.
We need to pull together on this and as many as can show up on June 22.
Not to forget, if I am not mistaken, one or more of the DART attorneys are alleged to have discriminated against Ms T Dart on their own initiative. For those same attorneys then, with knowledge of those allegations, to advise the Board on how to amend the non-discrimination policy to include gender identity sounds like it might be a conflict of interest. Next, their advice to gut the protections in this way while allegedly misleading at least some board members that the amendment language will accomplish that stated goal is just a smoking gun. If these allegations are true, and if DART board members are willing to file a complaint with the Texas State Bar, then I would not want to be a DART attorney right now.
Ty Tori for finally acknowledging that perhaps some of us with privileged information aren’t really so tyrannical. Perhaps and I know this is a stretch, just maybe I was right? Now I’ll share with you the next step in the plan we need to pack that room, gloves are off so to speak. A respectful protest, no slurs or name calling; just plain ole massive turn out in the room use the entire 30 minute public comments time. This is needed for the next phase, the unanswered question that Mr Williams shared with me is “How much monies (taxpayer dollars) has the legal staff spent actually perusing harassment of this employee not limited to employer going into family court.
Perhaps I am incorrect but this seems to be a contradiction to what was reported on in the DMN…. A board member in that piece indicated that the closed door discussion (whether having that discussion was right or wrong aside) was one of the most passionate that member had ever seen apparently…. So the discussion was there. Mr. Williams should have known before his vote what was being voted on and when the word “except” was added he should have known immediately what impact that word would have. That is if this actually was as important an issue to him and others as he is stating in this interview…. So, is he telling the truth about his CURRENT commitment to the issue at hand or not? Or did he simply cave to the attorney and vote for the alternative language and hope for the best. Since it was all behind closed doors, who’s to know? Surely he figured he could do just what he has done here….. Deny, deny, deny…. And we eat it up while he says he’s gonna go into the back and check out what happened to our order….. Please…
Oh my! The public transit in Dallas sucks for the most part. Should we do a good old fashioned boycott?
@Damien:
You should read my more recent post, in which I say basically the same thing you are.
@John: Glad to see you reported on the apparent inconsistency. I did not see that piece ahead of my comment, but you are right and I am on the same wave length completely.