Gayle Myrick used to work as a magistrate in Union County, North Carolina. Now, she’s sitting pretty on a huge pile of cash.
As a magistrate, one of Myrick’s responsibilities was to perform marriages. Well, after marriage equality became the law of the land a few years ago, she told her supervisors she wouldn’t marry same-sex couples because it went against her Christian faith.
Sound familiar?
Myrick’s supervisors reminded her that she had sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and that the government couldn’t make an exemption to the law just for her. So she resigned… then promptly filed a discrimination complaint that eventually made its way all the way up to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Myrick argued that her supervisors didn’t make enough effort to accommodate her religious beliefs. Now, the state of North Carolina has agreed to give her a whopping $325,000.
The huge settlement comes after an administrative law judge determined Myrick had been “involuntarily terminated” then ordered the state give her back pay and attorney fees.
Rather than appeal the decision, the state has decided to pay up.
In an op-ed titled You can’t make state officials like me perform same-sex marriages and published by the Washington Post, a gleeful Myrick writes:
Our civil rights laws point us to a society where we can live, work and break bread together despite our differences. My case shows that we can find reasonable solutions that protect the freedom and dignity of everyone.
And when we can’t–well–we just sue people to enrich ourselves.
Related: Kim Davis is touring Romania to encourage the government to ban gay rights
Juanjo
I do a lot of employment law. There is something very weird about this decision from the ALJ not to mention the state not appealing it.
MacAdvisor
Yes, Juanjo, I agree, but the appeals can be expensive and discovery is always SO MUCH WORK, that I can see why this might seem an attractive price to get rid of her. I figure so $100,00 to $150,000 of that is going to the attorneys and she’d earn about as much as the remainder in four years or so. The county should revise their employee manuals to make clear there core duties of a magistrate and the county is unable to provide accommodations.
tnguy222
Not totally surprising here–
The fourth circuit seems content with construing widely a employer’s duty to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs. In TEEOC v. Consol Energy, Inc. (2017), the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, explaining that an employer should not attempt to rebut or counter an employee’s religious beliefs; so long as there is sufficient evidence beliefs are sincerely held, then the employer need make reasonable efforts to accommodate the individual.
TEEOC addressed private employers, while Myrick vs. Warren has merely extended the TEEOC test to the government.
Sam6969
So, basically she thinks her faith is above the law, though “she had sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution”, and the state condones that.
That is why religion should remain in the private domain and be kicked out of public professions, where it could interfere with its ethics and the right for all citizens to receive the same fair treatment (as defined by Law). She complained about being discriminated, while she discriminated people in the first place. Those people have always screwed rationales to justify their misbehavior. And in her case, it seems to have worked, which is the most disturbing! By principle and whatever the price, they should never give those people the impression to win.
“The world [country] is walking on its head” could be applied there.
Sturzl1967
I would have appealed. You can always get her to pay the attorney fees when she loses.
Bob LaBlah
Don’t forget that even though NC has a democratic governor they still have a republican controlled legislature and also quite a few democrats that believe the same thing. That has more to do with her settlement than anything else. Both sides are cheering this time around. NC is still NC, gay marriage be damned.
Lacuevaman
its coming to a state near you: https://www.thedailybeast.com/democrat-flips-deep-red-kentucky-seat-the-37th-flip-since-trumps-inauguration?ref=home
Daniel-Reader
Unless she grants ambulance drivers and emergency doctors and nurses permission to refuse her services until they find someone else if it violates their religious preferences of the day, then she’s just another massive hypocrite who wants special one-sided permission to discriminate against others but not have that discrimination in return.
Creamsicle
“Our civil rights laws point us to a society where we can live, work and break bread together despite our differences. My case shows that we can find reasonable solutions that protect the freedom and dignity of everyone.”
And without even a fucking hint of irony.
She seems all for civil rights when it’s her “right” to discriminate against people based on a bunch of second and third-hand translated and re-translated mythology. But when it’s a couple who just want to get married and whose lives will never affect her afterwards her “right” to discriminate is more important than their right to habe access to fair and equal protection under the law.
You know these fuckers will eventually try to use the religious liberty argument to object to interaccial marriages. It’s only a matter of time. Maybe then people will see just how slippery that slope is.
Also, let’s not forget mixed religious marriages. This same argument of “sincerely held religious beliefs,” can be used to justify discrimination against a lot of people. We just won’t see the nation get upset by it until it happens to an attractive hetero couple.
Daniel-Reader
Based on her logic, police and firefighters can refuse to uphold the Constitution when applying services to her if she offends their religious preferences of the day, right? She claims people sworn to uphold the Constitution are permitted to shirk their duties based on arbitrary religious preferences that can change at whim from day to day, right?
DCguy
Something else is going on here. She refused to do her job. that is legitimate grounds for termination. This is a payoff to her, and the judge is most likely a member of her church and let the state know that they would hold it against them if they appealed.