Wednesday, May 11, 2016

"Mr. Randazza permitted and encouraged his children to have warm personal relationships with Mr. Gideon, who they called "Uncle."

Marc Randazza put's on a great act that he has concern for his children and who has access to them, yet this court ruling sure paints Marc Randazza as someone who is not acting very "fatherly" in an ethical manner as far as I see it. Uncle Gideon.

"Prior to and subsequent to agreeing to go "in house" as E/L's general counsel, Mr. Randazza was outside counsel to several companies engaged in Internet pornography, including videos and stills available on openly homosexual websites.

Since at least the date of the commencement of his employment as E/L's inside general counsel through his last day of E/L employment, Mr. Randazza knew of and was not in any way uncomfortable with Mr. Gideon's gay sexual orientation --- which was also that of most, but not all, of E/L's other executives --- and the frequent seasoning of business and socially- related conversation and written communications with crude gay and other sexual terms, references and allusions, which Mr. Randazza also used.

Mr. Randazza was not embarrassed to be seen or filmed in full undress at a poolside business-social event at Mr. Gideon's home. Mr. Randazza permitted and encouraged his children to have warm personal relationships with Mr. Gideon, who they called "Uncle."

L.  The evidence was that the only complaints which Mr. Randazza had concerning the pornographic filming in his offices in April 2012 --- four months before the end of his employment--- were that (1) he was not given the courtesy of advance notice of the shoot and (2) after the shoot was completed, Mr. Randazza's office was not restored to just the way it had been before the office was prepped for filming.

The preponderance of disputed evidence was not that Mr. Randazza complained to Mr. Gideon centering on or in any way reasonably relating to sexual discrimination or harassment or a hostile work environment based on sex, including "male-on-male" sex, which has been recognized as a basis
for a legal claim.

Accordingly, allegedly involuntary termination of Mr. Randazza's employment, based on Mr. Randazza's April 2012 complaint about the filming of pornography in his office --- which did not constitute statutorily "protected activity" --- is not includible as a component for a statutory claim that he had been fired in retaliation for making that complaint.

Mr. Randazza's complaint about the allegedly personally offensive oral copulation of Mr. Gideon in the back seat of his car on August 9, 2012 was not genuinely or deeply felt and was made primarily for tactical reasons. Therefore, the end of Mr. Randazza's employment was not and was not the product of anything retaliatory, in violation of public policy (e.g., engaging in protected activity), as a matter of law."

Source and Full Document

No comments:

Post a Comment