I Saw What You Did, EF Hutton

You might have missed it, but EF Hutton recently engaged in a bit of political theater. I noticed, and I'm going to tell you all about it. I am also going to talk about the coverage of this incident, provided by the new website Champion City News.

This post is a little more pointed than my usual content, but having watched EF Hutton stage an apparent political stunt seemingly designed to stir up fear and spread misinformation, I have decided to respond.

The City Commission of Springfield, OH recently voted to add the words "sexual orientation" to the anti-discrimination ordinance. Shortly thereafter, a group of citizens who opposed the measure launched an effort to repeal the new law.

And EF Hutton allegedly made a statement of their own.

I will be referencing an article which appeared on the Champion City News website. The article can be accessed at this link, but I will post screen-grabs of the article below, in case the article is taken down. Comments posted under the article seem to have been deleted.

My response to the article is a fairly specific dissection, but I have tried to make things flow clearly. At the very end, I will make a few stray observations about Champion City News.

Let's start at the top. Here is a screen grab of the front page of Champion City News when the story first appeared on Feb 8th, 2018.

That's a photograph of a sign that was apparently posted inside EF Hutton's headquarters, located at One Main Street in Springfield, OH.

Okay... so allegedly EF Hutton has created gender neutral restrooms. Let's read on and see how this came about.



This article from Champion City News claims that EF Hutton changed all of their restrooms to "gender neutral" in response to the recently passed "LGBT Ordinance."

This headline frames EF Hutton's actions as "consequences" of the recent changes to the ordinance. This strongly implies that the actions taken were a direct result of the legislation, as if the law requires them to act as they have. I'll also note that the use of the word "consequences " here indicates bias (since consequences are usually associated with negative results).

The first sentence of the article states that EF Hutton has made "numerous changes to their policies" to ensure compliance with the recently passed anti-discrimination protections. These changes include making all restrooms gender-neutral, requiring mandatory employee training, and adding data collection to the Employee Policy Manual.

FACT CHECK: The recently passed Springfield legislation does not require local businesses to make changes to their restrooms or policies. These actions were conceived and carried out entirely by the policymakers at EF Hutton. The new ordinance prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in the areas of employment, housing, and public accommodation. The law does not require businesses to make any changes to restroom facilities or policies.

Permitting a person to use a public restroom that aligns with the gender identity they live every day does not require any changes to restroom facilities. 

We all expect some degree of privacy in the restroom. The new law does not require individuals to abandon all expectation of privacy while in the restroom. It has been, and continues to be, illegal to assault, harass, or harm others in a restroom (or outside of a restroom). The new ordinance in Springfield does nothing to change this.

The article goes on to state that urinals in EF Hutton's facility will be removed/disabled.

FACT CHECK: Anti-discrimination laws do not outlaw the use of urinals, nor do they require that urinals be removed or disabled. This apparent action was taken for one reason, and one reason alone: the policymakers at EF Hutton took it upon themselves to do so.

We learn in the article that EF Hutton distributed a memo to share their new policy changes. Besides declaring all restrooms to be gender neutral, the company has also apparently announced that all employees must attend "mandatory gender neutral training"and that the company will begin to collect data. These actions are again linked to the recent passage of the ordinance.

FACT CHECK: The new law in Springfield does not require businesses to provide mandatory training for all staff.

The article next tells us that employees were not happy with some of the changes.

FACT CHECK: Employee dissatisfaction with EF Hutton's policy change reflects solely on EF Hutton. EF Hutton's abrupt changes in their own company policy, which were not required by law and were distributed to employees in the form of a memo, created this situation. Blaming employee dissatisfaction on "consequences of the new LGBT ordinance" is deceptive and disingenuous.

Not only did the memo create a new policy for employees to follow, it included a newly formed process for filing complaints related to the policy changes. The article specifies that "a member of the company's legal department is assigned as a person to receive any complaints on the changes."

EF Hutton chose, of their own volition, to pass down sweeping policy changes in the form of a memo... and they included in this memo a procedure for employees to complain about these changes.

"We're taking away all of the urinals and making every restroom gender neutral, and you're required to attend mandatory training. Also, you should expect to share the restroom with people who don't share your biological sex. Here's the procedure for how to complain."

This is, of course, just my personal opinion, but perhaps employee dissatisfaction is not linked to the city's new law but to the sloppy policies EF Hutton invented and the manner in which they implemented them.

FACT CHECK: Methods of implementing the policy change aside, the fact still remains: EF Hutton created this situation themselves, acting outside the requirements of the law.

The article includes a quote from an employee who is against the new changes.

FACT CHECK: The employee cites dissatisfaction with EF Hutton's changes and attributes these changes to the new city law. The law does not require EF Hutton to take the actions they have chosen.

The employee states her belief that people would overwhelmingly vote against making "all public restroom facilities into unisex/transgender neutral." The law passed in Springfield, OH does NOT require all public restroom facilities to become unisex or gender neutral. Framing the criticism of EF Hutton's new policies in this manner is disingenuous.  

Required Gender-Neutral Restrooms?

As has already been stated, the Springfield Codified Ordinances do not require all restrooms to become gender-neutral. But is this the case in other cities? Have other cities and states passed laws requiring all restrooms to become gender-neutral? The answer is no.

FACT CHECK: Some places, like the State of California and the City of Seattle, WA, have passed specific restroom laws requiring gender-neutral bathrooms, but those laws ONLY apply to single-user bathrooms. In other words, across the United States, the small handful of restroom laws which exist simply say this, "If the bathroom is a single-user restroom, where one occupant enters at a time, then the restroom must be open to anyone and cannot be gender coded. All other restrooms (multi-stall) can remain the same, so long as people are permitted to use the restroom which corresponds with their gender identity."(Here's a running list of bathroom-related legislation, and here is a NY Times piece from last year giving a general overview of the issue up until 2017.)

Employee Complaint?

Let's take a look at this employee complaint, as cited in the article. We learn in the article that an employee filed a complaint shortly after the new restroom policy was implemented, utilizing the new procedure outlined in the policy change memo.

The article states that an employee complained because "a person they believe to be of the opposite-sex entered the bathroom there [sic] using." They believed their privacy to have been violated.

Let's stop right there for a second. Another person entering a public restroom is not grounds to complain about violation of privacy. If so, anyone could complain that their privacy has been violated any time another person occupies a public restroom in their presence... regardless of the perceived gender of the other person. Does this mean I can walk into a restroom and wait for another person to enter, then accuse that person of violating my privacy by seeking to use the same facility?

The article goes on to say, "They said they do not believe the person to be LGBT." There are some glaring logical flaws here.

First, this complaint seems to imply that entry to a particular restroom must be linked to a person's identity as an LGBT person. EF Hutton's policy stated that ALL restrooms are gender neutral. The policy was not, "LGBT people can enter any restroom they wish." The policy was, "all restrooms are open to all people."

The complaint seems to be saying, "The person entered the same restroom as me, even though they were not even LGBT!" EF Hutton's policy of gender neutral bathrooms was not contingent on LGBT identity. Referring to the situation in this manner implies that LGBT people received special treatment... a special license to go to whichever restroom they like while others can't. In other words, the complaint seems to be implying that "special status" as an LGBT person was needed to enter the same restroom, and that this person was violating this requirement by entering the restroom as a non-LGBT person. 

Speaking of which...

The complaint seems to indicate that the person involved is not LGBT. EF Hutton had just released a policy saying that all restrooms should be considered gender neutral... then someone apparently entered the restroom at the same time as someone of the opposite sex. This seems to be fully in accordance with the newly released company policy. How can this incident (in which a non-LGBT person entered a restroom which had been deemed gender neutral) be construed as a consequence of the newly passed legislation?

FACT CHECK: Laws like the one passed in Springfield do not permit men to enter women's restrooms or women to enter men's restrooms. Anti-discrimination entails allowing transgender men and transgender women to use the restroom that corresponds with the gender identity they live every day.

Furthermore, and I repeat... because EF Hutton decided to make all of their restrooms gender neutral, the incident cited in the complaint does not even constitute a violation of company policy.

EF Hutton's response to the complaint: "the company is required to comply with the new law and employees who work in Springfield must conform to the new law."

FACT CHECK: Once again, EF Hutton is claiming that the new city law requires them to make these changes to the restroom. The law does not require these changes, and they have taken it upon themselves to do this.

Moving on...

This next section of the article mentions required training "to prevent employees from violating the law," and also mentions data collecting procedures. EF Hutton again says that they must take the actions "to comply with the ordinance passed 4-1 on Jan 30th, 2018, by the Springfield City Commission."

FACT CHECK: Nope.

EF Hutton continues to blame the city ordinance for their policy changes, which are unpopular with their employees. The company spokesperson goes on to claim that many businesses have faced lawsuits because of similar legislation.

FACT CHECK: The Williams Institute and the Congressional Budget Office have done studies demonstrating that lawsuits for such cases are minimal.

The final paragraph of that last screen grab implies that all businesses in Springfield will adopt the same policy changes that EF Hutton has chosen.

FACT CHECK: There is no evidence to suggest that other businesses will follow EF Hutton's approach. In other cities where LGBT protections exist, there has not been a dramatic shift in which "all restrooms become gender neutral."

 Also, Champion City News refers to this new law as "the new Sexual Orientation Ordinance" which they abbreviate to SOO.

FACT CHECK: Despite conversational shorthand referring to this recent change as an "new ordinance," this is not a separate law. The City Commission voted to add the words "sexual orientation" to the existing prohibition of discrimination ordinance.

 

The article cites a referendum effort which was underway to repeal the ordinance. The article ends by stating, "Other businesses in the city limits are expected to make similar changes."

FACT CHECK: Again, the claim that other businesses will follow the approach of EF Hutton is completely unfounded.

Stray Observations About Champion City News:

According to the Champion City News website, this newly christened news outlet was born in January 2018.

Domain registration records show the official start date of the website to be Jan 18, 2018. The first reading of the ordinance took place at the City Commission meeting on Jan 16, 2018.

In a three week period, between Jan 22nd and Feb 9, Champion City News published seven LGBT-related stories. Blake Haley is the author of every piece, with the exception of the Jan 27th piece. These include:

1. Jan 22nd article entitled, "Springfield City Council Proposes LGBT Protected Class Ordinance." This article shared quotes from supporters and opponents of the ordinance, although it emphasized the unreliability of reports related to LGBT discrimination in the area.
2. Jan 27th piece, "Springfield's LGBT Ordinance: Opposing Sides Share Their Views." Three letters were published side by side. The first was a letter from Rick Incorvati on behalf of Equality Springfield, sharing a supportive view of the ordinance. There were two letters from opponents of the ordinance. One opponent remains anonymous, naming a group "Citizens for Common Sense." One opponent is a representative of a conservative values group from Columbus.
3. Jan 31st piece, "Sexual Orientation Ordinance Passes in Springfield." 
4. Feb 4th piece, "Exclusive: Effort to Repeal LGBT Ordinance Underway." Also appeared with the headline, "LGBT Ordinance May Appear on November Ballot." This article detailed the effort to get petition signatures for referendum to repeal the law. An email address was later added (see editor's note in article) to include an email address for those who'd like to sign the petition.
5. Feb 8th article, "Gay Rights Group Demands Amazon Blacklist Ohio for New HQ." This piece included a portion of an email from Rick Incorvati as a quote, but omitted an official response quote from Equality Springfield as delivered by Jack Legg.
6. Feb 8th article, "Springfield Employees React to LGBT Ordinance Consequences." Detailed above.  
7. Feb 9th article, "Organizers Meet to Assess Status of LGBT Law Repeal." Includes update of repeal effort, quotes from repeal supporters, and does not include any quotes from supporters of the ordinance.

Champion City News has had such an influx of coverage related to the LGBT ordinance, take another look at the ads which are popping up on their site:

Yes, that is an ad for all gay cruise. This ad is likely the result of a targeted advertising algorithm responding to the large volume of LGBT language on the site at the moment.

Finally, the ownership of the site is uncertain. According to domain records, the website is registered with a privacy service, meaning the owner and administrator of the site is withheld. A privacy service, called DomainsByProxy, gives their information in order to keep the true owner of the site undisclosed.



Other news sites, such as the Springfield News Sun and Dayton Daily News, list their registrant and administrator information, including contact information. The owner of Champion City News has employed the services of DomainsByProxy to keep from disclosing their identity. This service is perfectly legal, but it removes any sense of transparency and is typically employed when the creator of web content intends to keep their identity a secret.



UPDATE: Feb 14, 2018, added by Jack Legg at 1:17pm
On the morning of Feb 14, Champion City News ran an article covering the failure of the repeal effort. In the article titled, "SOO Repeal Fails," no supporters of the ordinance are quoted. The organizer of the repeal effort gives several quotes which include: 
1) Statement that repeal effort plans to keep fighting (with mention of supposed confidential strategies they are considering in consultation with lawyers).
2) Assertions about the negative effects, or lack of effects, this law will have
3) The assertion that all companies in Springfield "already have non-discrimination policies" and that LGBT protections are unnecessary
4) The accusation that certain City Commissioners had "a specific agenda" in passing this ordinance