Virginia Man Files Federal Discrimination Claim Against Catholic-Run Non Profit
Richmond, Virginia man’s firing from non-profit connected to the Catholic church could lead to protections for LGBTQ folks nationwide.
John Murphy, 63, entered the complex legal world of discrimination cases after being fired from a Catholic-run elderly care facility just eight days after he started working there in the Spring of 2015.
Murphy responded to a blind job application for an executive director position and was offered the job. Before long he was working through the hiring process for the The St. Francis Home which is Catholic Diocese of Richmond.
Murphy (top image right) was raised Catholic, graduated from Notre Dame, and still attended church semi-regularly, but he was an openly gay man who’d been legally married to his partner, Jerry Carter (top image left), of 30 years since 2008.
“I had a little bit of misgiving,†Murphy said about taking the job when he announced his Equal Opportunity Employment Commission complaint in October of last year.
“When I got to the next interviews, they said they really wanted me to focus… less on the religious aspect of it,†he said.
Murphy started the job in late March. He worked there for eight business days until April 1 when he received a message from two representatives from the Richmond Catholic Dioceses saying they wanted to meet with him.
He’d hadn’t met anyone from the diocese yet, so he figured it was a welcoming committee.
“It was not,†he said. “The CFO, and the human resources rep from the diocese came to my office and stated to me… ‘same-sex marriage is antithetical to Roman Catholic Church doctrine. This makes you unfit and ineligible to be the executive director of St. Francis home.’â€
He was given a pink slip and has been fighting it ever since.
This lawsuit is the second step in a discrimination complaint. Murphy and his lawyer, Aubry Ford, filed an Equal Opportunity Employment Commission complaint back in October, the first step in claiming unjust treatment at work. Now, 180 days later, Murphy has the right to move that complaint into federal court if the EEOC hasn’t ruled on the issue.
While the EEOC has staid mum on Murphy’s case, they have shown support for LGBTQ folks in the past.
In July, 2015, the federal body ruled in favor of David Baldwin who claimed he was unjustly denied a job as a Supervisory Air Traffic Control Specialist after a superior had made negative comments about his sexual orientation. In that case, the EEOC ruled LGBTQ people were protected under the Title VII:
First, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily involves treating an employee differently because of his or her sex. For example, a lesbian employee disciplined for displaying a picture of her female spouse can allege that an employer took a different action against her based on her sex where the employer did not discipline a male employee for displaying a picture of his female spouse. Sexual orientation discrimination is also sex discrimination because it is associational discrimination on the basis of sex. That is, an employee alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is alleging that the employer took the employee’s sex into account by treating him or her differently for associating with a person of the same sex. Finally, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is sex discrimination because it necessarily involves discrimination based on gender stereotypes, including employer beliefs about the person to whom the employee should be attracted.Â
The EEOC, however, is not a legal body, and their stance on issues like Title VII can be used to advise judges in courtrooms, but are not taken as precedent.
Murphy and Ford both declined to comment as the case was still in development. And according to the Times-Dispatch, the Richmond Catholic Dioceses is aware of the lawsuit and sent a statement acknowledging the case saying the non-profit “declines any other comment about the matter at this time.â€
Something to keep in mind as this case continues: St. Francis House might be owned by the local Catholic Diocese but it is not considered part of the church’s spiritual work. And according to Murphy, the job he was hired to do had nothing to do with spiritual work.
One only has to look at the TD’s comments section to find those who oppose Murphy’s fight, but support exists as well. James Parrish, Executive Director of Equality Virginia, said there’s a difference between religious freedom and discrimination and this case could help prove that.
“Last year, most Americans, and most Catholics, were shocked to learn that Mr. Murphy was fired by the Catholic Diocese of Richmond solely because he is gay, so that he is now seeking compensation should come as no surprise,†said Parrish in a statement.  â€Equality Virginia supports John in his pursuit for justice after his unlawful termination and hope that this will dissuade other institutions from similar acts of discrimination in the future.â€
Â
This article was originally published at GayRVA and is re-published with permission
Image by Brad Kutner
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
Roughly 140 Environmental Protection Agency employees have been placed on administrative leave after signing a letter warning of political interference in the agency’s work—prompting critics to accuse the Trump administration of ignoring their First Amendment rights.
Calling the letter “a remarkable rebuke of the agency’s political leadership,” The New York Times reported on Monday that more than 270 EPA employees had signed the public letter “denouncing what they described as the Trump administration’s efforts to politicize, dismantle and sideline the main federal agency tasked with protecting the environment and public health.”
On Thursday, the Times reported that 144 workers had been suspended, other news outlets put the number at 139.
In that public letter, signatories said they are joining in “solidarity with employees across the federal government in opposing this administration’s policies,” and that they “stand together in dissent against the current administration’s focus on harmful deregulation, mischaracterization of previous EPA actions, and disregard for scientific expertise.”
READ MORE: ‘Stop Talking’: Johnson Suggests Jeffries Is Lying in Marathon Budget Speech
They detailed their five primary concerns, including, “Undermining public trust,” “Ignoring scientific consensus to benefit polluters,” “Reversing EPA’s progress in America’s most vulnerable communities,” “Dismantling the Office of Research and Development,” and “Promoting a culture of fear, forcing staff to choose between their livelihood and well-being.”
On Thursday, the 140 or so employees who allegedly had signed the letter with their official titles received emails saying they had been placed on leave for two weeks “pending an administrative investigation,” The New York Times reported.
“The Environmental Protection Agency has a zero-tolerance policy for career bureaucrats unlawfully undermining, sabotaging, and undercutting the administration’s agenda as voted for by the great people of this country last November,” Brigit Hirsch, an EPA spokesperson, said in a statement, according to Bloomberg Law News.
“The letter, addressed to EPA head Lee Zeldin, alleged the agency has used its communication platforms to ‘promote misinformation and overtly partisan rhetoric,'” Bloomberg added. “One example the signatories cited was a March statement laying out the administration’s deregulatory agenda, in which Zeldin referred to ‘the climate change religion.'”
READ MORE: Democratic Strategist Warns Trump Could Try to Impose Martial Law Before 2026 Midterms
Nicole Cantello, president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 704, called the move “blatant retaliation,” The Hill reported.
“We don’t swear an oath to the Trump administration, we swear an oath to the Constitution and so we don’t feel like we violated that oath or that we did anything wrong by signing this letter,” she said.
Cantello, on social media, wrote that EPA workers “have the right to freedom of speech, just like every other American.”
Addressing EPA Administrator Zeldin directly, she said: “See you in court.”
Some denounced the administration’s move.
Attorney Mark Zaid, who handles national security and whistleblower cases, wrote: “Apparently retaliation has already begun. This is what defines this Administration.”
He also offered to “provide pro bono consultation to examine current situation.”
The New York Times’ Trip Gabriel asked, “What First Amendment?”
READ MORE: Trump Appeared Unaware His Budget Bill Cuts $1T From Medicaid: Report
Image of Lee Zeldin via Shutterstock
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, in an apparent attempt to prevent the Republican Speaker, Mike Johnson, from passing President Donald Trump’s massive budget bill in the dead of night, has been delivering a speech on the floor for over six hours, and may break the record of 8 hours and 32 minutes set in 2021 by then GOP Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.
Speaker Johnson reportedly allowed minimal time for debate on what Trump calls his “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” which cuts Medicaid by about $1 trillion, and forces cuts to Medicare and SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, by hundreds of billions of dollars while carving out tax breaks that largely favor the wealthy. An estimated 17 million people could lose insurance as a result of the legislation.
Once Leader Jeffries concludes his remarks—which he began around 5 AM—Johnson will put the bill to a final vote, and he’s anxious to get the legislation to the President’s desk before Trump’s arbitrary July 4 deadline.
READ MORE: Democratic Strategist Warns Trump Could Try to Impose Martial Law Before 2026 Midterms
“What is contemplated in this one big, ugly bill is wrong,” Leader Jeffries said, as NBC News reported. “It’s dangerous, and it’s cruel, and cruelty should not be either the objective or the outcome of legislation that we consider here in the United States House of Representatives.”
Jeffries also called it “cruel” to cut Medicaid.
“Republicans are trying to take a chain saw to Social Security, a chain saw to Medicare, a chain saw to Medicaid, a chain saw to the health care of the American people, a chain saw to nutritional assistance for hungry children, a chain saw to farm country and a chain saw to vulnerable Americans,” Jeffries added.
Speaker Johnson, speaking to reporters, appeared displeased.
“If Hakeem will stop talking, we’ll, we’ll get the job done for the American people,” Johnson, using the Democratic Leader’s first name, told reporters.
“It takes a lot longer to build a lie than to tell the truth,” Johnson claimed. “So he’s really spinning a long tale in there, but we’re excited. The people will see the effect of this bill—the extraordinary legislation.”
Johnson offered no evidence to support his accusation.
READ MORE: Trump Appeared Unaware His Budget Bill Cuts $1T From Medicaid: Report
“It’s going to get the economy humming again, really, at a record pace, and it will help every American,” he added.
“So the sooner we can get to it, the sooner the Democrats will stop talking, we’ll get this bill done for the people, and we’re really excited about it.”
Critics blasted Speaker Johnson.
Walter Kimbrough, a three-time HBCU president, responded by posting a meme quoting the famous historian Alexis de Tocqueville, that reads: “It is easier for the world to accept a simple lie than a complex truth.”
Watch the video below or at this link.
Speaker Johnson: “If Hakeem would stop talking, we’ll get the job done for the American people. It takes a lot longer to build a lie than to tell the truth. So he’s really spinning a long tale in there.” pic.twitter.com/ih931XJnjE
— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) July 3, 2025
READ MORE: ‘Special Place in Hell’: Top Dem Slams ‘Cult’ of ‘People Who Take Food Away’ From Kids
Image via Reuters
Well-known veteran Democratic strategist James Carville is out with a second dire warning about President Donald Trump and the 2026 midterm elections.
Earlier this week, Carville, a political consultant and strategist since the 1970s and now a political commentator, warned that Trump might try to rig the 2026 elections in one way or another—including, he suggested, by possibly trying to cancel them.
On Wednesday night, he offered up another possibility: martial law.
On NewsNation (video below), Carville predicted a “Democratic blowout” in this November’s gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, and that President Trump will be forced to see the writing on the wall.
READ MORE: Trump Appeared Unaware His Budget Bill Cuts $1T From Medicaid: Report
“I think he’s gonna read the election,” Carville said. “And I think he’s going to see this big, beautiful bill, is about 25 points underwater. It’s going to be 30 points underwater,” Carville added, referring to the Republican budget bill that guts Medicaid and Medicare, and is likely to pass the House and head to Trump’s desk for a July 4 signing.
“He’s going to see a massive defeat coming, and he’s going to try to do anything he can to extricate himself in that defeat,” Carville warned.
“And I would not put it at all past him to try to call martial law or declare that there’s some kind of national emergency in the country, or anything like that, because the hoofprints are coming, you can hear ’em, and they’re gonna get a shellacking in November of ’26.”
READ MORE: ‘Special Place in Hell’: Top Dem Slams ‘Cult’ of ‘People Who Take Food Away’ From Kids
Mediaite noted that “Bill O’Reilly and Stephen A. Smith also joined the panel discussion, with O’Reilly mocking Carville’s mention of ‘martial law,’ calling it a ‘scare tactic’ and arguing the economy will dictate the midterms.”
On Tuesday, Carville spoke about Trump with former CNN journalist Jim Acosta.
“I don’t put anything past him, nothing,” Carville warned. “To try to call the election off, to do anything he can. He can think of things like that that we can’t because we’re not accustomed to thinking like that.”
“You know people come up to me all the time and say, ‘James. I’m really scared,’” Carville told Acosta on “The Jim Acosta Show.”
“I said, ‘you should be, you have every reason to be scared. Don’t kid yourself,’” Carville added.
Watch the video below or at this link.
READ MORE: Trump Threatens to Block NYC Democratic Mayoral Nominee He Calls a ‘Communist Lunatic’
‘What First Amendment?’: 140 EPA Workers Suspended After Opposing Trump Agenda
‘Stop Talking’: Johnson Suggests Jeffries Is Lying in Marathon Budget Speech
Democratic Strategist Warns Trump Could Try to Impose Martial Law Before 2026 Midterms
Trump Appeared Unaware His Budget Bill Cuts $1T From Medicaid: Report
