Sharon Henry, a Black lesbian district attorney of San Mateo, walked into a Bank of America and attempted to deposit a check for $27,000 from her domestic partner’s account into hers and withdraw $1,000. The teller looked up a listing for the partner’s name—Kathleen Wilkinson—but it was a different Kathleen Wilkinson than Henry’s partner, and the listing lacked the notation that Sharon Henry was allowed to make the transaction.
The teller called Wilkinson’s family, who stated they didn’t know Henry and the teller called the police. The police, failing to follow protocol, did not call the phone number on the check, and refused to let Henry make the call, put her under arrest. They locked her up and took away her phone and diabetes medication.
Finally, Henry was released two hours later after her partner arrived at the bank wondering where she had gone.
Henry, a prosecutor, has decided to sue Bank of America for negligence, stating that the bank acted the way it did largely because she was African American. The judge has ruled in BofA’s favor, stating that Henry’s suit is an “unjustified” attempt to violate Bank of America’s free speech. Not only that, but the judge ordered Henry to pay BofA’s $50,000 attorney fees.
Sharon Henry is considering an appeal.
Wow, look, black lesbians exist and they experience a unique reality of homophobia and racism. AKA fuck racism, fuck racism apologists, and fuck erasure.
I’m glad she won, and I can’t say if she would have been able to if she didn’t already have her own resources as an attorney.Correction: She didn’t win! I got the names and abbreviations confused.This racism is the norm, never forget that.
No, she didn’t win. She lost. In fact, the judge sentenced her to pay 50,000 dollars to BofA for infringing upon THEIR “right to free speech” (their freedom to wrongfully report her to the police). It’s all kinds of fucked up. She’s hoping to appeal, perhaps.
It’s hard to imagine anyone winning against BofA, let along a Black lesbian woman in a racist, homophobic country like ours.
Thanks for the correction! I got the names and abbreviations mixed. And now, re-reading it… Just… Even worse. Even. Worse.
vomiting
How the fuck is having her arrested due to their own negligence considered “freedom of speech”? Like, they fucked up, not only ethically but according to their own goddamn protocol, (and yes, most likely due to racism and heterosexism whether it was intentional or they want to admit it or not), and instead of compensating their customer for their own fuckup, they pull this shit?
I can’t see how what happened here is even remotely related to Bank of America’s freedom of speech, especially since they’re apparently denying that any discrimination took place in the first place. So where did the “unjustified attempt to violate Bank of America’s free speech” ruling come from? Is there something I’m just not getting here? Like, I don’t know a whole lot about law, but I’m having trouble wrapping my head around this judge’s ruling, unless it’s just racism and heterosexism heaped on top of racism and heterosexism (which unsurprisingly seems to be the case).
I really, really hope she wins her appeal.
Here’s a news article about it that isn’t behind a paywall.
I’m reblogging for the free version. I’ve changed the linked URL at the top to it. The original link was here.
Black Lesbian district attorney chained to a jailhouse wall and denied medication after writing a check tellers thought was fake
Sharon Henry, a Black lesbian district attorney of San Mateo, walked into a Bank of America and attempted to deposit a check for $27,000 from her domestic partner’s account into hers and withdraw $1,000. The teller looked up a listing for the partner’s name—Kathleen Wilkinson—but it was a different Kathleen Wilkinson than Henry’s partner, and the listing lacked the notation that Sharon Henry was allowed to make the transaction.
The teller called Wilkinson’s family, who stated they didn’t know Henry and the teller called the police. The police, failing to follow protocol, did not call the phone number on the check, and refused to let Henry make the call, put her under arrest. They locked her up and took away her phone and diabetes medication.
Finally, Henry was released two hours later after her partner arrived at the bank wondering where she had gone.
Henry, a prosecutor, has decided to sue Bank of America for negligence, stating that the bank acted the way it did largely because she was African American. The judge has ruled in BofA’s favor, stating that Henry’s suit is an “unjustified” attempt to violate Bank of America’s free speech. Not only that, but the judge ordered Henry to pay BofA’s $50,000 attorney fees.
Sharon Henry is considering an appeal.
Wow, look, black lesbians exist and they experience a unique reality of homophobia and racism. AKA fuck racism, fuck racism apologists, and fuck erasure.
I’m glad she won, and I can’t say if she would have been able to if she didn’t already have her own resources as an attorney.Correction: She didn’t win! I got the names and abbreviations confused.This racism is the norm, never forget that.
No, she didn’t win. She lost. In fact, the judge sentenced her to pay 50,000 dollars to BofA for infringing upon THEIR “right to free speech” (their freedom to wrongfully report her to the police). It’s all kinds of fucked up. She’s hoping to appeal, perhaps.
It’s hard to imagine anyone winning against BofA, let along a Black lesbian woman in a racist, homophobic country like ours.
Thanks for the correction! I got the names and abbreviations mixed. And now, re-reading it… Just… Even worse. Even. Worse.
vomiting
How the fuck is having her arrested due to their own negligence considered “freedom of speech”? Like, they fucked up, not only ethically but according to their own goddamn protocol, (and yes, most likely due to racism and heterosexism whether it was intentional or they want to admit it or not), and instead of compensating their customer for their own fuckup, they pull this shit?
I can’t see how what happened here is even remotely related to Bank of America’s freedom of speech, especially since they’re apparently denying that any discrimination took place in the first place. So where did the “unjustified attempt to violate Bank of America’s free speech” ruling come from? Is there something I’m just not getting here? Like, I don’t know a whole lot about law, but I’m having trouble wrapping my head around this judge’s ruling, unless it’s just racism and heterosexism heaped on top of racism and heterosexism (which unsurprisingly seems to be the case).
I really, really hope she wins her appeal.
Here’s a news article about it that isn’t behind a paywall.
I’m reblogging for the free version. I’ve changed the linked URL at the top to it. The original link was here.
