JOEL J. LOQUVAM, Civil rights attorney, Duran & Loquvam

Last month, Gov. Pete Wilson vetoed a bill that would have outlawed job discrimination against homosexuals. The veto of AB 101, authored by Assemblyman Terry B. Friedman (D-Los Angeles), sparked gay rights demonstrations throughout California. Anaheim civil rights attorney Joel J. Loquvam specializes in cases involving discrimination against gays at the workplace. Loquvam, 34, talked with Times staff writer Susan Christian about the intended purpose of the bill and why he believes such legislation is necessary in the state.

How would the recently vetoed gay rights bill have changed state law?

AB 101 would have added sexual orientation to the state Fair Employment and Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, national origin, religion or physical handicap.

What state laws are already on the books that protect gays at the workplace?

A case decided by the California Supreme Court in 1978 held that employers could not discriminate against (job) applicants or employees for openly discussing their homosexuality or for participating in the gay rights movement.

In addition, state employees are protected by an executive order signed by (former) Gov. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. There also are county and city ordinances on the local level. In Southern California, West Hollywood, Los Angeles, Laguna Beach and Long Beach all have city ordinances that provide remedies for discrimination in employment and housing on the basis of sexual orientation.

Are the existing laws protection enough?

I do not believe they are enough. In a case I’m currently pursuing, it took the judge a year to buy our argument that there is legal protection against discrimination for someone who is not out (openly gay) at the workplace. The California Labor Code is unclear (as to whether it protects an employee beyond the right to discuss political viewpoints on homosexuality). AB 101 would have spelled . . . that a person cannot be discriminated against by an employer merely because of sexual orientation.

How do you respond to the criticism that the bill could have harassed the business community and opened the floodgate to frivolous lawsuits?

This bill did not set up quotas or impose upon employers any obligations other than not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation--just as an employer cannot discriminate on the basis of race or sex.

Gov. Wilson said the bill would lead to frivolous lawsuits. In order to bring a lawsuit (claiming discrimination) in California, a person has to file for an administrative remedy with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. The department screens out potentially invalid lawsuits.

A Superior Court jury recently awarded a Los Angeles woman $17 million in a sex discrimination case against Texaco Refining & Marketing Inc. Does such a case further the cause of all employers vulnerable to discrimination?

It sends a very strong signal to employers that arbitrary and capricious discrimination, regardless of its basis, is not going to be abided in California workplaces.

Almost all of us at some point in our careers have felt that a less-qualified person got a promotion we deserved. How do you prove that someone was passed over because he or she is gay or lesbian?

Discrimination cases are very difficult to prove unless you have a smoking gun--some fact that really points out this person was terminated or passed over solely because of their sexual orientation, and not because they were failing to perform.

You have to look at the facts and circumstances. How long has this employee been employed? Does he have a good track record? What are his performance evaluations like? What are the criticisms and the praises? Then you compare your employee against a similarly situated employee who has gotten the promotion or the job. What attributes does this person have versus your client? And if there’s no rational basis for the employer’s decision, you consider bringing a lawsuit.

Time and time again I’ve seen gay employees who are dedicated, who go the extra mile, who get outstanding performance reviews, who continually get salary increases--yet who have reached the glass ceiling and can go no further. Gay men, especially, oftentimes are not perceived as management material--they do not fit into the old boys’ network.

Have you ever counseled a friend or client against “coming out” at the workplace?

When people ask me whether they should come out, my first response is: Can you afford economically to lose your job? There is a lot of internalized homophobia.

From my perspective of practicing in this area for four years now, I can say there is a very good chance of losing your job if you come out.

So I think it is a perfectly rational decision not to come out at the workplace. However, you have to balance that against your personal feelings. Not coming out at the workplace means you can’t have pictures of your loved ones on your desk, or talk about your vacations without changing pronouns and names, or bring your partner to company functions.

My lover worked in a downtown Los Angeles law firm. Everything was going fine until he took me to the firm’s holiday dinner two years ago.

Assumptions were made that he was gay, and it would appear that the attitudes of the major partners changed--and he essentially was forced out of the firm.

Did you choose to work in a small firm with only two other attorneys so that you wouldn’t have to worry about something like that happening to you?

Definitely. I’m an openly gay man, and the legal profession is very conservative. There are law firms I’m sure I could fit into. But a lot of straight people have trepidation about being around homosexuals, and I chose not to deal with that if I don’t have to.

On the need for gay rights legislation. . .

“My strongest lawsuit right now is for an employee who worked in a city that was covered by a local ordinance (protecting gays against discrimination). The state labor code is too vague.”

On companies that discriminate. . .

“Discrimination cuts across the board. It’s stereotyping to say gays fit in best at creative businesses like architectural firms. A number of Fortune 500 companies have non-discrimination policies.”

Other minorities. . .

“People of color are readily identifiable, so they’re an easier target for bigots. For gays, discrimination can be more subtle--and harder to verify.”

On the burden of proof. . .

“California is an at-will employment state, so no employer has to give an employee reason for termination. It makes discrimination cases very tough to prove.”