The OSMARI Project
OSMARI is a men's activewear and swimwear brand focusing on the male aesthetic physique. This is a podcast for gay and straight men, and everything else in between talking about all kinds of topics including fashion, men's health and fitness, lifestyle, as well as some unfiltered conversations with our models and collaborators. Also, I'll be talking about my workplace discrimination lawsuit based on National Origin and Sexual Orientation that has been filed with Fairfax County Circuit Court.
The OSMARI Project
KG&P Strategies Attempt to Dismiss Gay Discrimination Lawsuit and Fail
What if the success of a gay and national origin discrimination lawsuit hinged on the strategic prowess of its legal team? In this gripping episode, we unravel the legal maneuvers behind the large gay discrimination case Osman v KG&P Strategies, evolve24, Carmen Campos, Noah Howerton, Amber Kodish, Rose Sommovigo, Scott Forbes, and Crystal Wheeler, spotlighting a crucial hearing in Fairfax County, Virginia. We promise a thorough exploration of how Osman's team tackled six pivotal legal issues, setting the stage for a potentially groundbreaking case. By examining the efficient strategies they employed, such as exhausting administrative remedies and bringing additional companies into the fold, we provide insights into the art of legal warfare. You'll be intrigued by the heated discussions over national origin discrimination claims, which were dismissed—but not entirely out of the picture, hinting at a significant twist down the line.
As the episode progresses, we liken Osman's adept legal strategy to that of a masterful chess game, leaving listeners on edge about the defense's next move. Osman's early victories are not only tactical wins but also potentially lay a path to a favorable outcome. With companies like Evolve24/Sherpa LLC now potentially implicated, the scope of this lawsuit could expand dramatically. The defense is expected to strike back with new strategies, so stay tuned as we anticipate the unfolding drama and speculate on the long-term impact Osman's momentum might have on his discrimination claims. Next time, the focus shifts to the specifics of these claims and what they could mean for the courtroom's final reckoning.
Please consider subscribing/following us and feel free to comment with your questions, recommendations on topics, and any feedback. :)
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-osmari-project/id1725640452
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/58WEwkJNyz831UYve2maKT
YouTube for Brand: http://www.youtube.com/@OSMARI
All Links: https://links.osmari.com (including special friends)
OSMARI Store: https://osmari.com
Instagram: https://instagram.com/osmari_wear
Welcome to the Deep Dive everybody. Today we're going to dive into the world of legal strategy, looking at this discrimination lawsuit Osmond v Campos and others and we've got a transcript here right from this plea in Barr and Jermur hearing. It was held on May 10th 2024, in Fairfax County, virginia, right. And I guess our mission today is try to understand what worked for the plaintiff Osman and where maybe the defense you know might have messed up a little bit.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I mean. What's so interesting to me right off the bat is how the judge starts the hearing. He lays out these six very distinct legal issues right from the get go. It's like he's giving us a roadmap for the entire hearing.
Speaker 1:Is that unusual? I mean, does a judge telegraphing that level of structure that early? Does that tell us anything? I mean, could that be a sign of how they might rule?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I mean I don't know if it's completely unheard of, but it can be significant. It could mean that the judge is already leaning towards certain arguments, or maybe he just wants to ensure a really fair and thorough process.
Speaker 1:Okay, it's hard to say for sure at this point. All right, so let's see how those first few moves actually played out. I mean, the transcript shows that the first four issues were handled really, really quickly.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it's almost like a, it's like a legal speed round, like they're just zipping right through these, you know. So we see that Osmond had already exhausted all the required administrative remedies before even filing the lawsuit, which is, you know, that's important. And then we see that complaints can actually target companies that weren't initially named in the lawsuit, if there's this like substantial identity between them Interesting. But then on the flip side we see that individual employees cannot be sued under the VHRA Got it.
Speaker 2:And finally the complaint like sticks to the specific discrimination claims from the original charge.
Speaker 1:So it seems like Osmond's legal team they did their homework right, is that? I mean, is that unusual to be that buttoned up in these kinds of cases?
Speaker 2:I mean it's not necessarily unusual, but it definitely sets a strong foundation, you know, for their case. By doing everything by the book early on, osmond's lawyer avoided any early pitfalls. You know anything that could have like derailed the lawsuit. It's like building a house on a really solid foundation. You know you want to make sure everything's in place from the beginning.
Speaker 1:So far, so good for Os Osman. But this fifth issue, this seems to be where things start to get a little bit more complicated. Yeah, this is all about whether Osman can bring in national origin discrimination, which, as I understand it wasn't part of the initial charge, but he's trying to introduce it based on, I guess, some evidence that's in, like some reference letters.
Speaker 2:Right, right, and this is where you start to see some actual debate between the two sides. Osmond's lawyer is arguing that the evidence is right there in those letters, but the judge he pushes back. He expresses some concern about whether that's fair to the defendants. They need to have adequate notice of the claims that are being brought against them. So it's kind of a tricky situation.
Speaker 1:So how did this particular debate like, how did it end? I mean, how did this play out?
Speaker 2:Well, it's sort of left hanging. You know, the judge ultimately dismisses those national origin claims, but and this is important he dismisses them without prejudice.
Speaker 1:Now without prejudice. What does that mean?
Speaker 2:That's. You know, it's a legal term. That just means that Osmond isn't completely barred from raising this claim again later on.
Speaker 1:Okay.
Speaker 2:So he could, you know, potentially reintroduce it. You know if he has stronger arguments or you know maybe some additional evidence.
Speaker 1:Okay, so not a total defeat, just kind of a temporary setback.
Speaker 2:Exactly, exactly. And then, just when you think things are starting to settle down, we move on to the sixth issue and things get heated again. This time, it's all about this question of substantial identity.
Speaker 1:Substantial identity.
Speaker 2:Yeah. So now the question is can Evolve 24 and Sherpa LLC and remember those are basically the same company doing business under different names can they be pulled into this lawsuit even though they weren't specifically named in that initial charge?
Speaker 1:So break this down for me. What are the stakes here with this whole, you know, substantial identity idea?
Speaker 2:Well, the stakes are huge, because if these additional entities you know, like Evolve 24, are considered to have substantial identity with the name defendant, which is KG&P Strategies, then they're on the hook too.
Speaker 1:Oh, I see, Legally yeah.
Speaker 2:So this could like dramatically expand the scope of the whole lawsuit.
Speaker 1:Wow.
Speaker 2:So to decide this, the judge actually uses a precedent case Carter v Dominion Energy. Okay, and this case outlines four specific factors to consider.
Speaker 1:Okay.
Speaker 2:When you're determining substantial identity.
Speaker 1:Got it. What I find really fascinating here is how Osmond's lawyer she like weaves in all these really specific details to link these different companies together, Like she even brings up the fact that Amber Kodish, the CEO of Evolve24, was directly involved in Osmond's termination.
Speaker 2:Oh yeah, that's huge. I mean that detail right there establishes a direct connection between Evolve24 and those alleged discriminatory actions. And remember individuals they can't be sued directly under the VHRA in this type of situation.
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 2:So linking their actions to a company. That's key.
Speaker 1:So if Kodish is involved and she's the CEO of Evolve24, then Evolve24 is potentially on the hook too.
Speaker 2:Exactly. It's like connecting those dots and showing that there is a clear link between the companies and this alleged discrimination.
Speaker 1:But the defense, I mean they pushed back right. They tried to say these were separate companies, that there was no substantial identity.
Speaker 2:Right. But here's the thing the judge totally disagreed. He found that there was substantial identity for both Evolve24 and Sherpa.
Speaker 1:Okay.
Speaker 2:Which means they stay in the lawsuit. Wow, this was a big win for Osmond and, honestly, kind of a blow to the defense's whole strategy.
Speaker 1:So this judge is not messing around. Yeah, he is carefully weighing these arguments. He is not afraid to rule against the defense when he feels it's warranted.
Speaker 2:Totally. But this victory for Osmond, it comes with a caveat. The judge also added that it still needs to be determined whether the complaint specifically alleges sexual orientation discrimination against these newly added defendants.
Speaker 1:Oh interesting. So even though they're a part of the lawsuit, it doesn't guarantee that Osmond's claims against them will like automatically succeed.
Speaker 2:Exactly so. It adds, you know, another layer of complexity here, but still the fact that he kept those companies in the lawsuit, that's huge for Osmond.
Speaker 1:That's a big deal. Ok, so Osmond's navigating these early hurdles. He's keeping Evolve24 and Sherpa in the lawsuit. He seems to be, you know, on pretty solid ground legally. But just when you think, OK, maybe the defense is, you know, going to throw in the towel, they pull out this one final move. They argue that even if Evolve24 and Sherpa are a part of this thing, AG&P's strategy should be dismissed because there aren't any specific allegations of discriminatory actions made by any KG&P employees.
Speaker 2:I mean it's clever, right, it's a little bit desperate, but I mean they're trying to limit the scope of the case, especially since their other arguments failed. Right, they're basically saying, look, even if those other companies are involved, we KGMP strategies were innocent bystanders.
Speaker 1:Did it work? Did the judge buy that?
Speaker 2:Nope, he didn't buy it at all. Wow, he shot that argument down pretty quickly, so KGMP strategies, they remain a defendant in this lawsuit.
Speaker 1:Huh, another setback for the defense.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:I mean, it's really starting to feel like things are not going their way.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it's not looking good. It's been a pretty good day in court for Osman. Yeah, he's cleared some early legal obstacles, he's kept some key players, you know, in the suit and the judge. Well, the judge seems to at least be receptive to his arguments.
Speaker 1:Exactly. It's almost like watching a legal chess match and Osman's out maneuvering his opponents at every single turn. But I mean, this is just the opening right. The defense is going to regroup. They'll come back with some new strategies.
Speaker 2:I'm sure, oh for sure, yeah, and that's what's so exciting about this. We've seen Osman's initial successes, but how are those victories going to impact the rest of the case? Right Will going to impact the rest of the case Right. Will this momentum lead to a win for Osmond in the long run?
Speaker 1:And that's the question we'll be diving into next time when we take a closer look at the specifics of Osmond's discrimination claims and how they might actually play out in court. So stay tuned.