MT. PLEASANT, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – Attorneys for a Biggby coffee shop in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, are refuting what they call “false charges” that the business terminated employees due to their sexual orientation and gender identity.

The lawsuit was filed on November 13, 2023 as a civil case against Reals-Palmer, a Michigan LLC, and Landon Palmer, an individual, who is part of a family company that has eight Biggby Coffee franchises including Store. No. 601 where the employees worked.

Trans male, lesbian and bisexual former employees allege discrimination.

MORE NEWS: Selfridge To Get Newest Air Force Fighter Jets

Two previous employees of the Mt. Pleasant Biggby coffee shop are plaintiffs in the case. They are 23-year-old Edwin Wiliamson, a trans male (a man who was assigned female at birth) who openly identifies as gay and 25-year-old Mikaila Brown, who openly identifies as a lesbian.

A third employee, Adison Reder, who openly identifies as bisexual, is named in the case but is not a plaintiff.

Attorney for defendant argues subpar work performance as grounds for termination.

David Kallman, an attorney with the Kallman Legal Group, says the terminations are attributed to subpar work performance, consistent tardiness, and failure to fulfill scheduled shifts. He also says that the lawsuit is about the plaintiffs animus towards Palmer’s religious beliefs and not because of actual discrimination. Notably, the replacements for all three employees, he says, are members of the LGBTQ community.

Kallman was on the Steve Gruber Show today and said, “This is the concern a lot of us had when we were debating this issue of whether or not these protected classes should have been added to the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA). Because we argued that those two new classes, sexual orientation and gender identity, would end up being used as a sword to attack people of faith – and not necessarily against actual incidents of discrimination.”

Kallman continued, “And that’s what we have happening here. There really has been no discrimination as evidenced by the fact that the three people hired to fill the spots all came from the LGBTQ community.”

Defendant points to other LGBTQ employees who work at coffee shop.

Defendant Palmer says, “Our coffee shop is welcoming to everyone. We do not discriminate on the basis of anyone’s private life. We have numerous valued employees who are from the LGBTQ community. However, employees must not be permitted to use their sexual orientation as a shield from facing responsibility for their poor work performance.”

Coffee shop claims lawsuit about religious beliefs of owners.

 The lawsuit against the coffee shop, deemed frivolous by the defending party, is said to be more about the plaintiffs’ hostility towards the defendants’ religious beliefs and the church he attends rather than any substantiated discrimination.

Ex-employees make statements about owner’s church in court filing.

MORE NEWS: DTE Defends Tree Trimming Policy That Has Angered Many Residents

In the court documents, the plaintiffs discuss Palmer’s church and his affiliation with it at length, saying that the church “espouses that there are two binary genders” and “further endorses only heterosexual marital unions.”

The plaintiffs’ filing continues to discuss Palmer’s affiliation with the church by saying, “consistent with Community Church teachings, Palmer opposes non-binary gender identities and non-heterosexual romantic relationships.” They also allege that Palmer posted Church-event flyers within the store, talked frequently about the church, hosted members of the church within the store for church-related functions and donated Biggby coffee and cups to the church.

When Palmer was on the Steve Gruber show, he said, “I would often go out there and read my bible (in the lobby) and pray and I actually would mentor a couple of young men out there in the lobby. And these employees, I would assume, saw that. And I never once forced my faith on anyone but it feels like that’s so much of this lawsuit is them coming after my faith just for me being me.”

Palmer was also told by an employee that the employees in the lawsuit didn’t like what he was doing and were trying to provoke him.

What is the alleged discrimination based on?

The plaintiffs’ complaint is for wrongful discharge and civil rights violations under the ELCRA. In the filing, they allege two counts of discrimination – sexual orientation discrimination and gender discrimination, both in violation of ELCRA.

ELCRA not in effect when employees were fired.

However, the date that the employees were fired on was June 14th and the new amendments to ELCRA did not go into effect until June 20th. Because of that, one of the counts will most likely be dismissed (gender identity).

The count that includes sexual orientation could still stand against the LLC because the Michigan Supreme Court, in the court case “Rouch World, LLC vs. Michigan Dept. of Civil Rights”, ruled that the word “sex” includes “sexual orientation” in regards to discrimination.

Plaintiffs in the court filing are asking for their former positions to be reinstated (or comparable); economic and emotional damages (past and future); interest, costs, attorney fees and litigation expenses; and an order granting them “such other relief” that the court deems just and equitable.

In a Detroit Free Press article, Brown talks about being terminated three months after being hired, saying, “I really loved my job. I loved being at Biggby, I loved being a barista. It made me sad and really, really angry all at once. … About a week after it happened, I thought, ‘Wait a minute, this should not have happened. This cannot be allowed to happen.’ ”

What happened at the coffee shop to cause the lawsuit?

In their court filing, the plaintiffs allege that they were fired by Palmer 12 days after they started using a company chalkboard to write trivia questions on it regarding LGBT Pride Month – such as the June 10th board that said, “In what year was the original gay pride flag designed?”

They allege that Palmer came into the store on June 13th and figured out that the three employees, Brown, Williamson and Reder, identified as non-heterosexual. It was the following day that Williamson was called into a meeting with Palmer and a district manager and advised of his termination of employment.

Brown didn’t get fired – she resigned.

Williamson says in the court document that after he was fired, he advised Brown and Reder about what happened. Shortly afterwards, Brown received a text that Palmer wanted to meet with her. Brown quickly resigned her position in a text message due to what she called “workplace discrimination.”

Court documents reveal that Reder also received a text message to meet with Palmer and was terminated on the same day.

What’s been happening since the lawsuit was filed?

Kallman Legal Group submitted an answer and affirmative defenses to the Isabella County Circuit Court on Friday, January 19th. In the court filing, the Kallman Legal Group disputes most of the claims of the plaintiffs other than the dates of the hiring and termination of the employees, the age and sexual orientation of Palmer and the county in which the lawsuit was filed. More filings are also in the works by Kallman including a motion to dismiss.

This lawsuit highlights the apprehensions that many have had regarding the recent amendments to ELCRA that include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes. The concern has been that the amendments will be wielded as a tool to target businesses and individuals based on their religious beliefs.

In a press release about the case, Kallman concludes, “Our clients are being wrongfully targeted for having religious beliefs that had nothing to do with Plaintiffs’ poor work records and the true reasons they were fired from their jobs. The ELCRA should not be weaponized to attack anyone simply for having legitimate and sincerely held religious beliefs that do not conform with others in our pluralistic society. I am confident that our clients will be completely exonerated from this unfounded and malicious lawsuit.”