Sex Offender v. McDonald's

Several people have sent me this link and it is also covered at SexOffenderResearch.  This is the story:

A convicted rapist fired from his job at a McDonald's after a woman told management he was a registered sex offender is suing the restaurant's owner and the woman, claiming information about him on the state's Sex Offender Registry Board was misused.

Scott Gagnon, 50, of Tewksbury, claims in his suit filed Monday in Middlesex Superior Court that Andrea Quinn of Tewksbury violated language on the board's Web site that says information on sex offenders cannot be used "to commit a crime or to engage in illegal discrimination or harassments of an offender." Doing so could result in jail time or a fine.

Gagnon was released just over a year ago after spending 27 years in prison following his guilty plea to multiple counts of rape. He is suing Quinn for alleged emotional distress and invasion of privacy, and suing McDonald's for alleged breach of contract.

He is classified as a Level 3 sex offender, considered the most likely to re-offend.

The lawsuit seeks a jury trial and unspecified damages.

"What Ms. Quinn did was completely contrary to the rules and regulations of the Sex Offender Registry Board, and in fact we assert that what she did was a crime," said Gagnon's lawyer, William Korman.

Even if his allegations are true, I don't think Gagnon's civil suit will succeed.  However, I think his argument, which has been made before, that using the registry for discrimination or harassment is a crime is an interesting one.  If it is technically true that using the registry in that manner is a crime, I haven't seen a lot of prosecutors willing to prosecute for it.  This is another example of private actors supplementing official government restrictions on sex offenders.  Courts are going to have to start paying attention to how so-called "non-punitive" laws are having very punitive effects in the real world.

Comments

[Ilah]

"Courts are going to have to start paying attention to how so-called "non-punitive" laws are having very punitive effects in the real world."

Past SCOTUS rulings held there was no evidence the consequences of community notification (loss of home or job) would be any worse than the consequences of routine background checks. Using that phrasing, lower courts have almost limitless latitude in the amount of "punitive" consequences they can dismiss as not-worse-than.

After hearing one court say any citizen's ability to live in one's own home is subject to State determination, another court say requiring a free citizen to appear before law enforcement eight times a year is no different than requiring a free citizen to mail in a form once a year, and yet another court say the State has the power regulate citizens with "distinguishing characteristics" if it so chooses--all to uphold existing sex offender laws--I don't have much hope in a lower court deeming much of anything "punitive."

[George]

A similar suit was dismissed in California I'm pretty sure but can't find it. However, there is this Opinion by the California AG that asks...

"Does the prohibition against the unauthorized use of registered sex offender identifying information obtained from the California “Megan’s Law” Web site qualify registered sex offenders as a “protected class” for purposes of housing discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act?"

http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/05-301.pdf