4/12/2016 Gmail - FW: Help on another fact-check article?https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=f89761189b&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1540599f1f9e98eb&siml=1540599f1f9e98eb 1/7

A.P. Dillon <thell1885@gmail.com>

FW: Help on another fact-check article?

 1 message

Falkenbury, Jamey

<Jamey.Falkenbury@nc.gov> Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 9:54 AMTo: "THELL1885@gmail.com" <THELL1885@gmail.com>Mrs. Dillon In response to your Public Records Request, please see the entire thread of emails below. I believe there is anattachment that Mr. Doran sent over, I will need to forward that on another email. Best.Jamey Submitted on Sunday, April 10, 2016 - 7:57 am Submitted by anonymous user: [127.5.89.129] Submitted valuesare: Name: A.P. DillonTitle: Free Lance JournalistMedia outlet:I free lance for an array of outlets, notables include:Independent Journal ReviewCivitias InstituteHeartland InstituteOffice Phone #: 9194149913Cell Phone #: 9194149913Email Address: THELL1885@gmail.comMedia Outlet Address: 401 Cayman AveType of Media: OthersWhat are you requesting? I would like to know if the News and Observer in general or, specifically, Will Doran of the News and Observer, contacted the Lt. Governor's office regarding a "PolitifactNC Fact Check on one of theLt. Governor's tweets involving the Charlotte ordinance during the time period of April 3 to April 8.When is the deadline for your request? 13/04/2016 Notes / Other:Tweet referenced: https://twitter.com/LtGovDanForest/status/717806804365938692

 

4/12/2016 Gmail - FW: Help on another fact-check article?https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=f89761189b&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1540599f1f9e98eb&siml=1540599f1f9e98eb 2/7

 PolitifactNC 'fact check' referenced: http://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/statements/2016/apr/08/dan-forest/nc-lt-gov-dan-forest-says-new-state-law-hb2-preven/ The results of this submission may be viewed at:http://ltgov.nc.gov/node/13/submission/70

 Jamey FalkenburyOffice of Lt. Gov. Dan ForestDirector of Opera䫀ons/Press Secretary

919-733-7350

 

From:

 Falkenbury, Jamey

Sent:

 Friday, April 08, 2016 7:27 PM

To:

 Doran, Will <

wdoran@newsobserver.com

>

Subject:

 Re: Help on another fact‐check ar䫀cle?

 Will, Write what you think will fit your narrative, because it looks like you are grasping at straws here. If you reallywant to go that route keep scrolling down the exemptions that were struck out. Several private businesses andclubs by name were eliminated (YMCA and YWCAs are just two I can remember off the top of my head), as wellas generic names of businesses. Regardless your facts should reflect that Charlotte left it so open ended thatwomen and children were put at risk. As I said before, any criminal defense attorney worth their salt would raisethe deletion of the exemptions as a defense. Best. -Jamey Sent from my iPhoneOn Apr 8, 2016, at 6:38 PM, Doran, Will <wdoran@newsobserver.com> wrote:So we are doing a fact check on the statement that the "Charlotte ordinance opened all bathroomsto all sexes at all times." The ordinance itself says it doesn't apply to private clubs or businessestablishments, so Forest's statement isn't true.

 

4/12/2016 Gmail - FW: Help on another fact-check article?https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=f89761189b&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1540599f1f9e98eb&siml=1540599f1f9e98eb 3/7

 However, I think you do make a good point about the removal of the exemption for bathrooms inpublic accommodations, and I don't want it to get glossed over. We're going to include a lot of thearguments that both you and the Charlotte people made, so readers can decide for themselveswho's right on that matter. Will On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Doran, Will <wdoran@newsobserver.com> wrote:Thanks. This is complicated. I'll let you know if we decide to do a fact check or just a regular news story, but either way I appreciate your responses. On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Falkenbury, Jamey <Jamey.Falkenbury@nc.gov> wrote:He ignores the fact that Charlotte had the exception then they repealed it. If the exceptionhad never been in the city code then his argument might hold water. When a legislative body removes an exception, they are indicating to the courts they do notwant the former exception implied. Hypothetically, if a man who identifies as a man in Charlotte was tried for trespassing for being in a women's bathroom, you better believe that any criminal defense attorney worththeir salt would raise this as a defense.Sent from my iPhoneOn Apr 8, 2016, at 3:07 PM, Doran, Will <wdoran@newsobserver.com> wrote:Thanks for the response. I'm just trying to make sure I fully understand theargument. I see where that section has been struck out. The Charlotte attorney is sayingthat doesn't actually matter, but you guys say it does. Both of you can't beright, unfortunately. Here's what he told me when I asked about that sectionbeing removed from the bill: 

There are plenty of laws and ordinances (including Columbia andCharleston, SC - see attached) that don't speak specifically aboutrestrooms and, to my knowledge, no government or court as ever takenthe position that it eliminates separate sex restrooms.  And if their reasoning is correct, every employer covered by Title VII,including the State of North Carolina, could not provide separaterestrooms for their employees since Title VII prohibits discrimination