Compatible Partners: eHarmony Settles Lawsuit

by Rhonda J Mangus | November 19, 2008 at 09:08 pm

5531 views | 65 Recommendations | 26 comments

Online dating site eHarmony.com has settled a lawsuit with the New Jersey attorney general's office and will start matching gay and lesbian customers by March 2009.

Matching for gay couples, however, will be handled through a separate site, dubbed Compatible Partners. Registration will be free for the first 10,000 customers in the first year, after which the rate structure will be equal to that of eHarmony.com.
EHarmony will also pay $50,000 to the attorney general's office to cover expenses and $5,000 to Eric McKinley, who initiated the lawsuit.

McKinley sued eHarmony in 2005 for violating the state's Law Against Discrimination (LAD) by refusing to offer its services to gay patrons.

In 2007, the attorney general's civil rights division issued a finding of probable cause that eHarmony had violated the LAD. EHarmony filed a motion for reconsideration, but opted to settle instead of proceeding with the case.

"Although we believed that the complaint resulted from an unfair characterization of our business, we ultimately decided it was best to settle with the attorney general since litigation outcomes can be unpredictable," according to eHarmony.

In agreeing to the settlement, eHarmony admitted to no wrongdoing.

EHarmony has until March 31, 2009 to put Compatible Partners live. Users can get to the new site via a link on eHarmony, but customers of eHarmony and Compatible Partners will be kept separate.

Last year, Chemistry.com, which is owned by Match.com, capitalized on eHarmony's rejection of gay customers and produced a "Rejected by eHarmony" TV advertising campaign.

"Who knows why eHarmony has rejected over a million people looking for love. But at Chemistry.com, you can come as you are," according to one Chemistry.com commercial.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Sign In or Join to post comments

Uwe Paschen

at 23:21 on November 19th, 2008

Good Post, thank you for posting it Rhonda. I had no idea there where such problem on the net dating.

Rhonda J Mangus

at 23:31 on November 19th, 2008

Paschen, you are very welcome. Thank you for reading, commenting, and for the recommendation. Yes, evidently discrimination against gays and lesbians by eHarmony is not limited to its New Jersey location. I know of one other case where eHarmony was also sued for discrimination against gays and lesbians (California (2007)).

Uwe Paschen

at 23:33 on November 19th, 2008

Thank you for the link Rhonda, much appreciated.

Rhonda J Mangus

at 23:40 on November 19th, 2008

You are very welcome, Paschen!

Rhonda J Mangus

at 06:51 on November 20th, 2008

sara star, thanks for reading, commenting, and the recommend. I'm not sure what you mean by "isn't perfect", but "vetting' is a necessary practice, particularly with dating sites such as eHarmony, as long as it is not discriminatory in practice. Discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is not an acceptable practice -- and that is the issue with eHarmony here.

Amy Judd

at 09:06 on November 20th, 2008

This is great - thanks for this news!

Rhonda J Mangus

at 15:14 on November 20th, 2008

You are very welcome, Amy! Thank you for reading, commenting, and for the recommend.

gerrypopplestone

at 11:15 on November 20th, 2008

In the 1990s this was common practice for all the serious newspapers! We have generally come a long way since then. EHarmony were really stupid to still carry on discriminating.

Rhonda J Mangus

at 15:26 on November 20th, 2008

gerrypopplestone, thank you for reading, commenting, and for the recommend!

panzerlawyer

at 16:02 on November 21st, 2008

Soon you will have a civil right to marry a dog or cat and pedophilia will be legal too.

Rhonda J Mangus

at 16:08 on November 21st, 2008

I don't think so, panzerlawyer. Thank you nevertheless for reading and commenting.

brightyellowstar (not verified)

at 23:38 on June 8th, 2009

Uh, those are non-consensual. Gay relationships are consensual. THAT, my ignorant friend, is the difference. You don't have to agree with them, but comparing our relationships to sex with animals and children is disgusting. You need help.

panzerlawyer

at 16:14 on November 21st, 2008

I disagree. Look at what is happening in Holland. Anything goes.

Marriage is a religious institution. Most religions, including Christianity, upon which our Constitution and Bill of Rights is based, condemn homosexuality as sinful and an abomination to God.

So once the moral code is broken down, anything goes.

David Johnson (not verified)

at 09:01 on November 29th, 2008

Marriage was not originally a religious institution. It was a business arangement between two families. The only reason it became a religious thing is because the Church clergy were the only people who could read and write back then, and were also usually the legal figures in the town. If marriage was a strictly religious institution, then you couldn't just go down to the DA's office and get married.

Also, our Constitution and Bill of rights were not based on Christianity. The large majority of our founding fathers were not Christians, but Deists. If you don't know what that is, just Wiki it. But trust me when I say that is distinctly different from Christianity, and would have no opinion on a person's sexuality.

Finally, a moral code is subjective. You might think homosexuality is immoral, but I happen to think restricting a person's private rights just because they're different from you is immoral and most certainly un-America. But I guess you just want to be a good Nazi, right?

Rhonda J Mangus

at 10:18 on November 29th, 2008

David Johnson, thank you for reading and commenting. I am providing a link to Early America that explains in more detail your position that the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights were not based in Christianity.

Blaze (not verified)

at 20:14 on February 1st, 2009

Yes and you know what else religion (i.e. the Bible) says? That eating shellfish, shaving, and wearing fabrics like cotton and polyester together is also a sin and an abomination. I don't know about you but I don't forsee any of us going to hell for that. ;)

Rhonda J Mangus

at 20:03 on November 21st, 2008

panzerlawyer, I am not up-to-speed with what is taking place in Holland. Nevertheless, you are entitled to your opinion. Thank you for sharing!

panzerlawyer

at 23:34 on November 22nd, 2008

God bless you Rhonda. I pray for you often.

saralovezbautista (not verified)

at 02:41 on November 24th, 2008

That's kind of funny considering I'm studying psychology and court cases based on same-sex marriage, I recently wrote a paper on the debate of gay marriage in this age; there is actually nothing in the bible that directly condems gay marriage, only stuff that has been interpreted to believe that. I can't even believe in this day and age, anyone would consider it okay to compare gay marriage to marrying animals, that is just outright immature and wrong.

Rhonda J Mangus

at 06:47 on November 23rd, 2008

I'm glad someone is:)! Thank you!

Susan Smith (not verified)

at 16:43 on November 30th, 2008

"Separate but equal" . havent we heard that somewhere else???

lefty_liberated

at 07:32 on December 4th, 2008

I think in actuality they're not missing out on anything. I'm into a personality typing system, Socionics, and I think this website actually tries to match you with your conflict type instead of your "dual."

Still viva equality.

Rhonda J Mangus

at 16:41 on December 4th, 2008

Very interesting opinion, lefty_liberated! Thank you for reading and commenting!

gay_catholic (not verified)

at 21:51 on December 11th, 2008

I usually find blogs dealing with gay issues become a battle of conversation that is less than intellectual. I'm actually quite happy that everyone has been able to keep a mature and professional approach toward the blog.

I have been raised as a Catholic my entire life. I have grown up on Catholic literature and attended Catholic schools. I have my beliefs in God and I can understand that Christians are very sensitive when it comes to their religion. We also have to remember that the Bible has been interpreted more than once, and interpreted in languages with a much more limited vocabulary than the original version.

I have read the bible many times through the Catholic school system and at home. I have also come to understand that God, Himself, is the sole judge -- which means that it is not up to us as Christians to pass judgment on others -- that's up to God to decide. With that said, I really wish that Christians would stop using religion as their backbone in arguments and start using other means of voicing their opinion and solidifying their facts.