The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on January 31, 2008 unanimously affirmed District Court Judge Mark L. Wolf’s dismissal of a lawsuit brought by two sets of parents against the Lexington school system.
In the suit, parents David and Tonia Parker and Robert and Robin Wirthlin claimed that a Lexington elementary school violated their constitutional rights by exposing their children to books portraying many different kinds of families, including non-judgmental depictions of families headed by same-sex couples.
GLAD authored an amicus in the case.
The plaintiff parents filed a petition seeking review before the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied in October, 2008.
GLAD applied for and won compensation from the federal September 11 Victim Compensation Fund on behalf of Nancy Walsh, a lesbian whose partner of 13 years was one of the passengers on Flight 11 who died on September 11. Nancy came up against barriers that so often face same-sex partners in times of crisis. For example, her partner, Carol Flyzik, did not have a will, thus making Carol’s biological family the presumptive recipients of any compensation. Nor did Nancy have an automatic right to administer Carol’s estate or continue to live in the home that she and Carol shared.
GLAD helped Nancy to secure her partner’s death certificate so that she was able to proceed with matters relating to the probate of the estate, and assisted her in applying for compensation from the federal Fund. Nancy’s hearing was held on January 26. After considering the facts, the Special Master awarded a favorable monetary ruling for Nancy, compensating her for losses she incurred as a result of this tragedy.
Nancy’s case tragically underscores the vulnerability of same-sex relationships, and reminds us of the comprehensive protections that marriage provides for families.
The morning of September 11, 2001, after Nancy Walsh saw the morning news, after she ran to the refrigerator to check the flight itinerary her partner Carol Flyzik had left there, after she confirmed that Carol was scheduled to be on American Airlines Flight 11, she called the airline.
Maybe Carol had missed her flight. Maybe she was okay.
But even though Nancy and Carol had been together for 12 years, the airline wouldn’t talk to Nancy. They would only give information to family members, they said, and since she and Carol weren’t married, Nancy wasn’t family.
At 6 o’clock that night, more than nine hours after Nancy first flipped on the television, Carol’s sister called the airline and confirmed that Carol was on Flight 11.
Nancy and Carol, who were raising their three children in the small New Hampshire town of Plainstow, had designated each other as domestic partners at their jobs and named each other as beneficiaries on insurance policies and retirement accounts. But Carol hadn’t left a will. As far as New Hampshire was concerned, Nancy and Carol were legal strangers.
GLAD applied for and won for Nancy compensation from the federal September 11 Victim Compensation Fund, and also helped Nancy as she sought Carol’s death certificate, and dealt with probate issues. By helping her stand up for her rights and her relationship with Carol, GLAD helped Nancy reaffirm the life they shared together.
In 2001, GLAD filed a friend of the court brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the case of an HIV-positive dental hygienist who was fired after his doctor revealed his HIV status to his employer. A federal appellate court in Atlanta had ruled that the hygienist was a “direct threat” to patients and therefore that his termination was not a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
In contrast to the cases in which courts have ruled against doctors who refused treatment to HIV-positive patients arguing a “direct threat” (see discussion of Bragdon v. Abbott, below), courts have reacted to cases involving discrimination against HIV-positive health care providers with irrational fear and disregard for the scientific evidence. In effect, the courts have required proof of zero threat from the health care worker, a virtually impossible standard. Although the Supreme Court declined to decide this case and clarify what “direct threat” should mean in this context, the willingness of courts around the country to uphold the termination of HIV-positive health care workers who perform invasive procedures remains one of the most pressing legal challenges ahead.
في قرارٍ يُشكّل سابقةً قضائيةً ذات تداعياتٍ كبيرةٍ على مجتمع الأعمال، أكّدت محكمة الاستئناف الأمريكية للدائرة الأولى أن قوانين التمييز على أساس الجنس تنطبق على حالاتٍ يُميّز فيها ضدّ الأفراد لعدم امتثالهم للصور النمطية المُفترضة عن مظهر وسلوك الرجال والنساء. في يونيو/حزيران 2000، قضت المحكمة الفيدرالية بأنّ القانون الفيدرالي الذي يحظر التمييز على أساس الجنس في الإقراض يحمي موكلنا، لوكاس روزا - وهو شخصٌ متحولٌ جنسيًا يبدو أنثى، ولكن وُضِعَ عليه تصنيفٌ جنسيٌّ كذكرٍ عند الولادة - والذي طُلِبَ منه عند تقديم طلبٍ للحصول على قرضٍ مصرفيٍّ العودة إلى منزله وتغيير مظهره ليبدو أكثر ذكورةً.
رفعت شركة GLAD دعوى قضائية نيابةً عن موكلنا بموجب قانون تكافؤ فرص الائتمان الفيدرالي، وكذلك بموجب قوانين ولاية ماساتشوستس التي تحظر التمييز على أساس الجنس والتوجه الجنسي المفترض في الإقراض والأماكن العامة. وفي قرارٍ لم يستغرق صدوره سوى ثلاثة أسابيع، ألغت محكمة الاستئناف الفيدرالية حكمًا صادرًا عن قاضي مقاطعة فيدرالي، وقضت بأن موكلنا قد يكون قادرًا على إثبات قضية تمييز على أساس الجنس، وأعادت القضية إلى المحاكمة.
لهذه القضية أهمية بالغة لكل من المثليين ومزدوجي الميل الجنسي والمتحولين جنسيًا، لأن جذور الكثير من اضطهادنا المشترك تكمن في فرض مفاهيم نمطية حول كيف ينبغي أن يبدو "الرجال الحقيقيون" و"النساء الحقيقيات" وتصرفاتهم. تُشكل هذه القضية حجر أساس قانونيًا أساسيًا للقول بأن التمييز الناتج عن عدم استيفاء الشخص للمعتقدات المعيارية الشائعة حول النوع الاجتماعي - سواء كان مثليًا أو مثلية أو مزدوج الميول الجنسية أو متحولًا جنسيًا - يُعد تمييزًا محظورًا على أساس الجنس.
GLAD obtained clarification from the Board of Registration of Cosmetology that an individual completing a cosmetology program does not fail the statutory requirement to be certified as free from infectious diseases simply by virtue of being HIV-positive.
In its first case addressing HIV, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in براغدون ضد أبوت that the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against people living with HIV, whether or not they show any visible symptoms or have an AIDS diagnosis. The Court’s 1998 decision is a critical victory for people living with HIV because the ADA and similar state disability discrimination statutes are the only legal bases to fight HIV-related discrimination in jobs, housing and health care.
In this case, Bangor, Maine resident Sidney Abbott went to Randon Bragdon, D.M.D. to have a cavity filled. Citing his fears of HIV transmission from a patient, Dr. Bragdon refused to fill her cavity in his office solely because Ms. Abbott disclosed on a medical questionnaire that she has HIV. Dr. Bragdon claimed that people with HIV who were not yet manifestly ill did not meet the ADA’s definition of “disability.” The ADA defines a disability as a health condition that “substantially limits one or more major life activities.”
In its landmark decision, the Supreme Court agreed with GLAD that the presence of visible symptoms or illness is not necessary for coverage under the ADA. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the Court, gave a broad, expansive interpretation to the definition of “major life activities,” and specifically noted that Sidney Abbott was substantially limited in the major life activity of reproduction because of the risk of infecting her partner and her child.
The Court’s language and reasoning, however, go far beyond the facts of Sidney Abbott’s case and ensures that all people with HIV will be covered by the ADA. In a lengthy analysis, the Court endorsed long-standing interpretations of the ADA by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which found that the ADA protects symptomatic and asymptomatic HIV-infected individuals from discrimination, in part because HIV limits both procreation and sexual relations. The Supreme Court directed the nation’s lower courts to follow these agency interpretations. The Supreme Court’s broad definition of “disability” and its endorsement of these administrative interpretations of the ADA mean that براغدون ضد أبوت is an enormous victory, not only for Sidney Abbott, but for all people living with a disability.
العربية 
Español de México 
Português 
简体中文 
香港中文 
Français 
Tiếng Việt 
Polski 
Русский 
Deutsch 
Kreyòl Ayisyen