Nachricht

Today, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders praised the Connecticut Insurance Department for issuing a bulletin directing all health insurers operating in the state to pay for treatment related to a patient’s gender transition. The bulletin is a significant step toward increasing access to critical health care for transgender residents of Connecticut, who have long been arbitrarily denied coverage for medical treatments related to gender transition.

The bulletin, which was issued Dec. 19, directs entities licensed by the Department of Insurance and writing individual and group health insurance policies to “ensure that there is no discrimination against insured individuals with gender dysphoria and ensure that individuals are not denied access to medically necessary care because of the individual’s gender identity or expression.”

Gender dysphoria is defined as a “condition in which an individual is intensely uncomfortable with their biological gender and strongly identifies with, and wants to be, the opposite gender.”

“We applaud the Connecticut Insurance Department for this significant step to ensure that transgender people have access to life-saving, medically necessary care,” said Staff Attorney Zack Paakkonen. “First, it brings Connecticut health insurers into alignment with state and federal law prohibiting discrimination against transgender people in the health care setting. Second, the bulletin comports with the position of all of the major medical and psychological associations, which is that gender dysphoria is a legitimate medical condition with a prescribed course of effective, medically necessary treatment that should be determined by an individual’s doctor rather than an insurance company.”

Connecticut enacted a law in 2011 that prohibits discrimination against transgender people in employment, public accommodations, housing, credit, public schools, state contracts and numerous other areas. The Department of Insurance interpreted the legislative intent of the law to extend to health insurance practices as well. The federal Affordable Care Act also prohibits insurers from adopting benefit designs that discriminate against transgender people or on the basis of a specific health condition.

Insurance regulators in California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, and the District of Columbia have issued similar bulletins instructing insurers in their respective jurisdictions to cover treatment for transgender patients equitably. Efforts are underway to have other New England states issue similar bulletins.

Read the full bulletin from the Connecticut Insurance Department Hier.

Nachricht

Heim » Connecticut » Page 11

Today, GLAD praised the Connecticut Insurance Department for issuing a bulletin directing all health insurers operating in the state to pay for treatment related to a patient’s gender transition. The bulletin is a significant step toward increasing access to critical health care for transgender residents of Connecticut, who have long been arbitrarily denied coverage for medical treatments related to gender transition.

Read the full press release here.

Nachricht

Heim » Connecticut » Page 11

The Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) sent out a “Dear Colleague” letter dated March 4, 2012, reminding school principals, superintendants and PTA and PTO presidents of their responsibilities under federal and Connecticut law to address instances of bullying and harassment, calling special attention to discrimination against transgender students.

The letter states that “Both this agency and the Connecticut Department of Education continue to receive complaints about harassment and discrimination against students including but not limited to students who are transgendered,” and goes on to remind recipients that “Discrimination on the basis of transgender status is illegal, as codified by Public Act 11-55, which added “gender identity or expression” to the protected classes covered under Connecticut law.”

You can read the full “Dear Colleague” letter on the CHRO’s website.

CHRO and Dana Peterson v. City of Hartford

Heim » Connecticut » Page 11

Aktualisieren The Connecticut Appeals Court sided with the City of Hartford, ruling on September 18, 2012, that the trial court improperly reversed the original finding of the CHRO referee. Peterson’s petition to have the case reviewed by the Connecticut Supreme Court was denied, leaving her with no further recourse and ending the matter.

GLAD participated in the appeal of a Connecticut Commission on Human Rights (CHRO) finding against a police sergeant, Dana Peterson, who was denied a position as a canine handler – a coveted and publicly visible position within the force – because she is transgender. The Connecticut Superior Court issued an initial ruling that the CHRO referee ignored serious evidence of discrimination. The City of Hartford appealed that decision in the Connecticut Appeals Court. GLAD filed an amicus knapp in the case, and oral argument took place Tuesday, November 29, 2011.

The Hartford Courant: Transgender Police Officer Still Fighting for Equality

Raftopol v. Ramey

Heim » Connecticut » Page 11

In a first-of-its kind decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled on Jan. 5, 2011 that a gay male couple who wanted to have children and used a gestational surrogate are the children’s legal parents, and that the state must permit both men’s names to be placed on the birth certificates.

GLAD reichte eine amicus brief to the Connecticut Supreme Court in this case concerning the legal status of non-genetic parents of children born through gestational surrogacy. The brief, filed on behalf of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the American Academy of Assisted Reproductive Technology Attorneys, Connecticut Fertility Associates and New England Fertility Institute, argues that the Superior Court can and should confirm the legal relationships between these children and both of their intended parents by issuing pre-birth orders of parentage and by directing the Department of Public Health to issue birth certificates that reflect the joint parentage of these children.

GLAD was joined in this brief by Ken Bartschi and Karen Dowd of Horton, Shields and Knox, Tom Ude of Lambda Legal, and John Weltman and Scott Buckley of the Weltman Law Group. The Raftopols are represented by Victoria Ferrara of Fairfield, CT.

Patino v. Birken Manufacturing Co.

Heim » Connecticut » Page 11

GLAD and the Connecticut Employment Lawyers Association (CELA) applaud a May 4, 2012 ruling from the Connecticut Supreme Court that employers can be liable if they fail to protect employees from harassment based on sexual orientation. In Patino v. Birken Manufacturing Company (Docket No. 18441), the Court also upheld a jury award of $95,000 in favor of plaintiff Luis Patino.

When Patino was employed as a machinist by the defendant, he was the object of pervasive name-calling for several years, including “faggot go home,” and “faggot get out of here.” He was subjected to slurs in English, Spanish and Italian, such as “pato,” “maricon,” “pira,” and “homo.” By affirming that employees can sue employers for anti-gay harassment in the workplace, the Court rejected the defendant’s argument that workplace harassment claims are limited to sexual harassment.

GLAD and CELA filed an amicus brief on behalf of seven Connecticut civil rights groups: the African-American Affairs Commission, the Center for Disability Rights, the Connecticut Alliance for Business Opportunities, the Connecticut Hispanic Bar Association, the Connecticut Transadvocacy Coalition, the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women, and Triangle Community Center.

In urging the Court to find coverage under Connecticut law for cases of antigay workplace harassment, the brief highlighted the scientific literature demonstrating that incidents of discrimination, including based on sexual orientation and race, can lead directly to mental and physical harm.

The plaintiff Luis Patino was represented by Attorney Jon L. Schoenhorn of Hartford. The amicus brief was written by Ben Klein of GLAD in Boston, MA and Nina T. Pirrotti of Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Chimes, Richardson & Fitzgerald, P.C. in New Haven.

Pedersen et al. gegen Office of Personnel Management et al.

Heim » Connecticut » Page 11

26. Juni 2013 Der Oberste Gerichtshof der USA erklärt DOMA Abschnitt 3 für verfassungswidrig in Windsor gegen die Vereinigten Staaten

31. Juli 2012 – Richter Bryant vom Bundesbezirksgericht Connecticut erklärt DOMA für verfassungswidrig.

Am 4. Juli 2012 erließ Richter Bryant eine Verfügung, mit der er den Antrag von BLAG auf Aussetzung des Verfahrens ablehnte.

Die Führung des Repräsentantenhauses reichte über die Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) am 20. Juni 2012 einen Antrag auf Aussetzung des Verfahrens ein. Die Kläger reichten am 22. Juni 2012 ihren Widerspruch gegen den Antrag auf Aussetzung ein.

Update vom 15. Juli 2011: GLAD reicht Antrag auf summarisches Urteil im Namen der Kläger ein

23. Februar 2011 Update: Das Justizministerium gibt bekannt, dass es die Verfassungsmäßigkeit des DOMA nicht verteidigen wird in Pedersen

Am 9. November 2010 reichte GLAD Pedersen gegen OPM, eine zweite große Klage mit mehreren Klägern, in der die Verfassungsmäßigkeit von Abschnitt 3 des Bundesgesetzes Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) und die Verweigerung von Schutz und Verantwortung für verheiratete schwule und lesbische Paare durch die Regierung angefochten werden.

Pedersen gegen OPM richtet sich speziell an verheiratete Paare in Connecticut, Vermont und New Hampshire.

Kerrigan & Mock gegen das Gesundheitsministerium von Connecticut

Heim » Connecticut » Page 11

Am Freitag, dem 10. Oktober 2008, entschied der Oberste Gerichtshof von Connecticut, dass schwulen und lesbischen Paaren die volle Gleichstellung der Ehe zusteht.

Am 25. August 2004 reichte GLAD im Namen von acht schwulen und lesbischen Paaren aus Connecticut Klage ein, denen in Madison, Connecticut, die Heiratserlaubnis verweigert worden war. Sie wandten sich gegen die diskriminierende Verweigerung gleichgeschlechtlicher Ehen durch den Staat. Die klagenden Paare, die seit 10 bis 30 Jahren in festen Beziehungen leben und oft Kinder großziehen, behaupten, dass nur die Ehe ihnen den Schutz und die Vorteile bietet, die sie für ein sicheres Familienleben benötigen. Beklagte sind das Gesundheitsamt (DPH), das die Registrierung aller Eheschließungen überwacht, und Dorothy C. Bean, die Standesbeamtin der Stadt Madison.

Das Connecticut Family Institute und zwei Stadtschreiber beantragten eine Intervention in dem Fall. Richterin Patty Jenkins Pittman vom New Haven Superior Court lehnte die Anträge ab. Die Stadtschreiber zogen ihre Berufung zurück, das Family Institute legte jedoch Berufung beim Obersten Gerichtshof von Connecticut ein, der die Ablehnung des Gerichts in einer Entscheidung vom 15. August 2006 bestätigte.

GLAD reichte einen Antrag auf summarisches Urteil und ausführliche Schriftsätze zur Sachlage ein. Zusätzlich wurde ein von 25 Amicus-Schriftsätzen unterzeichnetes Amicus-Schriftsatz eingereicht, der unsere Position unterstützte. Der Generalstaatsanwalt, der den Fall verteidigte, reichte eine Erwiderung ein, und vier Amicus-Schriftsätze wurden eingereicht. Die Argumente im Antrag auf summarisches Urteil wurden am 21. März 2006 vor dem Obersten Gericht von New Haven verhandelt.

Am 12. Juni 2006 lehnte Richter Pittman den Antrag des Klägers ab und entschied, dass der Ausschluss gleichgeschlechtlicher Paare von der Ehe nicht gegen die Verfassung von Connecticut verstoße. Die Kläger legten gegen diese Entscheidung Berufung beim Obersten Gerichtshof von Connecticut ein.

Am 14. Mai 2007 hielt der leitende Anwalt von GLAD, Ben Klein, vor dem Obersten Gerichtshof von Connecticut eine mündliche Verhandlung in dem Fall.

Brindamour, et al. v. Manchester Board of Education

Heim » Connecticut » Page 11

GLAD used the Connecticut anti-discrimination provisions based on sexual orientation and marital status to help a group of teachers and school administrators in Manchester, CT to obtain insurance benefits for their domestic partners. These educators applied for and were denied these benefits – benefits that constitute a significant portion of an employee’s compensation. GLAD argued the position that withholding these benefits amounted to unequal pay for equal work – something the law does not tolerate. With the discrimination suit pending, the Manchester Board of Education approved new contracts for school administrators and teachers that included health insurance for the partners of its gay and lesbian employees. The Manchester Board of Directors approved the Administrators’ contract on November 18th, 2003 and the Teachers’ contract was agreed upon in arbitration and formally certified by the arbitrator on November 17th.

Brindamour, et al. v. Manchester Board of Education

Heim » Connecticut » Page 11