Discrimination | Transgender Rights | Maine

Heim » Maine » Page 7

Does Maine have an anti-discrimination law protecting transgender individuals from discrimination?

Yes. On November 8, 2005, Maine voters agreed to keep in place a law, LD 1196, “An Act to Extend Civil Rights Protections to All People Regardless of Sexual Orientation”, passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor in the spring of 2005. The law went into effect December 28, 2005.

This marks the end of a long struggle in Maine to achieve legal protections for LGBT people. In November 1995, Maine voters rejected an attempt to limit the protected classes to those already included within the non-discrimination law. In May 1997, Maine approved an anti-discrimination law based on sexual orientation, but this law was repealed in a special election in February 1998. Then in November 2000, by the smallest of margins, Maine voters failed to ratify a second anti-discrimination law that had been approved by the legislature.

The law provides protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation which is defined as “… a person’s actual or perceived heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality or gender identity or expression” (5 Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 4553 (9-C)).

Does it also protect people perceived of as transgender?

Yes. The non-discrimination law specifically covers people who are perceived to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

What kinds of discrimination does the anti-discrimination law address?

The Maine law prohibits discrimination in:

Anstellung
Öffentliche Unterkünfte
Gehäuse
Credit and
Education (5 Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 4552 et seq.)

Are there other non-discrimination protections available in Maine?

Yes. Several cities and towns have enacted non-discrimination ordinances, including Portland, Falmouth, South Portland, Long Island, Orono, Sorrento, Westbrook and Bar Harbor. In Clarke v. Olsten Certified Healthcare Corp., the Maine Law Court assumed without so stating that the Portland ordinance is enforceable (714 A.2d 823 (Me. 1998)).

How do I file a complaint of discrimination? What happens after I file?

You should contact the Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) at (207) 624-6050, or at State House Station #51, Augusta, ME 04333-0051, or on the web at http://www.state.me.us/mhrc/index.shtml. The Commission prefers for people to file complaints in writing. For an overview of this process refer to the MHRC regulations, available at http://www.maine.gov/mhrc/laws/index.html.

The complaint must be under oath, state the name and address of the individual making the complaint as well as the entity he or she is complaining against (called the “respondent”). The complaint must set out the particulars of the alleged unlawful acts and the times they occurred (5 Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 4611).

Once a complaint is timely filed, a Commissioner or investigator will seek to resolve the matter. If he or she cannot do so, the Commission will proceed with an investigation to determine if there are reasonable grounds to believe that unlawful discrimination has occurred. The Commission has extensive powers during the course of the investigation. Among other things, it can examine persons, places and documents, and require attendance at a factfinding hearing, and issue subpoenas for persons or documents.

If the Commissioner or investigator concludes:

there are no reasonable grounds, it will dismiss the case, and the complainant may file a new case in the Superior Court (See generally 5 Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 4612);
there are reasonable grounds, it will try to resolve the matter through settlement (5 Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 4612).

Once the Commission process is complete, and if settlement has failed, a person can file an action for relief in court. A person may also request a “right to sue” letter from the MHRC if there has been no court action filed and no conciliation agreement in place within 180 days of filing the complaint (5 Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 4612 (6)). The person may then file an action in the Superior Court (5 Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 4621). In some situations, the Commission may file an action in court on your behalf (See generally 5 Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 4612).

Brauche ich einen Anwalt?

Not necessarily. The process is designed to allow people to represent themselves. However, GLAD strongly encourages people to find a lawyer to represent them throughout the process. Not only are there many legal rules governing the MHRC process, but employers and other respondents will almost certainly have legal representation. Please call the GLAD Answers for help or for an attorney referral.

Welche Fristen gelten für die Einreichung einer Diskriminierungsbeschwerde?

A complaint must be filed with the MHRC within 300 days of the discriminatory act or acts (5 Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 4611). There are virtually no exceptions for lateness, and GLAD encourages people to move promptly in filing claims. Actions filed in Superior Court must generally be filed “not more than 2 years after the act of unlawful discrimination complained of” (5 Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 4613(2)(C)).

What are the legal remedies for discrimination?

This is a complicated area and depends on a variety of factors, including the type of discrimination and its intersection with federal laws.

As a general matter, the MHRC tries to resolve cases in which reasonable cause is found. It is not empowered to award emotional distress damages or attorney’s fees, but the parties may agree to whatever terms are mutually satisfactory for resolving the issue (94-348 Rules of Maine Human Rights Com’n secs. 2.07, 2.08. 2.09. Available at http://www.maine.gov/mhrc/laws/index.html).

As a general matter, if a person has filed with the MHRC, completed the process there, and later files his or her case in court, then a full range of compensatory and injunctive relief is available (5 Me. Rev. Stat. secs. 4613, 4614). If a discrimination complainant takes his or her case to court without first filing at the MHRC, then only injunctive relief is available in court, such as a cease and desist order, or an order to do training or post notices (5 Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 4622).

The relief ordered by a court may include: (a) hiring, reinstatement and back pay in employment cases; (b) an order to rent or sell a specified housing accommodation (or one that is substantially identical), along with damages of up to three times any excessive price demanded, and civil penal damages, to the victim in housing cases; and (c) in all cases, where the individual has exhausted the MHRC process, an order for attorney’s fees, civil penal damages, cease and desist orders, and other relief that would fulfill the purposes of the anti-discrimination laws (e.g. training programs, posting of notices).

Kann ich auch bei einer Bundesbehörde eine Diskriminierungsbeschwerde einreichen?

Yes, in many cases. Federal employment non-discrimination law, called Title VII, applies only to employers with at least 15 employees, and complaints must be filed within 180 days of the discriminatory act with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). But if you initially institute your complaint with MHRC and indicate that you wish to have the complaint cross-filed with the EEOC, then the time limit is extended to the earlier of 300 days or 30 days after MHRC has terminated the case (United States Code 42 sec. 2000e-5(e)(1)). (People who work for federal agencies are beyond the scope of this publication.)

Someone who brings a claim of discrimination may sometimes pursue protections under both state and federal law. This is true because there may be overlapping provisions of state and federal law. For example, Title VII forbids employment discrimination based on race, sex, age, religion and disability (which includes HIV status), but does not expressly forbid discrimination based on “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.”

Because a growing number of courts and government agencies have recognized that the root of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination is sex discrimination, the federal EEOC has recently indicated that it will accept both “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” discrimination complaints in order to investigate whether the complainant may have experienced prohibited “sex” discrimination. For more information go to: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/upload/GenderStereotyping-LGBT-brochure-OLC.pdf.

GLAD recommends that, where there may be overlapping state and federal jurisdiction, you explore filing with MHRC first but keep in mind the possibility of pursuing a federal claim as well. If you have a sexual orientation or gender identity complaint, you should check off “sex” as well as “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” as the bases for your claim and request that MHRC cross-file your complaint with the EEOC.

LGBT people who are discriminated against in housing may also be able to file a complaint with the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in addition to MHRC. For more information go to: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equ al_opp/LGBT_Housing_Discrimination.

Gibt es andere Möglichkeiten, eine Diskriminierungsbeschwerde einzureichen?

Möglicherweise ja, abhängig von den Umständen Ihrer besonderen Situation.

Union: If you are a member of a union, your contract (collective bargaining agreement) may provide additional rights to you in the event of discipline, discharge or other job-related actions. In fact, if you obtain relief under your contract, you may decide not to pursue other remedies. Get and read a copy of your contract and contact a union steward about filing a grievance. Deadlines in contracts are strict. Bear in mind that if your union refuses to assist you with a complaint, you may have a discrimination action against it for its failure to work with you, or for failure of duty of fair representation.

Landes- oder Bundesgericht: After filing with the MHRC or EEOC, a person may decide to remove his or her discrimination case from those agencies and file in court. There are rules about when and how this must be done.

In addition, a person may file a court case to address other claims that are not appropriately handled by discrimination agencies. For example:

If a person is fired in violation of a contract, or fired without the progressive discipline promised in a handbook, or fired for doing something the employer doesn’t like but which the law requires, then these matters are beyond the scope of what the agencies can investigate and the matter can be pursued in court.
If a person has a claim for a violation of constitutional rights, such as a teacher or other governmental employee who believes his or her free speech or equal protection rights were violated, then those matters must be heard in court.

Was kann ich tun, wenn mein Arbeitgeber mich wegen einer Diskriminierungsbeschwerde entlässt?

It is illegal to retaliate in these circumstances, and the employee could file an additional complaint against the employer for retaliation. “Retaliation” protections cover those who participate in MHRC proceedings or otherwise oppose unlawful conduct, whether as a complainant or as a witness. If the employer takes action against an employee because of that conduct, then the employee can state a claim of retaliation (5 Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 4572 (1)(E). See also Provencher v. CVS Pharmacy, 76 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1569 (1st Cir.(N.H.) 1998) (upholding federal retaliation claim of gay man)).

Wie kann ich mich vorbereiten, bevor ich eine Diskriminierungsbeschwerde einreiche?

In evaluating your potential claims, you have the right to request a complete copy of your personnel file at any time (5 Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 7071 (Employee right to request personnel file)). Personnel files are the official record of your employment and are an invaluable source of information (5 Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 7070 (Definition of personnel record)).

Whether you leave a job voluntarily or not, be cautious about signing any documents admitting to wrongdoing, or that waive your legal rights, or that are a supposed summary of what you said in an exit interview. Sometimes employees are upset or scared at the time they are terminating employment, but the documents will likely be enforceable against you later. Please be cautious.

As a general matter, people who are still working under discriminatory conditions have to evaluate how filing a case will affect their job or housing, and if they are willing to assume those possible consequences. Of course, even if a person has been fired, he or she may decide it is not worth it to pursue a discrimination claim. This is an individual choice which should be made after gathering enough information and advice to make an informed decision.

Some people prefer to meet with an attorney to evaluate the strength of their claims before filing a case. It is always helpful if you bring to your attorney an outline or diary of what happened on the job that you are complaining about. It is best if the information is organized by date and explains who the various players are (and how to get in touch with them), as well as what happened, who said what, and who was present for any important conversations or incidents. Try to obtain and bring copies of your employee handbooks or personnel manuals, any contracts, job evaluations, memos, discharge letters and the like. If you are concerned about a housing matter, bring a copy of your lease, along with any notices and letters you have received from your landlord.

Employment | Discrimination | Maine

Heim » Maine » Page 7

Does Maine have an anti-discrimination law protecting LGBT individuals from discrimination in employment?

Does it also protect people perceived of as LGBT in employment?

Yes. The non-discrimination law specifically covers people who are perceived to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

To whom does the non-discrimination law apply and what does it forbid?

The non-discrimination law applies to governmental employers (local and state) and private employers with any number of employees (5 Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 4553 (4) (definition of employer)). It forbids employers from refusing to hire, or discharging, or discriminating against the employee with respect to any employment matter, including hiring, tenure, promotion, transfer, compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment. Nor may an employer use any employment agency that discriminates (5 Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 4572 (1)(A)). Harassment based on sexual orientation is included within “terms and conditions” of employment.

Employment agencies may not refuse to: classify properly; refer their customers for employment; or otherwise discriminate because of sexual orientation. Labor organizations (e.g. unions) may not deny apprenticeship, membership or any membership rights or otherwise penalize or discriminate against their members because of sexual orientation (5 Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 4572 (1)(B) & (C)).

The law also forbids any employer, employment agency, or labor organization, prior to employment or membership, from eliciting or recording information about a person’s sexual orientation, printing any advertisement indicating any preference or limitation based on sexual orientation, or having a system of denying or limiting employment or membership opportunities based on sexual orientation (5 Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 4572 (1)(D)).

Does the law apply to every employer?

No, there is a religious exemption that provides:

“Employer” does not include a religious or fraternal corporation or association, not organized for private profit and in fact not conducted for private profit, with respect to employment of its members of the same religion, sect or fraternity, except for purposes of disability-related discrimination, in which case the corporation or association is considered to be an employer (5 Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 4553 (4) (definition of “employer”)).

This appears to mean that certain non-profit religious entities (not individuals) are exempt from the law, and a religious organization may require all applicants and employees to conform to the religious tenets of that organization (5 Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 4573-A (2)). The full scope of this exemption may be sorted out in specific court cases.

Does the non-discrimination law have any impact on my employer’s obligation to provide domestic partner benefits to my partner of the same-sex?

Possibly yes. The non-discrimination law can be a powerful tool to equalizing treatment in compensation, and therefore, valuable “fringe benefits.” As discussed below in the family section of this booklet, the state and several municipalities have already equalized some benefits like health insurance (this result also conforms with the better view of the law, i.e., that it is discrimination based on sexual orientation to condition benefits on a status (marriage) that only gay people cannot attain. See Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. State of Alaska, 122 P.3d 781 (Alaska 2005); Bedford v. N.H. Cmty. Technical Coll. Sys., Superior Court Order, 04-E-230 (May 3, 2006)).

Private employers in Maine are neither required to offer health insurance to their employees nor to offer spousal or family coverage. However, some employers who provide such coverage may be obligated to provide insurance to same-sex partners to comply with the Maine insurance laws and/or anti-discrimination law. This area of law is complicated and you should feel free to contact GLAD for information specific to your situation.

Does Maine law forbid sexual harassment?

Yes, sexual harassment is expressly prohibited by state law.

“Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when:

submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment;
submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual; or
such conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment” (94-348 Rules of Maine Human Rights Com’n, 3.06 I (1). Available at: http://www.maine.gov/mhrc/laws/index.html).

Although the Maine Law Court has not specifically ruled on the question, it should be as unlawful to sexually harass a gay, lesbian or bisexual person as it is to harass a non-gay person. Some harassment is specifically anti-gay, and may be more fairly characterized as harassment on the basis of sexual orientation, which is discussed below. Other harassment is sexual in nature and more appropriately categorized as “sexual harassment.” Both types of harassment can happen to the same person, and both are forbidden.

Both the United States Supreme Court and several state courts have found same-sex sexual harassment to violate sexual harassment laws. Vergleichen Sie Oncale und Sundowner Offshore Services (9523 U.S. 75 (1998), man can sue for sexual harassment by other men under federal sexual harassment laws)) to Melnychenko gegen 84 Lumber Co. (424 Mass. 285, 676 N.E.2d 45 (1997), (same-sex sexual harassment forbidden under Massachusetts state law)).

Are there any protections from sexual orientation harassment?

Yes. In September 2007, the Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) adopted amendments to its employment and housing rules that expressly acknowledged the existence of sexual orientation harassment (see generally 94-348 Me. Hum Rights Comm’n Reg. Ch. 3, § 3.12. Available at: http://www.maine.gov/mhrc/laws/index.html). Under these rules, unwelcome comments, jokes, acts, and other verbal or physical conduct on the basis of sexual orientation constitute harassment when:

submission to this conduct is a condition of employment or a term of membership in a union;
submission to or rejection of this conduct is used as a basis for a decision made by unions or employers that effect the individual;
such conduct interferes or attempts to interfere with the individuals work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working or union environment (94-348 Me. Hum Rights Comm’n Reg. Ch. 3, § 3.12 (1) (a) – (c). Available at: http://www.maine.gov/mhrc/laws/index.html).

Employers or labor organizations are responsible for their actions and for those of their employees with respect to sexual orientation harassment (94-348 Me. Hum Rights Comm’n Reg. Ch. 3, § 3.12 (2). Available at: http://www.maine.gov/mhrc/laws/index.html).

How do I file a complaint of discrimination? What happens after I file?

If the Commissioner or investigator concludes:

there are no reasonable grounds, it will dismiss the case, and the complainant may file a new case in the Superior Court (See generally 5 Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 4612);
there are reasonable grounds, it will try to resolve the matter through settlement (5 Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 4612).

Brauche ich einen Anwalt?

Welche Fristen gelten für die Einreichung einer Diskriminierungsbeschwerde?

What are the legal remedies for discrimination?

This is a complicated area and depends on a variety of factors, including the type of discrimination and its intersection with federal laws.

Can I claim discrimination on a basis other than sexual orientation?

Yes, but only if you are treated differently because of a personal characteristic protected by Maine law.

The present non-discrimination laws for employment forbid taking action against someone because of race, color, sex, physical or mental disability, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, or because a person previously filed a worker’s compensation claim, as well as sexual orientation (5 Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 4572. 44).

Kann ich auch bei einer Bundesbehörde eine Diskriminierungsbeschwerde einreichen?

Gibt es andere Möglichkeiten, eine Diskriminierungsbeschwerde einzureichen?

Möglicherweise ja, abhängig von den Umständen Ihrer besonderen Situation.

Union: If you are a member of a union, your contract (collective bargaining agreement) may provide additional rights to you in the event of discipline, discharge or other job-related actions. In fact, if you obtain relief under your contract, you may decide not to pursue other remedies. Get and read a copy of your contract and contact a union steward about filing a grievance. Deadlines in contracts are strict. Bear in mind that if your union refuses to assist you with a complaint, you may have a discrimination action against it for its failure to work with you, or for failure of duty of fair representation.
Landes- oder Bundesgericht: After filing with the MHRC or EEOC, a person may decide to remove his or her discrimination case from those agencies and file in court. There are rules about when and how this must be done.

In addition, a person may file a court case to address other claims that are not appropriately handled by discrimination agencies. For example:

If a person is fired in violation of a contract, or fired without the progressive discipline promised in a handbook, or fired for doing something the employer doesn’t like but which the law requires, then these matters are beyond the scope of what the agencies can investigate and the matter can be pursued in court.
If a person has a claim for a violation of constitutional rights, such as a teacher or other governmental employee who believes his or her free speech or equal protection rights were violated, then those matters must be heard in court.

Was kann ich tun, wenn mein Arbeitgeber mich wegen einer Diskriminierungsbeschwerde entlässt?

Wie kann ich mich vorbereiten, bevor ich eine Diskriminierungsbeschwerde einreiche?

Credit Lending | Discrimination | Maine

Heim » Maine » Page 7

Does Maine have an anti-discrimination law protecting LGBT individuals from discrimination in credit, lending and services?

Does it also protect people perceived of as LGBT in credit, lending and services?

Yes. The non-discrimination law specifically covers people who are perceived to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

How does the Maine anti-discrimination law protect people with regard to credit?

It is unlawful credit discrimination for any creditor to refuse the extension of credit to any person solely on the basis of sexual orientation (5 Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 4596). The law requires that the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the Superintendent of Consumer Credit Protection cooperate with the Maine Human Rights Commission in enforcing the credit anti-discrimination law (5 Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 4598).

How do I file a complaint of discrimination? What happens after I file?

If the Commissioner or investigator concludes:

there are no reasonable grounds, it will dismiss the case, and the complainant may file a new case in the Superior Court (See generally 5 Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 4612);
there are reasonable grounds, it will try to resolve the matter through settlement (5 Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 4612).

Brauche ich einen Anwalt?

Welche Fristen gelten für die Einreichung einer Diskriminierungsbeschwerde?

What are the legal remedies for discrimination?

This is a complicated area and depends on a variety of factors, including the type of discrimination and its intersection with federal laws.

Can I claim discrimination on a basis other than sexual orientation?

Yes, but only if you are treated differently because of a personal characteristic protected by Maine law.

In credit, in addition to sexual orientation, the protected characteristics are age, race, color, sex, ancestry, religion, national origin and marital status.

Kann ich auch bei einer Bundesbehörde eine Diskriminierungsbeschwerde einreichen?

Gibt es andere Möglichkeiten, eine Diskriminierungsbeschwerde einzureichen?

Möglicherweise ja, abhängig von den Umständen Ihrer besonderen Situation.

Landes- oder Bundesgericht: After filing with the MHRC or EEOC, a person may decide to remove his or her discrimination case from those agencies and file in court. There are rules about when and how this must be done.

In addition, a person may file a court case to address other claims that are not appropriately handled by discrimination agencies. For example:

If a person has a claim for a violation of constitutional rights, such as a teacher or other governmental employee who believes his or her free speech or equal protection rights were violated, then those matters must be heard in court.

Wie kann ich mich vorbereiten, bevor ich eine Diskriminierungsbeschwerde einreiche?

Custody Parentage Laws | Maine

Heim » Maine » Page 7

Can a single gay individual adopt a child in Maine?

Yes (18-A Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 9-301).

Can same-sex partners together adopt a child in Maine?

Yes. More information on adopting in ME can be found, Hier.

I am in the middle of a divorce and I am now involved with a same-sex partner. Can my “ex” use this against me to deny me parental rights and responsibilities for my children?

The Maine Law Court has not yet addressed a case like this, but the majority rule in the country is “No.” Most states, and two Maine Superior Court cases, use the “nexus test” under which a parent’s sexual orientation is not relevant unless there is actual evidence of harm to the child. Speculation of harm or teasing is not enough.

In Whitehead v. Black (2 BNA Family Law Rptr 2593 (Me. Super. 1976)), a case decided by the Superior Court, an ex-husband from Georgia petitioned for a change of custody when he learned that his ex-wife, who had since moved to Maine, was a lesbian. The court ruled that the children had always lived with the mother, that she was otherwise fit, and she “was aware that her homosexual lifestyle could have an impact on her children and was intelligently seeking to minimize, if not totally eliminate, that impact” (Id. at 2594). That reasoning from a court is good for its time.

Finally, many reputable attorneys have refused even to make the argument that a parent’s sexual orientation — standing alone — should be a factor in child welfare decisions.

What are the factors for making parental rights and responsibilities determinations generally?

Courts consider the parents as equals, whether married or unmarried, and make orders based on the best interests of the children.

The permissible factors for consideration are set out by law. The factors focus on child welfare and none automatically advantages a non-gay parent over a gay parent.

The law provides: “In making decisions regarding the child’s residence and parent-child contact, the court shall consider as primary the safety and well-being of the child. In applying this standard, the court shall consider the following factors:

The age of the child;
The relationship of the child with the child’s parents and any other person who may significantly affect the child’s welfare;
The preference of the child, if old enough to express a meaningful preference;
The duration and adequacy of the child’s current living arrangements and the desirability of maintaining continuity;
The stability of any proposed living arrangements for the child;
The motivation of the parties involved and their capacities to give the child love, affection and guidance;
The child’s adjustment to the child’s present home, school and community;
The capacity of each parent to allow and encourage frequent and continuing contact between the child and the other parent, including physical access;
The capacity of each parent to cooperate or to learn to cooperate in childcare;
Methods for assisting parental cooperation and resolving disputes and each parent’s willingness to use those methods;
The effect on the child if one parent has sole authority over the child’s upbringing;
The existence of domestic abuse between the parents, in the past or currently, and how that abuse affects: 1. The child emotionally; and 2. The safety of the child;
The existence of any history of child abuse by a parent;
All other factors having a reasonable bearing on the physical and psychological well-being of the child; and
A parent’s willful misuse of the protection from abuse process…” (19-A Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 1653(3)).

Are there different kinds of parental rights and responsibilities?

Yes, and the courts may allocate some particular rights to one parent and others to another parent (19-A Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 1501). The rights that may be divided include primary physical residence, visitation, support, education, medical and dental care, religious upbringing or any other matter. Sometimes a parent will be solely responsible for the child in all aspects; this is called “sole parental rights and responsibilities.” Other times, the parents will share all of these issues; this is called “shared parental rights and responsibilities.”

Wird es als Schädigung des Kindes angesehen, wenn es gehänselt wird, weil es einen schwulen oder lesbischen Elternteil hat?

Das sollte nicht so sein. Zu den zusätzlichen Aufgaben schwuler oder lesbischer Eltern gehört es, ihren Kindern dabei zu helfen, mit dieser Möglichkeit oder Realität umzugehen. Natürlich können Kinder wegen allem Möglichen gehänselt werden, von der Größe ihrer Ohren über den Akzent ihrer Eltern bis hin zu ihrem mangelnden Modebewusstsein. Daher müssen alle Eltern ihren Kindern helfen, Bewältigungsmechanismen und -strategien für den Fall von Belästigung durch Gleichaltrige zu entwickeln.

Aus juristischer Sicht ist ein Fall des Obersten Gerichtshofs der USA besonders aufschlussreich: Palmore v. Sidoti, (466 U.S. 429 (1984)) in which the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a Florida court’s change of custody from the mother to the father. The reason custody had been switched was because the white mother was involved with a black man whom she later married. The Supreme Court acknowledged the reality of bias and prejudice, and that the child might be teased, but refused to cater to those prejudices or give them the force of law by changing the custody arrangement that previously existed. In a statement of constitutional principle applicable to all, the Court unanimously stated, “The Constitution cannot control prejudices, but neither can it tolerate them. Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect” (Palmore, 466 U.S. at 432).

Does it matter if my “ex” knew I was gay or lesbian or might be before we separated?

It may, but does not necessarily make a difference with respect to future modification of court orders for custody. People can seek to modify court orders for custody when there has been a “substantial change in circumstances.” If a spouse did not know of his or her spouse’s sexual orientation at the time of the initial court proceedings, but learns it later, he or she may argue that this is a substantial change of circumstances and that the custody issues should be reviewed. There are many cases from around the country rejecting this as a basis for seeking modification. Of course, if one spouse or former heterosexual partner knew of the other’s same-sex sexual orientation at the time of the court proceedings establishing custody, a modification petition on those grounds would be pointless (see generally, 19-A Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 1653 (10)).

Can a court keep my children from visiting when my partner is present?

This issue has not been decided by the Maine Law Court, but a Superior Court case, Stone v. Stone (Me. Super. LEXIS 30 (1980)), applied the right test. A mother went back to court seeking a restriction on her ex-husband’s “overnight visitors,” as he was now partnered with a man. The Superior Court struck the restriction imposed by a lower court because the father was discreet and there was no evidence of harm to the children.

Moreover, visitation restrictions are inherently suspect. In Lawrence gegen Texas (539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003)), the U.S. Supreme Court did more than decriminalize sexual acts. It acknowledged the right of gay people to form and sustain loving personal relationships and lead their private lives free of government restrictions and legal condemnation. Since gay people may make “personal decisions relating to … family relationships [and] child rearing,” custody and visitation restrictions must be handled accordingly. Mere differences in moral values between a court and a parent, presumptions about a gay parent’s conduct, or “social condemnation” of their relationship should no longer be permissible factors, if they ever were. While courts have the power to do this, visitation should not be restricted unless there is actual evidence that the partner is causing harm to the child. The touchstone for these decisions is the best interests of the child.

What standards should same-sex couple with children who are breaking up maintain?

Gleichgeschlechtliche Paare mit Kindern, die sich trennen, sollten:

Unterstützen Sie die Rechte von LGBT-Eltern;
Respektieren Sie bestehende Beziehungen ungeachtet der rechtlichen Bezeichnungen.
Respektieren Sie die bestehenden Elternbeziehungen der Kinder nach der Trennung;
Bewahren Sie die Kontinuität für die Kinder;
Streben Sie eine freiwillige Lösung an;
Denken Sie daran, dass es schwer ist, Schluss zu machen.
Missbrauchsvorwürfe untersuchen;
The absence of agreements or legal relationships should not determine outcome;
Betrachten Sie einen Rechtsstreit als letztes Mittel.
Refuse to resort to homophobic/transphobic laws and sentiments.

For more detailed information about these standard see the publication Schutz von Familien: Standards für LGBT-Familien.

Wohin kann ich mich wenden, wenn ich Hilfe bei der Lösung eines Abstammungsproblems benötige?

Wie bei allen familienrechtlichen Fragen ist eine individuelle Rechtsberatung empfehlenswert. GLAD Answers bietet Ihnen Informationen und vermittelt Ihnen lokale Anwälte. Wenn Sie Fragen zum Schutz Ihrer Familie haben, kontaktieren Sie GLAD Answers, indem Sie das Formular unter ausfüllen. GLAD-Antworten oder rufen Sie 800.455.4523 (GLAD) an.

Voters’ Rights in Maine

Heim » Maine » Page 7

Voter ID laws are a form of voter suppression and keep eligible voters from being able to actively participate in our political process.

Together with EqualityMaine, GLAD testified against LD 34, An Act to Require a Person to Show Photographic Identification for the Purpose of Voting. The bill is unnecessary for numerous reasons, including that Maine already uses other ways to effectively verify identity and address, but most specifically because voter ID laws are a form of voter suppression. While voter ID laws disproportionately impact many communities, our testimony highlighted the effects the bill would have on transgender people and older adults.

Lesen Sie das Zeugnis.

Aging | Discrimination | Maine

Heim » Maine » Page 7

Does Maine have an anti-discrimination law protecting LGBT individuals from discrimination?

This marks the end of a long struggle in Maine to achieve legal protections for LGBTQ+ people. In November 1995, Maine voters rejected an attempt to limit the protected classes to those already included within the non-discrimination law. In May 1997, Maine approved an anti-discrimination law based on sexual orientation, but this law was repealed in a special election in February 1998. Then in November 2000, by the smallest of margins, Maine voters failed to ratify a second anti-discrimination law that had been approved by the legislature.

Does it also protect people perceived of as LGBTQ+?

Yes. The non-discrimination law specifically covers people who are perceived to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

What kinds of discrimination does the anti-discrimination law address?

The Maine law prohibits discrimination in:

Anstellung
Öffentliche Unterkünfte
Gehäuse
Credit and
Education (5 Me. Rev. Stat. sec. 4552 et seq.)

Are there other non-discrimination protections available in Maine?

Guardianship and Conservatorship

You are entitled to be represented by a lawyer in guardianship (care of your person) or conservatorship (care of your financial matters) cases. If you cannot afford one, Maine should provide one for you.

You have a right to notice of any guardianship or conservatorship proceedings involving yourself.

Even if you are under guardianship, you still have freedom of religion and the right to maintain your religious practice.

Social Security Benefits

The Social Security Administration (SSA) now recognizes marriages of same-sex couples for Social Security benefits, Medicare entitlement, and eligibility and payment amounts for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments. In Maine, registered domestic partners are entitled to the same benefits as spouses

Health Care Proxy

You can designate who you want to make your financial decisions in case you are unable to make them. This is called a healthcare proxy.

Power of Attorney

Sie können bestimmen, wer Ihre finanziellen Entscheidungen treffen soll, falls Sie dazu nicht in der Lage sind. Dies wird als Vorsorgevollmacht bezeichnet.

Der Blog

Heim » Maine » Page 7

Celebrating Historic LGBTQ+ Representation in the 2022 Elections

While we don’t know the full results from Tuesday’s midterm elections yet, we know there are many things to celebrate, including the historic representation of LGBTQ+ elected officials. We are celebrating:

Maura Healey was elected the first out lesbian governor in the country, as well as the first woman governor in Massachusetts.
Oregon’s Tina Kotek was voted in as the nation’s second openly lesbian governor.
Andrea Campbell won a historic victory as the first Black woman Attorney General in Massachusetts.
Vermont has elected its first LGBTQ+ legislator – and first woman – to Congress in Representative-Elect Becca Balint.
California Representative-Elect Robert Garcia became the first openly gay immigrant elected to Congress. He is the third openly gay representative elected to Congress from California.
Montana and Minnesota elected their first transgender state representatives: Zooey Zephyr in Montana and Leigh Finke in Minnesota.
New Hampshire Representative-Elect James Roesener became the first transgender man ever elected to a state legislature.
Minnesota elected Alicia Kozlowski, the first nonbinary member in the state legislature.

Along with so many firsts, voters supported a number of positive ballot measures:

Five states voted to protect access to abortion: California, Michigan, Vermont, Kentucky, and Montana.
Vermont, along with Alabama, Oregon, and Tennessee, passed constitutional amendments banning slavery and involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime.
In a crucial win for voting rights, Michigan and Connecticut expanded early voting.
In Massachusetts, voters upheld a law that protects access to driver’s licenses for all people who live in the Commonwealth, regardless of immigration status.

Celebrating our victories fuels our hope, and our hope will sustain us in our work for justice.

The path to protecting democracy and truly fulfilling the promise of freedom, equality, and justice for all is long. It extends beyond any one election cycle. This election held some good news and some setbacks, but we must all stay engaged every day for the long term. With you by our side, GLAD will be here to keep fighting every day and every step of the way.

Nachricht

Heim » Maine » Page 7

The investigation adds to years of evidence that Maine is institutionalizing children with disabilities, instead of providing necessary supports in the community.

An investigation into Maine’s children’s behavioral health system by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) finds statewide failures that create a significant risk of segregating and institutionalizing children with disabilities, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Department of Justice issued its findings on the 23rd anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision Olmstead v. L.C., which found that unnecessarily segregating people with disabilities into institutional settings violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. Yet, the DOJ investigation abgeschlossen that “Maine unnecessarily segregates children with mental health and/or developmental disabilities, in psychiatric hospitals, residential treatment facilities, and a state-operated juvenile detention facility.” In the findings letter, DOJ concluded that:

“Maine’s community-based behavioral health system fails to provide sufficient services. As a result, hundreds of children are unnecessarily segregated in institutions each year, while other children are at serious risk of entering institutions.”
“Children are unable to access behavioral health services in their homes and communities—services that are part of an existing array of programs that the State advertises to families through its Medicaid program (MaineCare), but does not make available in a meaningful or timely manner.”
“Maine children with behavioral health needs are eligible and appropriate for the range of community-based services the State offers, but either remain in segregated settings or are at serious risk of institutionalization.”
“Families and children in Maine are overwhelmingly open to receiving services in integrated settings. In fact, parents indicated a strong preference that their children receive services at home due to trauma, neglect, and abuse that their children reportedly endured in residential facilities within and outside of Maine.”

The significant deficiencies highlighted by DOJ are the result of years of disinvestment in Maine’s children’s behavioral health system. In response to these deficiencies, a coalition of organizations – Disability Rights Maine, ACLU of Maine, GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) and the Center for Public Representation – have been working together to advocate for concrete and urgent reforms at the state level. The coalition has expressed its serious concerns about the state’s failure to provide critical behavioral health services in children’s homes and communities, and is in active discussions with the state about specific ways Maine can improve and build on its existing services. The following statements can be attributed as noted: Carol Garvan, Legal Director, ACLU of Maine “All children should have the opportunity to lead rich, full lives in their communities. The state must provide critical community-based behavioral health services to make that a reality. Because the state has disinvested in its children’s behavioral health system for years, we are unnecessarily putting children with disabilities into institutions — in prison, in emergency rooms, in psychiatric facilities. This kind of segregation violates the basic right of children with disabilities to be free from discrimination.” Atlee Reilly, Legal Director, Disability Rights Maine “Despite years of notice, Maine has not yet come to terms with the scope of the problem it faces, the significant harm being done to a generation of youth and families, and the enormous future costs that will continue to mount unless the longstanding deficiencies in the children’s behavioral health system are addressed with the urgency required. Maine must turn away from expensive and ineffective institutional solutions and toward a system that supports youth in their homes and communities.” Mary L. Bonauto, Civil Rights Project Director, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) “Young people have limitless potential when they receive the care and support they need. Maine’s longstanding failure to provide the full measure of needed mental and behavioral health care services is no secret. As the Department of Justice report states in its Findings Letter of June 22, 2022, this has led to an emphasis on confinement in institutions, including residential facilities, psychiatric hospitals and Long Creek, a juvenile detention facility, rather than with families in homes and communities. This is a solvable crisis, and now is the time to do so.” Steven Schwartz, Legal Director, Center for Public Representation “Children and youth thrive when they grow up in their homes, stay in their communities, and remain near their friends and neighbors. Removing them to distant institutions is expensive, unnecessary, and simply harmful. Several other states, including neighboring Massachusetts and Rhode Island, have created a comprehensive system of intensive home-based services that allow children to receive needed treatment while remaining with their families and in their neighborhood schools. Maine needs to do the same.” HINTERGRUND The state is on notice about the significant failures in its children’s behavioral health system, which primarily serves low-income children who are eligible for MaineCare. An independent assessment of the system in 2018 identified many of the same deficiencies as the DOJ investigation, finding that children’s behavioral health services were not available when needed, or not available at all. A separate independent assessment of the juvenile justice system in 2020 found that many youth are detained and incarcerated at Long Creek because they couldn’t access appropriate community-based services for their behavioral and mental health needs. Because of years of disinvestment, conditions on the ground for youth and families have continued to deteriorate. Community-based services — such as access to behavioral health providers in home and at school — are unavailable for many youth when and where they need them. When the state fails to meet children’s mental and behavioral health needs, their situation is more likely to escalate into a crisis. This leads to the unnecessary institutionalization of children in emergency departments, in psychiatric facilities, and in prison. As a result, Maine youth are separated from their communities and families and sent to institutions far from their homes. Maine youth are stuck in hospitals, emergency departments and crisis units for long periods of time because the services needed to support a safe discharge home are not available. And Maine continues to put children in prison because the state is failing to provide these youth with appropriate community-based services.

Nachricht

Heim » Maine » Page 7

“The model transgender nondiscrimination policy and public statement embracing transgender residents set a clear example for how such facilities can and should operate with respect to transgender older adults.” – Chris Erchull, GLAD Staff Attorney

Marie King, a 79-year-old transgender woman, and Sunrise Assisted Living have reached a landmark settlement in a case at the Maine Human Rights Commission involving discrimination in access to Sunrise’s facility in Jonesport, Maine. Ms. King was denied a room at the facility because she is transgender. The Commission, which is also a party to the agreement, approved the terms of the settlement at its meeting today.

Under the terms of the settlement Adult Family Care Homes of Maine (AFCH), which operates Sunrise and eight other facilities in the state, will adopt a comprehensive transgender nondiscrimination policy. Additionally, all employees and administrators at all nine facilities will attend LGBT-competency training provided by SAGECare, the leading such training provider for agencies serving older adults. AFCH will also prominently post a transgender nondiscrimination statement on the company’s website.

“I’m thrilled to see this positive outcome,” said Ms. King. “I believe the new policies will keep others from experiencing mistreatment and will help people understand that transgender people are only seeking to be treated with dignity and respect like anyone else.”

Erfahren Sie mehr über den Fall

The nondiscrimination statement on AFCH’s website will state that all AFCH facilities provide “a welcoming and inclusive environment for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender residents” and specifically that staff will “treat transgender individuals in accordance with their gender identity in all aspects of admissions, placement, and programming.”

In addition, AFCH is adopting a model nondiscrimination Policy. The Policy provides that AFCH facilities “will treat applicants who are transgender and provide its living and support services to people who are transgender in accordance with their gender identity,” and specifically that “[p]lacement of an applicant/resident in a shared room setting that is separated by sex shall be made based upon the applicant/resident’s gender identity, not their assigned sex at birth.” The Policy emphasizes that “[t]ransgender women will be respected fully as women and treated the same as other women in the facility,” and provides that harassment based on gender identity or transgender status – as with any other protected class – is prohibited and staff must intervene to stop it if it does occur.

“Anyone who needs access to a long-term care facility, including transgender people, should be welcomed with dignity, compassion and respect,” said Chris Erchull, staff attorney at GLAD. “The settlement with Adult Family Care Homes of Maine addresses the profound harm Marie experienced in being turned away because of who she is. The model transgender nondiscrimination Policy and public statement embracing transgender residents set a clear example for how such facilities can and should operate with respect to transgender older adults.”

In the spring of 2021, a social worker at Pen Bay Medical Center contacted Sunrise on behalf of Ms. King, who at the time was a patient at the hospital. The facility initially said there was a room available, but upon learning that Ms. King is transgender Sunrise informed the hospital they would not admit her because she requested to reside in a room with a female roommate.

On March 14, the Maine Human Rights Commission issued a finding of reasonable grounds that in turning Ms. King away the facility discriminated against her in access to housing and a place of public accommodation on the basis of her gender identity, transgender status, and her sex, all protected under the Maine Human Rights Act. The Commission’s action followed an investigation in the discrimination complaint filed on behalf of Ms. King by GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), the first known discrimination complaint filed in the U.S. by a transgender older adult against a long-term care facility.

“The settlement in Ms. King’s case sends an unmistakable message that transgender older adults should be treated with dignity and respect when seeking long-term care services,” said GLAD senior attorney Ben Klein. “The joint resolution between the parties and the Maine Human Rights Commission makes clear that discriminating against an applicant because they are transgender violates the law, and the nondiscrimination Policy and LGBT-competency training required by this settlement are models for facilities across Maine and the nation to follow.”

In einem joint statement, AFCH and GLAD expressed their hope that the positive resolution of this matter “will lead long-term care facilities across the country to adopt policies that ensure transgender older adults, indeed all older adults, will be treated with dignity and respect.”

“This agreement reinforces a core value shared by those who provide long-term care: that all of us are entitled to dignity and respect as we age,” added GLAD Civil Rights Project Director and Maine Attorney Mary Bonauto. “That is all Marie and other transgender older adults are asking for and it is what our laws require.”

In addition to this case, the federal Department of Health and Human Services has a pending investigation of Sunrise’s actions here under the sex discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act.

Erfahren Sie mehr über den Fall

Pride 2022 Events

Heim » Maine » Page 7

Join GLAD and LGBTQIA+ organizers in celebrating this Pride season across the New England region. From festivals to marches, there are a host of local events to attend and celebrate with the community!

The Trans Pride by Transgender Emergency Fund
June 4, 11am-3pm
City Hall Plaza
Boston, MA
Mehr erfahren

Provincetown Pride & WOC weekend
June 3-June 5, 6:30pm-9:30pm
Provincetown, MA
Mehr erfahren

Boston Dyke March
June 10, 6:30pm-9:30pm
Parkman Bandstand On Boston Common
Boston, MA
Mehr erfahren

Boston Pop-Up Pride
June 12, 11am-5pm
The Boston Common
Boston, MA
Mehr erfahren

Stolz auf Rhode Island
June 18, 12pm
Providence Innovation District Park
Providence, Rhode Island
Mehr erfahren

Trans Resistance March & Festival for Black Trans Lives
June 25, 12pm – 5pm
Franklin Park Playstead, Pierpont Rd
Boston, MA
Mehr erfahren

Nashua Pride Festival
June 25, 2pm-6pm
229 Main Street
Nashua, NH
Mehr erfahren

Boston Urban Pride Weekend
June 30-July 3
Boston, MA
Mehr erfahren