Statement of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders Executive Director Janson Wu on Trump’s Rush to Fill Justice Ginsburg’s Supreme Court Seat
With today’s announced nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to fill the seat on the U.S. Supreme Court left open by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg just one week ago, President Trump is rushing forward with a process that will only create more polarization and division in our country and damage the credibility of the Court.
While it is the purview of the president to nominate a justice, and of the Senate to confirm, it is also the design of our democracy that the American people have a say in that choice through the regular election of the president and the members of the Senate. Voting is already under way in this election and the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice should be made by the next President.
The decision of who will take a lifetime seat on our nation’s highest court is of critical importance to all of us, and the U.S. Senate has a responsibility to vet in exacting detail anyone who seeks that role, whether it is Amy Coney Barrett or someone else. This is not a process that should be rushed through for political gain.
Justice Ginsburg leaves a legacy of integrity, disciplined legal thinking, and a conviction that our Constitution is there to protect the rights of all. The next Associate Justice to take her seat should share that commitment to moving us closer to the nation of equals we aspire to be.
GLAD Statement on the Indictment Decision in the Death of Breonna Taylor
GLAD joins with all who are grieving, angry and calling for justice following yesterday’s news of the indictment decision in the death of Breonna Taylor.
Breonna Taylor should be alive, working at her job as an EMT, and looking forward to time with family and loved ones. Our hearts are with her family and community as they now must experience the anguish of yesterday’s decision while grieving her death.
Breonna Taylor’s life as a Black woman mattered. We must continue to push for change in our systems of justice, policing, and all systems that continue to target Black people until the truth that all Black lives matter is embraced, uncontested, and fully realized throughout our society.
Yesterday we lost a phenomenal human, a pathbreaking woman, a feminist hero, and a stalwart champion of justice for all.
I’m heartbroken at the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as I know you are too. And I’m so grateful for the life she lived and for the extraordinary work she did in that lifetime.
And as we mourn her loss and celebrate her incredible legacy, all of us who care about justice and democracy must also fight like hell to defend and expand that legacy.
Justice Ginsburg blazed a trail for gender justice and the equal treatment of women and LGBTQ people. And in her 27 years of service on our nation’s highest court she held steadily to a conviction that our Constitution is there to protect the rights of all, especially those who are vulnerable to the whims of the powerful.
As a lawyer Ginsburg set a shining example of what it means to advocate fiercely for those who have been left out of the protections of the law. She inspired countless others to fight for justice – including all of us at GLAD.
It’s that inspiration that we must follow now.
It’s time for every one of us to act.
Ginsburg told her granddaughter her dying wish was that she not be replaced on the Court until the next presidential term begins.
Justice Ginsburg fought every day of her life to move our country closer to being the nation of equals we aspire to be. We owe it to her, to our country, and to ourselves to keep up her fight in every way we can.
GLAD Mourns the Passing and Celebrates the Legacy of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Statement of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders Executive Director Janson Wu:
Today we have lost a phenomenal human, a pathbreaking woman, and a stalwart champion of justice. As an attorney Ruth Bader Ginsburg blazed a trail for gender justice and the equal treatment of women, and set a shining example of what it means to advocate fiercely for those who have been left out of the protections of the law. As a Justice on our nation’s highest court for 27 years she held steadily to a conviction that our Constitution is there to protect the rights of all, especially those who are vulnerable to the whims of the powerful. She recognized the humanity and dignity of LGBTQ people long before a majority of colleagues on the Court did. And she did all of this with compassion, brilliance, and a keen sense of humor.
As our nation mourns her passing and recognizes her extraordinary legacy, we must also honor her dying wish that no move be made to replace her on the Court until the next presidential term begins. We owe her and our country that much, for her incredible contribution to moving us closer to the nation of equals we aspire to be.
Once again, the Trump administration is attacking LGBTQ people.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has proposed a new rule that would dismantle equal access protections for transgender people who seek shelter services. If the proposed rule goes into effect, taxpayer-funded shelters would be able to turn away transgender and non-binary people.
This rule change would hurt transgender and non-binary people, and it will hit BIPOC and disabled people the hardest. According to the 2015 US Transgender Survey, nearly one-third of transgender and gender non-binary people experience homelessness at some point in their life; and about one-half of transgender and non-binary people who identify as Black, Middle Eastern, multiracial, or undocumented experience homelessness at some point in their life.
Gutting discrimination protections would be dangerous and unjust at any time, but during the COVID-19 crisis the effects are immediate and clear. People who need shelter access often are connected to individual housing through shelters, and that is the best way to prevent exposure and spread of COVID-19. And as eviction moratoriums begin to expire around the country, the need for safe and healthy shelter is only likely to increase. Especially during this crisis, we need more access to shelters for as many people as possible, not less.
GLAD and Other LGBTQ Organizations Urge Supreme Court Not to Upend Settled and Vital Nondiscrimination Protections
GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, joined by 27 other national, regional and state LGBTQ advocacy organizations, filed a amicus curiae Schriftsatz August 20 urging the U.S. Supreme Court not to create a broad Constitutional exemption to nondiscrimination laws that would undermine equal protection guarantees and introduce a dangerous and unworkable scheme into local, state and federal lawmaking.
The brief was filed in support of the City of Philadelphia in Fulton gegen City of Philadelphia. In 2018, the city suspended a contract with Catholic Social Services (“CSS”) to provide foster care placement services because the agency refused to work with married same-sex couples and unmarried couples in violation of Philadelphia’s nondiscrimination ordinance. CSS filed suit, asserting that the requirement to comply with the nondiscrimination law violated its religious liberty rights and seeking an injunction ordering the city to grant CSS a contract in accordance with the terms CSS desired. Lower courts denied the request for an injunction, ruling that the city was within its rights to require any agency with which it contracts to comply with the law.
Were the Supreme Court to side with CSS, it could create a broad exemption from nondiscrimination laws that extends not only to any religiously-based entity that receives taxpayer funding to provide government-contracted services, but potentially to any individual government employee or private entity that claims religious belief as a reason not to comply with the law. Such a rule would invite increased discrimination against LGBTQ people as well as people of color, women, and members of minority faiths.
“Religious belief is protected in our laws and Constitution and it is due respect,” said Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director. “However, the breadth of the exemption being sought by CSS in Fulton would take our nation backwards. It would allow individual religious disapproval to work its way back into lawmaking – a situation that is contrary to the promise of equal protection for all embedded in our Constitution, and one that the American people and two decades of Supreme Court precedent have already rejected.”
Most immediately in the child welfare context, the rule CSS seeks would further stigmatize both LGBTQ parents and LGBTQ youth impacted by the child welfare system. It could, however, stretch far beyond that to introduce discrimination in other vital government services including care facilities for children, seniors, or those who are severely disabled, substance use disorder treatment programs, food and clothing banks and more.
Such a rule could also dangerously extend to individual government or healthcare workers, who could be permitted to rely on individual religious beliefs to turn away or deny services to LGBTQ people from medical treatment to social security benefits. A hospital worker who disapproves of same-sex relationships could attempt to bar a spouse or child from visiting a sick or injured loved one in the hospital.
The LGBTQ organization’s brief chronicles the growing recognition and inclusion of LGBTQ people as equal citizens and full participants in American society over time, both through the democratic process and through the force of over two decades of Supreme Court precedent – from Romer (1996) and Lawrence (2003), to Windsor (2013), Obergefell (2015), Meisterwerk-Kuchen (2018) and most recently Bostock (2020). It highlights the dangerous reversal at stake in the rule sought by CSS that would deny the full promise of liberty and equality to LGBTQ people as well as other Americans who already face harsh barriers to equity and equality.
The brief, filed by GLAD and Goodwin on behalf of GLAD, BiLaw, Equality Federation, Freedom for All Americans, Human Rights Campaign, Movement Advancement Project, National Black Justice Coalition, National Equality Action Team, Transgender Law Center, Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, Basic Rights Oregon, Equality Florida Institute, Inc., Equality Illinois, Equality Maine, Equality Ohio, Equality Utah, Equality Virginia, Fair Wisconsin, Fairness Campaign, FreeState Justice – Maryland’s LGBTQ Advocates, Georgia Equality, Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition, MassEquality, Montana Gender Alliance, OutFront Minnesota, OutNebraska, and the Tennessee Equality Project, is hier erhältlich.
Der Fall des Hospizpflegers Alexander Pangborn stellt die neue „1557“-Regel in Frage
Alexander Pangborn ist Pfleger in einem Hospiz in West-Massachusetts. Er liebt seinen Job und die Patienten und Familien, die er täglich betreut. Umso erschütterter war Alexander, als er erfuhr, dass sein Arbeitgeber ihm nicht die gleichen Leistungen der Krankenversicherung gewährte wie seinen Kollegen. Während er sich mit seinem Arzt auf eine medizinisch notwendige geschlechtsangleichende Operation vorbereitete, erfuhr Alexander, dass sein Arbeitgeber jegliche Leistungen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschlechtsumwandlung pauschal ausschloss. „Neben dem Stress, nicht die medizinische Behandlung zu bekommen, die ich brauche, fühlte ich mich durch die Verweigerung als Mitarbeiter und als Mensch abgewertet“, sagt Alexander. „Ich gebe mein Bestes in meinem Job und zahle in dasselbe System wie alle meine Kollegen ein, um medizinisch versorgt zu werden, aber mein Arbeitgeber sagte, meine Krankenversicherung sei nicht notwendig.“
Alexander Pangborn (links) und seine Frau Katherine
GLAD reichte Klage ein, Pangborn gegen Ascend, in Alexanders Namen vor einem Bundesgericht in West-Massachusetts. In der Klage wird behauptet, dass Alexanders Arbeitgeber ihn aufgrund seines Geschlechts und seines Transgender-Status diskriminiere, indem er ihn anders behandle – ihm nicht dieselben Leistungen biete wie anderen Arbeitnehmern – weil er ein Transgender-Mann ist. Dies verstoße gegen die Antidiskriminierungsbestimmungen des Affordable Care Act sowie gegen das Arbeitsrecht von Massachusetts und des Bundes. Abschnitt 1557 des ACA verbietet Diskriminierung beim Zugang zur Gesundheitsversorgung und bei der Versicherung aufgrund des Geschlechts sowie der Rasse, Hautfarbe, nationalen Herkunft, des Alters und einer Behinderung. Am 12. Juni formalisierte das Bundesgesundheitsministerium die Behauptung der Trump-Regierung, Abschnitt 1557 schütze Transgender-Personen nicht, trotz mehrerer Gerichtsurteile und der früheren Auslegung des HHS, dass die Bestimmung gegen geschlechtsspezifische Diskriminierung auch auf den Transgender-Status anwendbar sei. „Die neue Regel 1557 der Trump-Regierung widerspricht dem ACA“, sagte Jennifer Levi, Projektleiterin für Transgender-Rechte bei GLAD. „Es ist ein weiterer herzloser und gefährlicher Angriff auf Transgender wie Alexander, die zu den gleichen Bedingungen wie alle anderen Zugang zu medizinisch notwendiger Versorgung haben sollten. Und es widerspricht der etablierten Rechtsprechung, einschließlich des jüngsten Urteils des Obersten Gerichtshofs im Zusammenhang mit dem Arbeitsrecht, das vollkommen klarstellt, dass Diskriminierung aufgrund des Geschlechts per Definition Diskriminierung aufgrund des Transgender-Status einschließt.“ Während Alexanders Klage vor Gericht weitergeht, wird sie die Rechtmäßigkeit von Trumps Aufhebung des Gesundheitsschutzes für Transgender unter dem ACA auf die Probe stellen. „Alexander Pangborn ist ein Hospizpfleger, der seine Patienten und deren Familien jeden Tag mitfühlend pflegt, und doch wurde ihm der Zugang zu der Gesundheitsversorgung verweigert, die er selbst benötigt“, sagt Chris Erchull, GLAD-Rechtsanwalt, der Pangborn vertritt. „Wir kämpfen an der Seite von Alexander, um der diskriminierenden Praxis ein Ende zu setzen, die Übergangsversorgung von Krankenversicherungsplänen auszuschließen.“
klicken Sie hier um mehr zu erfahren und die gesamte Sommerausgabe 2020 der GLAD Briefs zu lesen.
The United States Supreme Court will hear the case of Fulton gegen City of Philadelphia during its next term (which begins in October 2020). The case arose after the City of Philadelphia stopped referring children to Catholic Social Services (CSS) for foster-care placements because the agency refused to work with same-sex couples, thus violating the City’s nondiscrimination ordinance as well as the terms of its contract with the City. CSS sued the city, claiming, among other things, that the City’s actions violated its rights of free exercise of religion. Seeking an injunction against the City, CSS lost in the federal trial court and then again on appeal. With the Supreme Court granting review, Fulton is poised to be a landmark case on the question of whether religiously-operated social welfare agencies that receive taxpayer dollars under contracts with the government can nonetheless be exempt from having to comply with nondiscrimination laws.
So many people rely on government-funded entities like CSS to fulfill essential needs — for food, housing, health care, and more. Fulton could lay the foundation for the reversal of protections on which the most vulnerable in our community rely to ensure equal access to goods and services. For example, a decision in favor of CSS could be relied upon by a religiously-operated homeless shelter to turn away anyone who does not fit within the shelter’s religious beliefs, including LGBTQ people in need.
There is a possibility that a decision in the Fulton case could come to mean that nearly any religious entity, or even a private company asserting its religious beliefs, would have permission to refuse to serve or work with anyone simply because of who they are. It could also require the government at all levels to fund discriminatory groups. That’s why GLAD will be working this summer to prepare and file an amicus brief in support of the City of Philadelphia’s position that its actions with respect to CSS were wholly in accord with a proper view of the law.
klicken Sie hier um mehr zu erfahren und die gesamte Sommerausgabe 2020 der GLAD Briefs zu lesen.
On June 15, 2020 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in Bostock gegen Clayton County that the protections against sex discrimination in federal employment law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender status.The decision immediately secured critical workplace nondiscrimination protections for nearly four million LGBTQ people living in the 29 U.S. states without express protections under state law.
Arriving at this landmark decision was decades in the making, as more and more courts over time have come to understand that it is impossible to discriminate against a person because they are LGBTQ without discriminating because of the person’s sex.
The three cases considered by the Supreme Court and decided together in Bostock were brought by Gerald Bostock, who was fired when his employer found out he joined a gay softball team; by the family of Don Zarda, who lost his job as a skydiving instructor when he told a client he was gay to make her more comfortable with the proximity needed for a joint dive; and by Aimee Stephens, a skilled, long-time funeral home director who was fired when she came out as transgender. Sadly neither Don nor Aimee lived to see the outcome of their cases. The queer community assuredly owes them both, and Gerald, a debt of gratitude. Their courage and determination, along with that of the many other LGBTQ people who brought cases in lower courts before them, brought about this important victory.
Dee Farmer: An Early Transgender Rights Hero
Aimee Stephens’ case marks only the second time the Supreme Court has ruled in a case brought by a transgender plaintiff. The first case was one decided in 1994, when Dee Farmer, an African-American transgender woman won the right to bring an Eighth Amendment claim against prison officials after she suffered a brutal sexual assault while incarcerated, an assault that prison guards witnessed and allowed to happen. Dee’s case set the standard under the Eighth Amendment for prison officials’ liability for the damages incurred from such an assault. Aimee Stephens joins Dee Farmer as a transgender hero.
Der Bostock ruling was remarkable in its clarity and simplicity. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, says plainly that a person’s sexual orientation or transgender status can only be understood in relationship to their sex, and that this conclusion “has been standing before us all along.” The ruling also notes: “To refuse enforcement just because the parties before us happened to be unpopular at the time of the law’s passage… would tilt the scales of justice in favor of the strong or popular and neglect the promise that all persons are entitled to the benefit of the law’s terms.”
The impact of these cases — that LGBTQ people nationwide, have protections from discrimination in the workplace — is huge in and of itself. But the Court’s determination that anti-LGBTQ discrimination is “necessarily” based on sex has far reaching implications for other critical areas in which federal law also prohibits sex discrimination. These include healthcare, housing, and education — all areas in which the Trump administration has sought to reverse protections for LGBTQ people. The crystal clear reasoning in Bostock provides a strong legal basis to challenge those attempts. It also boosts challenges to other anti-LGBTQ Trump policies, including the transgender military ban which GLAD continues to fight in court.
Litigation establishing the Bostock analysis in other areas will take time, of course. Federal and many state laws still leave too many LGBTQ people and others unprotected in critical areas of life, including access to public places like stores or public transportation as well as in vital federally-funded social services. GLAD’s work is far from done. But the Bostock ruling is truly a cause for celebration as we continue fighting to ensure discrimination is off limits in every arena, and that the words of our civil rights statutes have meaning and real-world impacts for all Americans.
GLAD plaintiffs on why employment protections matter
Diana Smithson und Jacqueline Cote. Foto: 777 Portraits Myrtle Beach, SC
“The company I worked for (Walmart) always touted itself as diverse, inclusive, and like a family. At first, I believed it was true. All that changed when I was told I couldn’t add my legal wife to my medical insurance. There’s absolutely no reason that who a person loves and shares their life with should give employers an opportunity to treat them differently than any other person.”
“I know what it’s like to be told I can’t do a job I’m qualified for just because I’m transgender. This ruling is an important step to ensure LGBTQ people can do what we all want: to work hard, support ourselves and our families, and contribute to our communities. Especially now when so many have lost jobs and are struggling, the last thing we should be doing is erecting barriers that keep people who want to work and contribute from doing so. It only hurts our communities and our national security when we allow bias to keep qualified, dedicated people from doing their jobs.”
– Nic Talbott, plaintiff, Stockman gegen Trump, challenging the transgender military ban.
Alexander Pangborn (right) with his wife Katherine
“Employment discrimination is wrong, no matter the reason. If I am qualified to do the job and perform to the best of my ability, the fact that I am transgender should have no impact on my job security or being treated as an equal to my colleagues. There are far too many people living in areas of our country that have little to no protections for LGBTQ employees. The decision from the Supreme Court recognizes that a person’s gender identity or sexual orientation is not an excuse for employers to discriminate and provides protections at a federal level.”
GLAD, together with national, state, and local civil rights and healthcare organizations, submitted an amicus brief to the Second Circuit Court in State of New York v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and consolidated cases challenging the Department’s “denial of care” regulation.
The new regulation eliminates protections that have advanced access to healthcare for LGBTQ people, inviting discrimination and worsening barriers LGBTQ people already face in healthcare settings.
Der Oberste Gerichtshof wurde gebeten, die Frage der Ehegleichheit zu überdenken – doch die Argumente sind schwach und das Gesetz ist eindeutig auf unserer Seite. Erfahren Sie mehr und kennen Sie Ihre Rechte.
Deutsch 
Español de México 
Português 
简体中文 
香港中文 
Français 
Tiếng Việt 
العربية 
Polski 
Русский 
Kreyòl Ayisyen