National/Federal Know Your Rights - Page 51 of 59 - GLAD Law
Accéder au contenu
GLAD Logo Passer à la navigation principale vers le contenu

Nouvelles

(Washington, DC, October 6, 2014)—The United States Supreme Court today declined to review the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down Utah’s marriage ban for same-sex couples, thereby permitting that decision to stand, as well as a similar decision from Oklahoma. The Court also denied review of decisions by the Fourth and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeals, which had struck down marriage bans in Virginia, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

By denying review of the Kitchen v. Herbert case, the Court let stand the June 2014 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that found Utah’s ban on marriages by same-sex couples unconstitutional. Today’s decision means that same-sex couples in Utah, Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas and Wyoming—all in the Tenth Circuit—have a constitutionally protected right to marry and to have their marriages treated equally.

The plaintiff couples in the Utah case are Kody Partridge and Laurie Wood, Derek Kitchen and Moudi Sbeity, and Kate Call and Karen Archer. The couples are represented by Peggy Tomsic of the Salt Lake City law firm Magleby & Greenwood, P.C., Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), Mary Bonauto of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), and former acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal of the law firm Hogan Lovells.

“We are thrilled by today’s decision, which means that same-sex couples are now equal citizens of this state,” said Derek Kitchen. “We are honored to be part of this historic moment and to know that as a result of today’s decision by the Supreme Court, never again will same-sex couples and their families be subjected to the discrimination and indignity that has caused so much harm to so many children and families over the years in Utah. This is a great day, and we are grateful to everyone who worked so hard to make it possible.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision today is a long-awaited victory not only for the courageous couples who brought this case, but for the entire state,” said Tomsic. “By allowing the Tenth Circuit’s ruling to stand, the Supreme Court has ensured that same-sex couples and their families in Utah will be treated equally and can have the same protection and stability that other families enjoy.”

Minter, who serves as NCLR legal director, said: “This is a huge step forward for Utah and the entire country. We are hopeful that the other cases pending across the country will also vindicate the freedom to marry so that all couples, no matter where they travel or live, will be treated as equal citizens and have the same basic security and protections for their families that other Americans enjoy.”

Added Bonauto: “This is fantastic news for the citizens of Utah and the 10 other states who are no longer denied the ability to marry or respect for their marriages.  It is also a powerful signal to the many other courts considering the issue that there is no reason to delay and perpetuate the harms to same-sex couples around the nation.”

Kitchen was the first federal district court victory in a marriage equality case after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor, and the first such victory in a federal court of appeals. Since then, three other federal appeals courts also ruled in favor of the freedom to marry for same-sex couples.

Nouvelles

Il existe des lois anti-discrimination à l'emploi, tant au niveau des États qu'au niveau fédéral, qui protègent les employés victimes de discrimination en raison de certaines caractéristiques. En Nouvelle-Angleterre, toutes les lois anti-discrimination à l'emploi des États prévoient explicitement la protection de l'orientation sexuelle et, à l'exception du New Hampshire, de l'identité de genre. La loi fédérale anti-discrimination à l'emploi, appelée Titre VII, ne prévoit aucune protection explicite de l'orientation sexuelle ou de l'identité de genre. L'organisme fédéral chargé de recevoir les plaintes pour discrimination à l'emploi est la Commission pour l'égalité des chances en matière d'emploi (EEOC).

En 2012, l'EEOC a annoncé qu'elle accepterait les plaintes pour discrimination déposées par des employés transgenres, considérées comme une forme de discrimination sexuelle. Récemment, le commissaire de l'EEOC, Chai R. Feldblum, a publié une note clarifiant davantage les protections des employés LGBT. Le commissaire déclare : « Toute personne LGBT ayant subi une discrimination au travail fondée sur son orientation sexuelle ou son identité de genre peut porter plainte… pour discrimination sexuelle. Une plainte doit être déposée dans les 300 jours (ou parfois 180 jours) suivant la date de l'acte discriminatoire. »

L'EEOC considère la discrimination fondée sur l'identité de genre comme une forme de discrimination sexuelle et acceptera toutes les accusations de discrimination fondée sur l'orientation sexuelle et enquêtera sur elles afin de déterminer si elles constituent une allégation de discrimination sexuelle. Par exemple, une forme de discrimination sexuelle impliquant l'orientation sexuelle est le fait de supposer que les hommes et les femmes ne devraient être attirés sexuellement et épouser que des personnes de sexe différent.

Dans ce mémorandum, l'EEOC préconise également de modifier le Titre VII afin d'inclure à la fois l'orientation sexuelle et l'identité de genre comme caractéristiques protégées spécifiques parce que « . . . les lois sur les droits civiques qui explicitementprotéger les personnes LGBT augmentera visibilité concernant une telle protection, sera un dissuasif à la discrimination et fournira certitude que les tribunaux de tout le pays appliqueront les protections de ces lois pour les personnes LGBT. »

La loi sur la non-discrimination à l’emploi (ENDA), qui ajouterait des protections en matière d’orientation sexuelle et d’identité de genre au titre VII, a été présentée au Congrès à plusieurs reprises, mais n’a jamais été adoptée.

Vous pouvez consulter le mémorandum du commissaire Feldblum ici.

Si vous avez des questions ou souhaitez plus d'informations, veuillez contacter GLAD Answers par e-mail ou par chat en direct à www.GLADAnswers.org ou par téléphone au 800-455-GLAD (4523).

Tevyaw c. Colvin

Mise à jour: After a three-year-long battle, Deborah Tevyaw has finally received the Social Security survivor’s benefits she has been due since the death of her wife Patricia Baker in 2011. Over $30,000 in back benefits were paid to Deb on Monday, December 1, 2014, by SSA.

Read GLAD’s statement here.

Contexte de l'affaire

GLAD filed suit against the Social Security Administration (SSA) in U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, charging SSA with wrongfully denying survivor benefits to 56-year-old Deborah Tevyaw after the death of her wife, Patricia Baker.

Lire le complaint et attached exhibits.

Deb was married in Massachusetts in 2005 to Pat, a career Rhode Island corrections officer. Pat was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer and died in August 2011. Her final months were spent lobbying for marriage equality in Rhode Island, and trying to ensure Deb’s financial security. But SSA has repeatedly denied survivor benefits to Deb, who as a result has been living on virtually no income for more than three years.

Despite Deb’s valid marriage to Pat, Social Security initially refused in 2012 to provide Deb disabled widow’s benefits and a lump sum death payment, citing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). While Deb appealed this denial, she was living on a disability income of only $723 a month. She was forced to sell her home of 38 years, leaving her destitute and dependent on friends and family.

After DOMA was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2013, SSA continued to deny Deb’s appeal, claiming that the state of Rhode Island would not have recognized Deb and Pat’s marriage at the time of Pat’s death.

The complaint filed on Deb’s behalf asserts that Rhode Island would have recognized Pat and Deb as validly married at the time of Pat’s death in 2011.

“There is no doubt in our minds that Rhode Island would have recognized Pat and Deb as validly married at the time of Pat’s death in 2011, and that Social Security’s reading of the law is just plain wrong.” – Senior Staff Attorney Janson Wu

More about Deb and Pat’s Story:

Patricia Baker and Deborah Tevyaw Testify in Favor of Marriage Equality Before RI Senate Committee (Deseret News)

Cote c. Walmart

Le 15 mai 2017, un juge fédéral a approuvé le règlement du recours collectif $ de 7,5 millions de dollars entre Walmart et l'ancienne associée de Walmart, Jacqueline Cote, qui contestait l'absence d'avantages d'assurance maladie de Walmart pour les conjoints de même sexe des associés de Walmart avant 2014. En savoir plus.

GLAD et le co-conseiller du Washington Lawyers' Committee, Peter Romer-Friedman d'Outten & Golden LLP ont déposé une plainte collective contre Walmart, accusant le détaillant de discrimination à l'encontre des employés mariés à des conjoints de même sexe en refusant à leurs conjoints des prestations d'assurance maladie.

Le 22 décembre 2016, le tribunal de district présidant le recours collectif a accordé l'approbation préliminaire d'un règlement et a ordonné aux parties d'envoyer un avis aux membres du groupe de règlement afin qu'ils puissent en savoir plus sur le règlement et avoir la possibilité de soumettre des réclamations pour recevoir des paiements.

Un avis a été fourni aux membres du groupe le 23 janvier 2017. En savoir plus

Pour recevoir les paiements en vertu du règlement, les membres du groupe de règlement ont été invités à déposer des réclamations auprès de l’administrateur du règlement au plus tard le 20 mars 2017.

Ce recours collectif fait suite à une plainte déposée par GLAD au nom de Jackie auprès de la Commission pour l'égalité des chances en matière d'emploi (EEOC) en septembre 2014. Le 29 janvier 2014, l'EEOC a rendu une décision définitive déclarant que le traitement de Jackie par Walmart constituait une discrimination sexuelle illégale. Le 29 mai 2015, l'EEOC a émis une lettre de droit d'action.

En plus de GLAD, Outten & Golden LLP et du Washington Lawyers' Committee, Jacqueline Cote est représentée par Arnold and Porter LLP.

Diana Smithson et Jacqueline Côté. Photo : 777 Portraits, Myrtle Beach, Caroline du Sud.  Télécharger la photo

Nouvelles

John « Longjones » Abdallah Wambere, un éminent militant gay ougandais depuis plus de 17 ans, s’est vu recommander l’asile aux États-Unis. Dans une lettre datée du 11 septembre 2014Les services américains de citoyenneté et d'immigration ont informé Wambere que sa demande était recommandée pour approbation, dans l'attente d'un contrôle de sécurité de routine.

« Je suis bouleversée », a déclaré Wambere. « Je dois dire que j'ai de la chance, mais les histoires sont nombreuses. J'appelle tous ceux qui m'ont aidée à continuer de soutenir les personnes LGBTI du monde entier et tous les demandeurs d'asile aux États-Unis. Mes pensées vont à l'Ouganda ; je passe des nuits blanches à m'inquiéter pour ma communauté là-bas. »

La communauté LGBTI ougandaise a subi ces dernières années une intensification des attaques publiques, politiques et physiques, qui ont culminé avec l'adoption de la loi anti-homosexualité et sa promulgation le 24 février 2014 par le président Yoweri Museveni. Wambere, cofondateur de Spectrum Uganda Initiatives, est aux États-Unis depuis février et a déposé une demande d'asile le 6 mai 2014.

« Nous sommes ravis que John puisse poursuivre son important travail au nom de la communauté LGBTI ougandaise depuis les États-Unis, où il sera libre d'arrestations et d'incarcérations en raison de son orientation sexuelle et de son activisme audacieux », a déclaré Allison Wright, avocate du personnel de GLAD.

« Les États-Unis doivent continuer d'accorder l'asile aux personnes LGBTI du monde entier qui ne peuvent jouir des libertés les plus fondamentales dans leur pays d'origine et dont la vie est menacée simplement en raison de leur identité », a déclaré Janson Wu, avocat principal du GLAD. « L'asile est un système vital qui protège les membres vulnérables de la communauté LGBTI contraints de fuir des pays comme l'Ouganda, la Russie et la Jamaïque, où il est fondamentalement dangereux de s'exprimer. »


John « Long Jones » Abdallah Wambere avec les avocats de GLAD Janson Wu et Allison Wright,
et l'avocat Hema Sarang-Sieminksi

La loi anti-homosexualité criminalisait un large éventail d'infractions et imposait de lourdes peines allant de sept ans de prison à la réclusion à perpétuité. Elle a depuis été invalidée par la Cour constitutionnelle ougandaise pour des raisons techniques, mais les législateurs se sont engagés à la réintroduire et à l'adopter. Que les législateurs tiennent ou non leur promesse, l'homosexualité reste illégale en Ouganda en vertu de l'article 145 du Code pénal. Cet article, qui criminalise les « infractions contre nature », est en vigueur depuis les années 1950 et est toujours rigoureusement appliqué en Ouganda.

En Ouganda, Wambere a été dénoncé comme homosexuel par la presse, harcelé par des inconnus, menacé de mort par téléphone anonyme, arrêté, expulsé de son domicile et battu. En vertu de la loi anti-homosexualité, il aurait encouru la réclusion à perpétuité et risque toujours d'être arrêté s'il retournait en Ouganda, conformément à l'article 145 du Code pénal.

Le rapport sur les conditions du pays soumis avec la demande d'asile de Wambere peut être lu à l'adresse suivante : www.gladlaw.org/work/cases/in-re-wambere, ainsi que son affidavit expurgé.

Le sentiment homophobe en Ouganda a été alimenté par des évangéliques américains comme Scott Lively, qui s'est rendu dans le pays pour prêcher et promouvoir ce qu'on appelait à l'époque le projet de loi « Tuez les homosexuels », car il prévoyait la peine de mort, qui a ensuite été abrogée. Le 15 août 2014, un juge fédéral a statué dans cette affaire. Minorités sexuelles Ouganda c. Lively que Lively doit être jugé pour crimes contre l'humanité.

Des ressources pour les personnes LGBTI demandant l'asile aux États-Unis peuvent être trouvées en contactant www.GLADAnswers.org.

Outre GLAD, John Wambere est représenté par Hema Sarang-Sieminski du cabinet d'avocats Hema Sarang-Sieminksi.

GLAD’s National Marriage Work

Taking Marriage Over the Finish Line

GLAD Civil Rights Project Director Mary L. Bonauto argued before the U.S. Supreme Court April 28, 2015 on behalf of same-sex couples challenging their states’ marriage bans. She stood on behalf of petitioners April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse in the Michigan case DeBoer c. Snyder and Timothy Love, Lawrence Ysunza, Maurice Blanchard and Dominique James in the Kentucky case Love v. Beshear (joined with Bourke v. Beshear) and same-sex couples across the country.

June 26, 2015: Victory! In a blockbuster legal and cultural moment for the country, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples in the United States, no matter where they live, have the same legal right to marry as different-sex couples. En savoir plus

En savoir plus

Background: GLAD’s work for marriage in New England and beyond

GLAD won the first marriage state in Massachusetts in 2003 with our Goodridge case, and took part in winning every New England state by every conceivable method – ballotlegislation, et litigation. We laid the groundwork for the defeat of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in our cases Gill et Pedersen.

We developed unparalleled expertise in winning marriage, and helped our colleagues across the nation do the same. Since the Supreme Court struck down DOMA in June 2013 (Windsor), GLAD has remained steadfast in its commitment to ending marriage discrimination nationwide.

AMICUS WORK

GLAD also helped movement colleagues and private attorneys with their amicus strategies:

  • GLAD wrote an amicus brief at the request of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights and the ACLU on behalf of New Mexico civil rights groups in the case Griego v. Oliver in the New Mexico Supreme Court in September 2013.
  • GLAD led coordination of the amicus briefs in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals after trial court wins in Utah and Oklahoma. GLAD’s work in the 10th Circuit, the first federal appeals court to hear marriage cases post-Windsor, has streamlined the process for amici curiae filings in all of the other cases pending at a U.S. Court of Appeals.
  • GLAD has also played an extensive role in coordinating amis filings in the 4th (Virginia, Bostic v. Shaefer), 5th (Texas, DeLeon v. Perry), 6th (Michigan, DeBoer v. Snyder; Ohio, Obergefell v. Himes, Henry v. Himes; Tennessee, Tanco v. Haslam; Kentucky, Bourke v. Beshear) and 11th (Florida, Grimsley v. Scott et Brenner v. Armstrong) circuits.

GLAD’s Own Amici Slips

In virtually every federal appeal, GLAD filed its own amicus brief discussing “rational basis review.”

These briefs reinforce the government’s guarantee of equal protection and its promise of even-handedness when the rights of persons are at stake. We set forth the two elements of rational basis review:

  1. the government’s actions in classifying who can and cannot marry must be for “legitimate” reasons rather than because of stereotypes, prejudice or favoritism; and
  2. the classification system – who is in and who is out – must have a relationship to the government’s claimed objectives.

Under these standards, GLAD’s briefs demolish each rationale advanced by the states defending their marriage bans and the amicus briefs supporting the state’s positions.

GLAD’s briefs were authored with Wilmer Hale attorneys Paul Wolfson, Mark Fleming, Alan Schoenfeld, Felicia Ellsworth and Dina Mishra.

See our briefs in the 10th Circuit (Cuisine c. Herbert); the 4th Circuit (Bostic v. Shaefer); the 6th Circuit ) Obergefell v. Himes, Henry v. Himes, DeBoer c. Snyder, Bourke v. Beshear, Tanco v. Haslam); the 7th Circuit (Baskin v. Bogan); and the 5th Circuit (DeLeon v. Perry).
CONSULTING

GLAD consulted with attorneys around the nation about legal arguments and strategy in marriage and marriage recognition cases in both state and federal courts.

For example, we were on the ground when the Michigan case DeBoer c. Snyder went to trial, identifying and prepping expert witnesses and providing trial support to the legal team of private attorneys (Carole Stanyar, Kenneth Mogill, Dana Nessel and Robert Sedler).

Le judge found in favor of the couple, and the case was then heard on appeal (on August 6, 2014) at the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently issued a decision upholding bans on marriage for same-sex couples in Michigan as well as Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. The Supreme Court has now agreed to review all four cases this Term.

Nouvelles

In a letter to Congress on September 4, 2013, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that President Obama has directed the Executive Branc to take steps allowing for same-sex spouses of military veterans to collect federal benefits.

The Attorney General’s letter to Congress can be found ici.

Nouvelles

UTAH MARRIAGE EQUALITY PLAINTIFFS ASK U.S. SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW CASE

Update September 4, 2014: Three diverse voices – those of business, states, and family and equality groups – filed amici curiae briefs in the Cuisine c. Herbert cas. The briefs argue that the high court should take a case or cases in order to resolve the harm and discrimination imposed by marriage bans.

Original Story:

Today, the three couples challenging the State of Utah’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples asked the United States Supreme Court to accept the request of Utah state officials to review the case. In the brief filed today, the plaintiffs argue that Supreme Court review is required because same-sex couples in Utah and across the country urgently need to have the security of marriage wherever they work or travel to fully protect themselves and their families. The brief argues that only a Supreme Court decision affirming their right to marry and to have their marriages respected nationwide can resolve this fundamental inequality.

The plaintiff couples—Kody Partridge and Laurie Wood, Derek Kitchen and Moudi Sbeity, and Kate Call and Karen Archer—argue that state laws banning marriage equality violate the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process. The couples, who won favorable decisions from lower federal courts, asked the Supreme Court to review the case because the marriages of same-sex couples will not truly be equal unless they are respected throughout the country.

In their request, the couples say: “At stake in this case is the liberty of an entire class of Americans, who urgently need a ruling from this Court that they are able to marry and to have their marriages recognized on an equal basis with other citizens.  In the past year, lower courts around the country have correctly recognized that state laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying violate the Constitution. Yet because these rulings do not apply nationwide, same-sex couples continue to experience great uncertainty and serious harm. They cannot plan for their own and their children’s futures secure in the knowledge that states may not strip them of legal recognition of their familial relationships when they move or travel.”

The couples in the case—Cuisine c. Herbert—are represented by lead counsel  Peggy Tomsic of the Salt Lake City law firm of Magleby & Greenwood, P.C., Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), Mary Bonauto of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), and  former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal of the law firm of Hogan Lovells.

En savoir plus

Nouvelles

GLAD Civil Rights Project Director Mary Bonauto and Legal Director Gary Buseck have joined colleagues at the Centre national pour les droits des lesbiennes (NCLR) and Utah attorney Peggy Tomsic as counsel in their historic federal case representing same-sex couples seeking the freedom to marry in Utah.

Thanks to the Cuisine c. Herbert legal team’s adept strategy and tireless advocacy, the Utah case was the first federal district court victory striking down a state marriage ban since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down DOMA. It was also the first victory in a federal court of appeals.

And, it is now the first post-DOMA freedom to marry case that the U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to review.

“We are thrilled to work with our friends and colleagues at NCLR on this important case,” says Buseck. “GLAD has a long history of collaborating with NCLR, and we have enormous respect for their legal acumen and determination.”

Among countless other legal victories on behalf of the LGBT community, NCLR played a leading role in making California the second state in the country to win the freedom to marry, in 2008. Legal Director Shannon Minter argued the case in the California Supreme Court, which ruled that the California Constitution guarantees equal dignity to same-sex couples and their families, including the freedom to marry.

“We are also thrilled to be working shoulder to shoulder with lead counsel Peggy Tomsic of the Salt Lake City law firm of Magleby & Greenwood, P.C. who first filed and has so strategically handled this case,” Buseck adds.” Likewise, we are excited about working with the committed Supreme Court experts at the D.C. firm of Hogan Lovells.”

“The Kitchen team offers unparalleled experience and knowledge as the case heads to the Supreme Court for consideration. We hope to use what we’ve learned in our work for the freedom to marry across New England, and as part of the decades-long team effort to develop a national marriage strategy, to bring value to the Utah case and help bring marriage equality to every American.”

 

 

 

Want to Support This Work?

Your gift today will support GLAD’s work on this historic marriage case, and all our work for equal justice under law for the LGBT community and people living with HIV. Thank you!

Nouvelles

Every day we hear about LGBT people who are not treated equally on the job. We agree with the President that workers should be judged only by their ability to get the job done, but know that is not always the reality.

We applaud today’s executive order, which demonstrates a concrete commitment to nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It’s a step that will make the workplace better and fairer for LGBT employees, including the tens of thousands of federal employees in the New England states.

We are proud that New England has been a leader in establishing protections on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation and that, in the absence of broad federal protections, this executive order extends important protections for LGBT employees who work for federal contractors.

LGBT employees of the federal government or of federal contractors can contact GLADAnswers for information about their rights in the workplace, and to access information and resources: www.GLADAnswers.org.

fr_FRFrançais
Aperçu de la confidentialité

Ce site web utilise des cookies afin de vous offrir la meilleure expérience utilisateur possible. Les informations sur les cookies sont stockées dans votre navigateur et remplissent des fonctions telles que vous reconnaître lorsque vous revenez sur notre site web et aider notre équipe à comprendre les sections du site que vous trouvez les plus intéressantes et utiles.