Connecticut Know Your Rights - Page 11 of 12 - GLAD Law
Ale nan tèt la pou ale nan kontni an
GLAD Logo Sote Navigasyon Prensipal la pou ale nan Kontni

Nouvèl

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the full bulletin from the Connecticut Insurance Department isit la.

Nouvèl

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

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

Read the full press release here.

Nouvèl

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

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

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

CHRO ak Dana Peterson kont Vil Hartford

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

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

The Hartford Courant: Transgender Police Officer Still Fighting for Equality

Raftopol v. Ramey

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

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

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

Patino kont Birken Manufacturing Co.

GLAD ak Asosyasyon Avoka Travay Connecticut (CELA) bat bravo pou yon desizyon Lakou Siprèm Connecticut te pran nan dat 4 me 2012 ki di patwon yo ka responsab si yo pa pwoteje anplwaye yo kont arasman ki baze sou oryantasyon seksyèl. Nan Patino kont Konpayi fabrikasyon Birken (Dosye No. 18441), Tribinal la te konfime tou yon jijman jiri a ki te $95,000 an favè demandè Luis Patino.

Lè Patino t ap travay kòm mekanisyen pou defandè a, li te objè jouman toupatou pandan plizyè ane, tankou "mako go home," ak "mako get out of here." Li te sibi jouman an Angle, Panyòl ak Italyen, tankou "pato," "maricon," "pira," ak "homo." Lè Tribinal la te afime ke anplwaye yo ka pouswiv anplwayè yo pou arasman kont omoseksyèl nan espas travay la, Tribinal la te rejte agiman defandè a ke plent arasman nan espas travay la limite a arasman seksyèl.

GLAD ak CELA te depoze yon zanmi yon dokiman sou non sèt gwoup dwa sivil Connecticut: Komisyon Zafè Afriken-Ameriken yo, Sant pou Dwa Andikape yo, Alyans Connecticut pou Opòtinite Biznis yo, Asosyasyon Avoka Ispanik Connecticut la, Kowalisyon Transdefans Connecticut la, Komisyon Pèmanan sou Sitiyasyon Fanm yo, ak Sant Kominotè Triangle la.

Nan moman li t ap mande Tribinal la pou l jwenn pwoteksyon anba lalwa Connecticut pou ka arasman kont omoseksyèl nan travay, dokiman an te mete aksan sou literati syantifik ki demontre ke ensidan diskriminasyon, tankou sa ki baze sou oryantasyon seksyèl ak ras, ka mennen dirèkteman nan domaj mantal ak fizik.

Demandan Luis Patino te reprezante pa Avoka Jon L. Schoenhorn nan Hartford. Dokiman amikus la te ekri pa Ben Klein nan GLAD nan Boston, MA ak Nina T. Pirrotti nan Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Chimes, Richardson & Fitzgerald, PC nan New Haven.

Pedersen et al. kont Biwo Jesyon Pèsonèl et al.

26 jen 2013, Lakou Siprèm Etazini an deside Seksyon 3 DOMA a kont Konstitisyon an. Windsor kont Etazini

31 Jiyè 2012 – Jij Bryant, nan Tribinal Distri Federal Connecticut la, deside ke DOMA se yon lwa ki kont konstitisyon an.

Jij Bryant te pase yon lòd pou refize Mosyon BLAG la pou Sispann Pwosedi yo nan dat 4 Jiyè 2012.

Lidè Chanm lan, atravè Gwoup Konsiltatif Legal Bipartisan (BLAG), te depoze yon Mosyon pou Sispann Pwosedi yo nan dat 20 jen 2012. Demandan yo te depoze Opozisyon yo a Mosyon pou Sispann nan dat 22 jen 2012.

Mizajou 15 Jiyè 2011: GLAD depoze yon mosyon pou jijman somè sou non demandè yo.

Mizajou 23 fevriye 2011: DOJ anonse li pap defann konstitisyonalite DOMA a nan Pedersen

Nan dat 9 novanm 2010, GLAD te depoze Pedersen kont OPM, yon dezyèm gwo pwosè ak plizyè plenyen ki konteste konstitisyonalite Seksyon 3 Lwa federal sou Defans Maryaj (DOMA) la ak refi gouvènman an bay pwoteksyon ak responsablite pou koup omoseksyèl ak lezbyèn marye yo.

Pedersen kont OPM adrese espesyalman koup marye nan Connecticut, Vermont, ak New Hampshire.

Kerrigan & Mock v. Connecticut Dept. of Public Health

On Friday, October 10, 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that gay and lesbian couples are entitled to full marriage equality.

On August 25, 2004, GLAD filed suit on behalf of eight gay and lesbian Connecticut couples who were denied marriage licenses in Madison, CT, challenging the State’s discriminatory denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples. The plaintiff couples, who have been in committed relationships for between 10 and 30 years, many of them raising children, contend that only marriage will provide them with the protections and benefits they need to live securely as a family. The defendants are the Department of Public Health (DPH), which supervises the registration of all marriages, and Dorothy C. Bean, the Madison town registrar of vital statistics.

There were motions to intervene in the case by the Connecticut Family Institute and two town clerks. The motions were denied by Judge Patty Jenkins Pittman of New Haven Superior Court.  The clerks dropped their appeal, but the Family Institute appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which affirmed the Trial Court’s denial in a decision issues August 15, 2006.

GLAD filed a motion for summary judgment and extensive briefs on the merits of the case itself.  In addition, an amicus brief signed by 25 amici supporting our position was also submitted..  The Attorney General, defending the case, filed a reply brief and 4 opposing amici briefs were filed.  Arguments in the motion for summary judgment were heard on March 21, 2006 in New Haven Superior Court.

On June 12, 2006, Judge Pittman denied the plaintiff’s motion, ruling that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage did not violate the Connecticut Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Connecticut Supreme Court.

On May 14, 2007, GLAD Senior Attorney Ben Klein presented oral argument in the case before the Connecticut Supreme Court.

Brindamour, et al. kont Konsèy Edikasyon Manchester la

GLAD te itilize dispozisyon anti-diskriminasyon Connecticut yo ki baze sou oryantasyon seksyèl ak eta sivil pou ede yon gwoup pwofesè ak administratè lekòl nan Manchester, CT pou jwenn benefis asirans pou patnè domestik yo. Edikatè sa yo te aplike pou benefis sa yo epi yo te refize yo - benefis ki konstitye yon pòsyon enpòtan nan konpansasyon yon anplwaye. GLAD te diskite pozisyon ke kenbe benefis sa yo egal a yon salè inegal pou travay egal - yon bagay lalwa pa tolere. Pandan pwosè diskriminasyon an annatant, Konsèy Edikasyon Manchester la te apwouve nouvo kontra pou administratè lekòl yo ak pwofesè yo ki te gen ladan asirans sante pou patnè anplwaye omoseksyèl ak lezbyèn li yo. Konsèy Administrasyon Manchester la te apwouve kontra Administratè yo nan dat 18 novanm 2003 epi kontra Pwofesè yo te dakò nan abitraj epi abit la te sètifye fòmèlman nan dat 17 novanm.

Brindamour, et al. kont Konsèy Edikasyon Manchester la

GLAD te itilize dispozisyon anti-diskriminasyon Connecticut yo ki baze sou oryantasyon seksyèl ak eta sivil pou ede yon gwoup pwofesè ak administratè lekòl nan Manchester, CT pou jwenn benefis asirans pou patnè domestik yo. Edikatè sa yo te aplike pou benefis sa yo epi yo te refize yo - benefis ki konstitye yon pòsyon enpòtan nan konpansasyon yon anplwaye. GLAD te diskite pozisyon ke kenbe benefis sa yo egal a yon salè inegal pou travay egal - yon bagay lalwa pa tolere. Pandan pwosè diskriminasyon an annatant, Konsèy Edikasyon Manchester la te apwouve nouvo kontra pou administratè lekòl yo ak pwofesè yo ki te gen ladan asirans sante pou patnè anplwaye omoseksyèl ak lezbyèn li yo. Konsèy Administrasyon Manchester la te apwouve kontra Administratè yo nan dat 18 novanm 2003 epi kontra Pwofesè yo te dakò nan abitraj epi abit la te sètifye fòmèlman nan dat 17 novanm.

htKreyòl Ayisyen
Apèsi sou Konfidansyalite

Sitwèb sa a itilize bonbon pou nou ka ba ou pi bon eksperyans itilizatè posib. Enfòmasyon bonbon yo estoke nan navigatè w la epi yo fè fonksyon tankou rekonèt ou lè ou retounen sou sitwèb nou an epi ede ekip nou an konprann ki seksyon nan sitwèb la ou jwenn ki pi enteresan ak itil.