National/Federal Know Your Rights - Page 48 of 59 - GLAD Law
Ale nan tèt la pou ale nan kontni an
GLAD Logo Sote Navigasyon Prensipal la pou ale nan Kontni

V.L. v. E.L.

March 7, 2016: Victory! The U.S. Supreme Court today reversed the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision in which it refused to recognize a lesbian mother’s Georgia adoption of her three children. GLAD congratulates the adoptive mother, V.L. and her children, as well our friends at NCLR on this important victory for all families. Many thanks to Foley Hoag LLP who joined GLAD in submitting an amicus brief to the Court on behalf of Equality Alabama Foundation, Equality Federation, Georgia Equality, the Human Rights Campaign, Immigration Equality, the National Black Justice Coalition, the National Center for Transgender Equality, the National LGBTQ Task Force, PFLAG, the Stonewall Bar of Georgia, and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Kontèks:

GLAD and Foley Hoag LLP have filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging the Court to grant review in the Alabama second-parent adoption case, V.L. v. E.L., No. 15-648.

V.L. and E.L. are former lesbian partners who agreed to have and raise three children together but are now separated. Before their separation, the two had obtained an adoption judgment in Georgia making V.L. a legal parent. After their separation, the birth mother, E.L., took the position that the Alabama courts could disregard Georgia’s judgment of adoption. The Alabama Supreme Court agreed, holding that E.L. was the children’s only legal parent.

The brief urges the Supreme Court to hear the case, arguing that Alabama cannot disregard the Georgia adoption judgment simply because Alabama believes the Georgia court’s adoption order should not have issued in the first place. If states disregard each other’s adoptions, it will severely undermine the security, stability, and predictability of parent-child relations secured by adoption and parentage judgments across the nation.

The amicus brief was filed on behalf of GLAD, Equality Alabama Foundation, Equality Federation, Georgia Equality, the Human Rights Campaign, Immigration Equality, the National Black Justice Coalition, the National Center for Transgender Equality, the National LGBTQ Task Force, PFLAG, the Stonewall Bar of Georgia, and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The Foley Hoag team on the brief included Marco J. Quina, Claire Laporte, Catherine Deneke, Jenevieve Maerker, and Kevin J. Conroy, with assistance from paralegal Margaret McKane.

Nouvèl

The federal district court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania heard argument yesterday in Blatt v. Cabela’s Retail, a case that challenges the transgender exclusion written into the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).The hearing marked the first opportunity for the constitutional arguments for striking the exclusion to be fully laid out in court.

Sidney Gold, Neelima Vanguri and Brian Farrell of Sidney Gold Associate LP; Kevin Barry, Professor of Law at Quinnipiac University; Jennifer Levi, GLAD Transgender Rights Project Director; and Christine Duffy, Senior Staff Attorney at Pro Bono Partnership and author of Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace: A Practical Guide

U.S. District Judge Joseph Leeson presided over argument for close to an hour on the retail chain’s motion to dismiss claims brought by transgender former employee Kate Lynn Blatt under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, on the grounds that Cabela’s discriminated against her based on her sex; and the ADA, on the grounds that Cabela’s refused to reasonably accommodate Ms. Blatt when the store denied her use of an appropriate restroom and the ability to wear a nametag with her correct name.

“Blatt’s case presents a critical issue of first impression on the question of the constitutionality of the exclusion of transgender people from the ADA,” said Jennifer Levi, Transgender Rights Project Director at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), who is providing ongoing consultation in the case. “I’m gratified that the judge gave thoughtful attention to the arguments for striking the exclusion, and hopeful that we’ll see the right outcome.”

Law Professor at Quinnipiac University and co-counsel for amici, Kevin Barry, spoke on behalf of several advocacy organizations, including GLAD, who argue the discriminatory exclusion violates constitutionally protected equality guarantees, and that by maintaining it the ADA perpetrates the very thing it seeks to dismantle: “the prejudiced attitudes and ignorance of others” and the ‘inferior status’ that people with disabilities – or those “regarded-as” by others as having a disability – occupy in society.”

The United States has also weighed in on the exclusion for the first time in the case, urging the court in a statement filed November 16 not to interpret the ADA to exclude transgender people.

Attorney Brian Farrell argued on behalf of Plaintiff Blatt who is also represented by Sidney L. Gold and Neelima Vanguri of Sidney L. Gold & Associates.

Read more about the case

Nouvèl

An exciting announcement was made today by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding equal access in accordance with an individual’s gender identity in community planning and development programs. This proposed rule is an update to HUD’s 2012 final rule (Equal Access to Housing in HUD Programs Regardless of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity) also known as the Equal Access Rule, which required that HUD-assisted and HUD-insured housing be made available without regard to actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status.

This proposed rule would amend the definition of “gender identity” included in HUD’s Equal Access Rule so the definition more clearly reflects the difference between actual and perceived gender identity. The proposed rule would eliminate the Equal Access Rule’s current prohibition on inquiries related to sexual orientation or gender identity, while maintaining the prohibition against discrimination on those bases.

If you believe you have experienced (or are about to experience) housing discrimination, contact HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity for help at (800) 669-9777. HUD will thoroughly review their allegation to determine if the claims you raise are jurisdictional under the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Access Rule. Also, contact Repons GLAD at 1-800-455-4523(GLAD) for information on your rights in housing.

Shelter for All Genders

GLAD also has been working on improving the experience of transgender individuals specifically accessing shelter services through the release of Best Practices and Model Policy for shelters, as well as Know Your Rights Access Cards distributed to shelters throughout Massachusetts. For more on GLAD’s work, visit our website.

Nouvèl

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) joined Lambda Legal, National Women’s Law Center and other partners in filing an amicus brief yesterday in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. The brief supports UT-Austin’s use of race as a factor in undergraduate admissions.

The brief argues that racial and ethnic disparities can be diminished when stereotypes are confronted by reality – the daily contacts and differing perspectives offered by students of varying backgrounds.  The brief focuses on women and LGBT persons of color, asserting that the cause of eradicating discrimination on the basis of sex, gender, sexual orientation and gender identity “is closely aligned with the interest in eliminating race discrimination” and that “successfully breaking down one form of discrimination tends to reduce others as well.”

“We are part of one justice movement, and we don’t accept inequalities deriving from race, gender, or sexual orientation as inevitable and unchangeable,” said Mary L. Bonauto, Civil Rights Project Director for GLAD. “By coming out to our neighbors, co-workers, friends and families, LGBT people have experienced how powerfully our humanity can be understood by others when they are in daily contact with us.  That is as true at work and in our neighborhoods as well as on college campuses.”

In the case, Abigail Fisher, a white student denied admission, is challenging the UT’s admissions policy, in which 10-20% of an incoming class is chosen through a complex formula of “holistic review” in which race may be considered as one of a number of factors. The case is being heard a second time before the Court after being remanded to a lower court in 2013.

Mayer Brown LLP is lead counsel on the brief, which can be read on GLAD’s website.

Nouvèl

Being able to use the same bathroom as other students at school is critical for the healthy development of transgender adolescents, says an amicus brief filed on behalf of medical and mental health associations by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), and Goodwin Procter LLP in G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board.  The case, filed in federal district court in Virginia by the American Civil Liberties Union, involves Gavin Grimm, a 16-year-old transgender Virginia boy whose use of the boys’ room prompted the school board to enact a policy excluding transgender students from using the same restrooms as their peers.

Written on behalf of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, the nation’s leading clinics specializing in serving transgender youth, Dr. Norman Spack of Boston Children’s Hospital, and a number of other prominent doctors and medical and policy organizations with expertise in adolescent and transgender health issues, the brief takes a close look at research on child development of identity, and the role of schools in supporting – or thwarting – healthy development.  GLAD represented Maine student Nicole Maines, who was similarly excluded from using a restroom with her peers, in a groundbreaking case establishing rights for transgender students.

“When a school separates a transgender boy from his peer group it does terrible damage,” said Jennifer Levi, Transgender Rights Project Director for GLAD. “The school’s actions stigmatize and isolate the boy, telling him and his peers that he is different from all other boys thereby disrupting social relationships. All of this compromises his educational opportunities, in violation of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act and constitutional guarantees of equal protection.”

“Schools must take a proactive role in supporting transgender students,” said NCLR Transgender Youth Project Attorney Asaf Orr. “Unfortunately, in this case, the school board allowed their own misconceptions and fears about transgender youth, as well as those of the community, to drive policy. As a result, the school board’s policy perpetuates negative stereotypes, isolates, and harms transgender students instead of creating welcoming school environment for all students. This is not only contrary to the professional obligation of educators and administrators, but ignores the medical and mental health research on child development and the standards of care for transgender youth. Stigmatizing transgender students is not only wrong, but illegal.”

In 2014, Gavin had been using the boys’ room at school, consistent with established standards of care that emphasize the importance of living in the proper gender identity in every respect, and in accordance with his individualized treatment plan.  His use of the boys’ room caused no disruption.

Yet on December 9, 2014, the Gloucester County School Board held a school board meeting to discuss Gavin’s bathroom use and adopted a new policy restricting use of school restrooms and locker rooms requiring transgender students to use “an alternative private space.”

The brief cites peer-reviewed research to show that: 1) schools play a crucial role in child development; 2) identity development is the task of every child, particularly in adolescence; 3) external factors such as stigma, social segregation, and discrimination can harm the development of identity in transgender youth; 4) external factors such as social integration, school support, and the leadership of adults can support the healthy development of transgender adolescents.

Download the amicus brief.

Nouvèl

New York, NY —  Today, over 100 national and local LGBTQ, immigrant, and civil rights organizations urged President Obama to stop Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from considering the Adelanto Detention Facility as a center to detain transgender immigrants.

The Adelanto Detention Facility in Southern California is geographically remote and poorly suited for transgender immigrants. The facility is in the Mojave Desert of Southern California, which is a four-hour round trip from Los Angeles. Placing transgender immigrants in the facility would effectively prevent any independent oversight by advocates and would severely limit transgender immigrants’ access to attorneys.

On August 13, 2014, LGBTQ advocates toured the Adelanto Detention Facility and spoke to individuals detained there. “We met a woman from Guatemala who had been placed in the men’s housing unit. The government did not even seem to know she was there,” said Aaron C. Morris, Legal Director of Immigration Equality.

Like pregnant women and minor children, LGBTQ individuals are some of the most vulnerable populations in detention. ICE should not place such at-risk groups in isolated facilities. The risk that they will be mistreated is too great. If the government cannot detain LGBTQ immigrants safely, it should not detain them at all. Instead, it should utilize alternative to detention programs, which are a more humane, inexpensive, and effective solution.

“Stop the abuse and criminalization of our communities and our bodies! #Not1More trans detention and killing! #StopTransMurders,” stated Edna Monroy, Southern California organizer at the California Immigrant Youth Justice Alliance.

“ICE must take responsibility for the safety, well-being, and fundamental due process rights of the people caught up in its national detention system. Transferring transgender women to Adelanto would make a mockery of this responsibility,” said Kathy Doan, Executive Director of the Capital Area Immigrants Rights’ (CAIR) Coalition.

“No one should fear for their life or personal safety in our corrections system,” said Ellie Perez, member of the Equality Arizona Board of Directors. “LGBTQ people in detention are disproportionately at risk of violence and mistreatment. Equality Arizona is proud to stand by a wide range of diverse organizations from all over our country calling on President Obama to ensure ICE cannot place transgender women in isolated facilities where they are at great risk.”

“Transferring transgender women to the Adelanto Detention Facility, where countless violations and failures to protect vulnerable populations have been documented and reported, is not only dangerous but inhumane. Rather than finding safety in the US, Transgender people continue to be misgendered during detention placements, denied transition-related care, and humiliated for being trans. Detention is not safe for LGBTQ Immigrants,” stated Myra Llerenas, Southern New Mexico Field Organizer for Equality New Mexico.

“Act justly, love mercy, walk humbly. We ask those things of our government,” stated Frances Browne, chair of the Immigrant Justice Network of Grant and Luna Counties, New Mexico.

“It’s time for the federal government to update its detention practices in terms of practicality, safety and assuring basic human dignity. Respect for human rights is a given, we don’t need a Congressional vote to do what’s humane and right for those in the immigration detention system especially in regard to Trans individuals whom likely qualify for asylum,” stated Ari Gutierrez, co-founder and Advisory Board Chair of the Latino Equality Alliance, an LGBT advocacy group based in Los Angeles.

“GEO Group, the infamous for-profit prison company that runs Adelanto, has a long history of abusing transgender women, asylum seekers, and people with disabilities. For example, Barbra Perez is a trans woman detained by GEO who was tortured in solitary confinement and denied necessary medical care while ICE tried to use the mistreatment to coerce her to accept deportation rather than fight her immigration case. Meanwhile, at Adelanto, Gerardo Corrales developed a life-threatening infection because GEO forced him to reuse dirty catheters. The President should shut down Adelanto instead of detaining trans women there,” said Olga Tomchin, Deportation Defense Coordinator and Staff Attorney of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network.

“Transgender women who have fled persecution and have come to the US to seek a safe haven should not be retraumatized by being imprisoned in inhumane conditions,” said Azadeh Shahshahani, President of the National Lawyers Guild. “Rather, they should have the right to seek asylum while being afforded respect for their human dignity.”

“Everyone, regardless of who they are or the person they love, deserves a fighting chance to provide for themselves and their families. Unfortunately, undocumented immigrants are still denied access to the promise of America. Far worse is the treatment of undocumented immigrant pregnant women, children, persons living with HIV, and LGBTQ people in detention centers. At these profit-driven detention facilities, LGBTQ people are fifteen times more likely than others to experience physical assault and rape. It is crystal clear that the most vulnerable cannot be kept safe at the Adelanto detention center and similar facilities. We urge the Administration to halt the transfer of people to the Adelanto Detention Facility and instead release all undocumented LGBTQ immigrants once and for all,” said Rea Carey, National LGBTQ Task Force Executive Director.

“It is imperative that we end the abusive treatment and blatant disregard for the safety of transgender women in detention centers, women who are often refugees fleeing violence and the threat of death in their home countries. Due to its remote location, just sending trans women to the Adelanto facility constitutes abuse because it sets barriers to legal representation and all but removes support of family and friends,” said Nell Gaither, president of Trans Pride Initiative. “Additionally, the record of the for-profit GEO group — and ICE in general — for ensuring the safety of trans women is abysmal. Please stop these abuses. Please end the policy of detaining vulnerable persons in such dehumanizing facilities and conditions under such proven incompetent management.”

Read the full letter here.

Nouvèl

GLAD joins organizations across the country in the following letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner:

As organizations committed to ensuring that quality health care is affordable and available in communities across the country, we are writing to strongly urge you to abandon ideologically-driven efforts focused on undermining women’s access to Planned Parenthood health centers.

Planned Parenthood is the most trusted women’s health care provider in this country, and has been for nearly 100 years. There are 2.7 million women, men and young people across the country each year who depend on Planned Parenthood for basic, preventive health care — routine examinations, cancer screenings, contraceptive services, and HIV and STI testing and treatment. One in five women in America will rely on Planned Parenthood for health care in her lifetime. For many Americans, Planned Parenthood is their main health care provider.

This is just the latest political attack on women’s health – and a clear cynical and coordinated effort designed to undermine this essential health care provider. The group behind this fraud has done 10 separate attack campaigns like this over the last eight years. The real agenda here is becoming clearer every day – they want to ban abortion and to defund Planned Parenthood.

Both political organizations and members of Congress have made defunding Planned Parenthood and other women’s health care providers a top legislative priority. These false claims are being used to advance a political agenda that will cut 2.7 million people off of birth control, lifesaving cancer screenings, STD testing and treatment, and other preventive health care services.

We represent a broad range of organizations, but we are bound by a commitment to ensuring all people can access the care they need to lead healthy and productive lives. We strongly urge you to focus on issues people in America care about most, and reject these ideological attacks that aim to take health care away from millions.

Sensèman,

  1. ACCESS Women’s Health Justice
  2. Defansè pou Jèn yo
  3. AFSCME
  4. Alliance for Citizenship
  5. America Votes
  6. American Civil Liberties Union
  7. American Federation of Teachers
  8. Ameriken Ini pou Separasyon Legliz ak Leta
  9. Astraea Lesbian Foundation For Justice
  10. Ballot Initiative Strategy Center
  11. BiNet USA
  12. Sant Resous Biseksyèl
  13. Blueprint
  14. Bonanza Oil Co., Dallas, TX
  15. Br ache the Silence
  16. CAEAR Coalition
  17. Casa de Esperanza
  18. Catholics for Choice
  19. CCC
  20. Center for Popular Democracy
  21. Sant pou Dwa Repwodiktif
  22. CenterLink: The Community of LGBT Centers
  23. Communications Workers of America
  24. Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals
  25. CREDO
  26. DCCC
  27. Democracy Alliance
  28. Demos
  29. EMILY’s List
  30. Freedom to Marry
  31. Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
  32. GLAAD
  33. GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality
  34. Kanpay Dwa Moun
  35. In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda
  36. Institute for Science and Human Values, Inc
  37. International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission
  38. Intimate Health Consulting
  39. Jewish Women International
  40. Lambda Legal
  41. Latino Commission on AIDS
  42. LatinoJustice PRLDEF
  43. LPAC
  44. Make It Work Campaign
  45. MALDEF
  46. Marriage Equality USA
  47. Pwojè Avansman Mouvman an
  48. MoveOn.org
  49. NARAL Pro-Choice America
  50. National Abortion Federation
  51. National Action Network
  52. National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF)
  53. National Black Gay Men’s Advocacy Coalition
  54. National Black Justice Coalition
  55. Sant Nasyonal pou Dwa Lesbyèn yo
  56. National Domestic Workers Alliance
  57. National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
  58. National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund
  59. National Partnership for Women & Families
  60. Sant Nasyonal pou Lwa Fanm yo
  61. NMAC
  62. NOW
  63. Moun pou fason Ameriken an
  64. Physicians for Reproductive Health
  65. Population Connection Action Fund
  66. Population Institute
  67. Pride at Work
  68. Reproductive Health Technologies Project
  69. Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network
  70. Service Employees International Union
  71. Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS)
  72. Sierra Club
  73. The Atlas Project
  74. The Civil Liberties and Public Policy Program
  75. Trans People of Color Coalition
  76. Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund
  77. Unitarian Universalist Association
  78. USAction
  79. Voices for Progress
  80. Voto Latino
  81. We Belong Together
  82. Women for Women
  83. Women’s Voices. Women Vote Action Fund
  84. Working Families Party
  85. ACCESS Women’s Health Justice
  86. Komite Aksyon SIDA nan Massachusetts
  87. AIDS Alabama
  88. Bonanza Oil Co., Dallas, TX
  89. Cascade AIDS Project
  90. Child and Family Resources, Inc.
  91. Connecticut Women’s Education and Legal Fund
  92. Easter Seals Blake Foundation
  93. Hyacinth AIDS Foundation
  94. Indy Feminists
  95. Lillians List of NC
  96. Egalite Mas
  97. Minnesota AIDS Project
  98. NARAL Pro-Choice Montana
  99. NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia
  100. New York civil liberties union
  101. North Carolina Women United
  102. Yon Kolorado
  103. Pro-Choice Arizona
  104. Progress Missouri
  105. Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada
  106. ProgressNow Arizona
  107. ProgressNow New Mexico
  108. ProgressVA
  109. Southwest Women’s Law Center
  110. State Representative Sarah Roberts
  111. The Health Initiative
  112. Women for Women
  113. AIDS Action Baltimore
  114. Arizona Women’s Care
  115. Blue mt clinic
  116. Callen-Lorde Community Health Center
  117. Center for Community Solutions
  118. Center on Policy Initiatives
  119. Community Extension Programs, Inc.
  120. DC Abortion Fund
  121. Employee Rights Center
  122. Hudson Pride Connections Center
  123. Hyacinth AIDS Foundation
  124. JJFOTOG
  125. Kalamazoo Gay Lesbian Resource Center
  126. Kara Kushaney
  127. LGBT Network
  128. Long Island Gay and Lesbian Youth
  129. Memphis Gay and Lesbian Community Center
  130. NET
  131. New York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project
  132. NO/AIDS Task Force (d.b.a. CrescentCare)
  133. Politica NC
  134. Politica NC
  135. PPPSW
  136. PPSNJ
  137. Pride Center of Staten Island
  138. Pridelines Youth Services
  139. Private citizen
  140. Rainbow Center
  141. San Francisco AIDS Foundation
  142. The LOFT: LGBT Community Service
  143. Triangle Community Center, Inc.

Nouvèl

In class action lawsuit, GLAD and Justice in Aging say it should be SSA 

Anti-LGBT discrimination hurts everyone in our community. But the impact on those who are economically vulnerable can be devastating.

The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program exists to assist those with extremely limited resources due to age and/or disability. Over the past year, GLAD and our partner organizations began hearing from SSI recipients married to a same-sex spouse that they were suddenly receiving demands from the Social Security Administration (SSA) to repay thousands of dollars in so-called overpayments.

The fact is that after the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was ruled unconstitutional, SSA continued to discriminate against same-sex couples by failing to recognize their marriages, even in cases where SSI recipients informed SSA that they were married. SSI has a marriage penalty, so benefits for unmarried individuals are higher than for married individuals and SSA continued to issue benefits as if the married individuals were single.

Then suddenly, more than a year later, the agency began demanding that recipients refund the benefits they were paid as a result of SSA’s own discrimination against them.

In March, GLAD, Justice in Aging and Foley Hoag LLP filed a class action lawsuit against the SSA on behalf of Kelley Richardson-Wright of Athol, Massachusetts, who is married to Kena Richardson-Wright; Hugh Held of Los Angeles, who is married to Orion Masters, and other SSI recipients married to someone of the same sex in or before June 2013.

Kelley and Hugh, like others receiving SSI, are working hard to get by on extremely limited means. Not only do they not have the ability to repay what SSA demanded, the agency’s attempts to withhold money from their current benefits as a result of its own discrimination created significant hardship and stress. [Read more about Kelly and Hugh’s stories here]

“Basically Social Security kept making SSI payments after the fall of DOMA without considering the marriages of same sex couples, even when a recipient notified SSI of the marriage,” says Vickie Henry, Senior Staff Attorney for GLAD. “More than a year later, SSA, to remedy its own unconstitutional conduct, started going after people who are both poor and aged or disabled and demanding thousands of dollars from them. That’s not fair, and it’s not right.”

As a result of our action, SSA has granted a waiver to Kelly and Hugh and has issued an emergency order effective May 6, 2015, putting a hold – at least temporarily – on issuing new overpayment notices to SSI recipients resulting from a change in recognition of a beneficiary’s pre-existing same-sex marital status. The hold is effective until October 30, 2015, while SSA considers our lawsuit.

While this is great news that will provide at least temporary protection for our clients and some other SSI recipients, it does not yet help others who have already received a notice of overpayment, and it does not address all the harms experienced by our clients and others in this situation.

SSA has filed a motion to dismiss our lawsuit, claiming that because our clients applied for and received a waiver (after our suit), its process worked. Essentially, SSA’s position is that it is acceptable to unconstitutionally put someone in peril and then say that is ok because SSA gives them an appeal process.

But that appeal process should never have been necessary in the first place. SSA has continued to behave unconstitutionally since Windsor and someone has to bear the cost of that wrongful behavior – we believe it should be SSA and not our clients who suffered the discriminatory treatment.

“It’s like someone setting fire to your house and then wanting to be thanked for extinguishing the fire,” says Henry of SSA’s argument.

Case documents and details are available at www.gladlaw.org/ssi

If you or someone you know has received a notice of SSI overpayment due to a change in recognition of your marriage, please contact GLAD Senior Staff Attorney Vickie Henry vhenry@glad.org oubyen www.GLADAnswers.org as we continue to work on this issue. 

Nouvèl

Yesterday in a Statement of Interest filed in the case Blatt v. Cabela’s Retail, the Department of Justice (DOJ) declined to weigh in on the constitutionality of an explicit transgender exclusion written into the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Today is the 25yèm anniversary of the passage of the ADA.

When the landmark law passed in 1990, it explicitly excluded from its protections people with Gender Identity Disorder (GID).

Jennifer Levi, director of the Transgender Rights Project at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders said, “It is surprising and disappointing that DOJ avoided the important question around the constitutionality of the transgender exclusion within the ADA.  Given the rank animus behind it, the exclusion serves to marginalize and stigmatize a minority group that the DOJ has recognized needs and deserves legal protections.”

Kate Lynn Blatt, a transgender employee of Cabela’s brought a discrimination claim against the store under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, on the grounds that Cabela’s discriminated against her based on her sex; and the ADA, on the grounds that Cabela’s refused to reasonably accommodate Ms. Blatt when the store denied her use of an appropriate restroom and the ability to wear a nametag with her correct name.

The Statement of Interest read in part: “The United States respectfully requests that the Court defer ruling upon Plaintiff’s constitutional challenge to the GID Exclusion until after the Title VII claims are resolved, as disposition of Plaintiff’s Title VII claims could resolve this case without the need to reach the constitutionality of the GID Exclusion. Should the Court later determine that the constitutional issue cannot be avoided, the United States respectfully reserves the right to intervene or file a supplemental statement of interest at that time.”

Levi said,  “There are two silver linings here: DOJ’s continued clear statement that transgender people are protected by Title VII; and DOJ specifically reserving its right to weigh in should the Court take on directly the issue of the constitutionality of the ADA exclusion.  While we acknowledge these bright spots, the problem created by the ADA exclusion remains.  Congress excluded transgender people from the protections of the ADA because of the stigma associated with gender dysphoria.  As long as the transgender exclusion remains within the law, the ADA fails in its promise to create a level playing field in employment for all people capable of doing the job.”

Blatt is represented by Sidney L. Gold, Neelima Vanguri and Brian Farrell of Sidney L. Gold & Associates. GLAD is providing ongoing consultation and, along with Law Professor Kevin Barry of Quinnipiac University, also filed an amicus brief, arguing that by maintaining the discriminatory exclusion, the ADA perpetrates the very thing it seeks to dismantle: “the prejudiced attitudes and ignorance of others” and the ‘inferior status’ that people with disabilities – or those “regarded-as” by others as having a disability – occupy in society.”

Nouvèl

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued a critical ruling that discrimination based on an employee’s sexual orientation violates the prohibition on sex discrimination in Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act.

La landmark July 16 ruling recognizes that federal employees who experience discrimination because of their sexual orientation have a claim under Title VII and signals to courts throughout the country that discrimination based on sexual orientation by definition constitutes sex discrimination.

“GLAD has long argued that LGBT employees are covered under Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination,” said Executive Director Janson Wu. “This ruling joins 2012’s landmark Macy decision – in which the EEOC ruled that the federal prohibition against sex discrimination includes gender identity and expression – in strengthening the case that LGBT people can seek relief for employment discrimination under federal law.”

Last week, GLAD filed a class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court under Title VII against retail giant Walmart for discriminating against employees who were married to same-sex spouses by denying their spouses health insurance benefits.The class representative, Jackie Cote, was denied spousal health insurance for her wife, Dee, who has battled ovarian cancer since 2012.  Due to Walmart’s sex discrimination, Dee lacked health insurance to pay for her treatment and has racked up a minimum of $150,000 in uninsured medical expenses.

“A positive outcome in this case will not only help Jackie and other past and present Walmart employees who experienced the same discrimination,” added Wu, “it will provide further clarification from a federal court that sexual orientation discrimination cannot be tolerated. Through both litigation and advocating for strong state and federal legislation, GLAD is committed to ensuring comprehensive protections for all LGBT people in employment and every other area of life.”

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.