Nouvèl

(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.

Nouvèl

Lakay » Nasyonal/Federal » Page 51

There exist both state and federal employment anti-discrimination laws that protect employees if they are discriminated against because they possess certain characteristics. All the state employment anti-discrimination laws in New England have sexual orientation as an explicit protected characteristic and, with the exception of New Hampshire, also have gender identity as a protected characteristic. The federal employment anti-discrimination law is called Title VII, and it does not contain explicit protections for either sexual orientation or gender identity. The federal agency that receives employment discrimination complaints is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

In 2012, the EEOC announced that it would accept discrimination complaints from transgender employees as a form of sex discrimination. Recently EEOC Commissioner Chai R. Feldblum issued a memorandum that further clarifies protections for LGBT employees. The Commissioner states: “Any LGBT person who has experienced workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity may file a charge . . . claiming sex discrimination. A charge must be filed within 300 days (or sometimes 180 days) from the date of the discriminatory act.”

The EEOC considers gender identity discrimination a form of sex discrimination and will accept all charges of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and investigate them to determine if they state a claim of sex discrimination. For example, one type of sex discrimination involving sexual orientation is when it is assumed that men and women should only be sexually attracted to and marry individuals of a different gender.

In this memorandum, the EEOC also advocates for changing Title VII to include both sexual orientation and gender identity as specific protected characteristics because “. . . civil rights laws that explicitlyprotect LGBT people will raise visibility regarding such protection, will be a deterrent to discrimination, and will provide certainty that courts across the country will enforce the protections of these laws for LGBT people.”

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would add sexual orientation and gender identity protections to Title VII, has been introduced in Congress repeatedly, but has never passed.

You can see Commissioner Feldblum’s memorandum isit la.

If you have questions or want further information, please contact GLAD Answers by email or live chat at www.GLADAnswers.org oubyen pa telefòn nan 800-455-GLAD (4523).

Tevyaw kont Colvin

Lakay » Nasyonal/Federal » Page 51

Mizajou: 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.

Kontèks Ka a

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.

Li complaint epi 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 kont Walmart

Lakay » Nasyonal/Federal » Page 51

On May 15, 2017, a federal judge approved the $ 7.5 million class action settlement between Walmart and former Walmart associate Jacqueline Cote, that challenged Walmart’s lack of health insurance benefits for same-sex spouses of Walmart associates prior to 2014. Li plis.

GLAD and co-counsel Washington Lawyers’ Committee, Peter Romer-Friedman of Outten & Golden LLP filed the class action complaint against Walmart, charging the retailer with discriminating against employees who were married to same-sex spouses by denying their spouses health insurance benefits.

On December 22, 2016, the District Court presiding over the class action lawsuit granted preliminary approval of a Settlement, and directed the parties to send notice to Settlement Class Members so that they can learn about the Settlement and have the opportunity to submit claims to receive payments.

Notice was provided to class members on January 23, 2017. Li plis

To receive payments under the Settlement, Settlement Class Members were directed to file claims with the Settlement Administrator no later than March 20, 2017.

This class action lawsuit flowed from a complaint GLAD filed on Jackie’s behalf with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) in September 2014. On January 29, 2014, the EEOC issued a final determination stating that Walmart’s treatment of Jackie constituted unlawful sex discrimination. On May 29, 2015, the EEOC issued a right to sue letter.

In addition to GLAD, Outten & Golden LLP, and the Washington Lawyers’ Committee, Jacqueline Cote is represented by and Arnold and Porter LLP.

Diana Smithson ak Jacqueline Cote. Foto: 777 Portraits Myrtle Beach, SC Download photo

Nouvèl

Lakay » Nasyonal/Federal » Page 51

John “Longjones” Abdallah Wambere, a prominent Ugandan gay activist for over 17 years, has been recommended for asylum in the United States. In a letter dated September 11, 2014, the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services informed Wambere that his application was recommended for approval, pending a routine security check.

“I am overwhelmed,” said Wambere. “I must say that I am blessed, but there are many stories out there. I call upon everyone who helped me to continue to support LGBTI people around the world and all asylum seekers in the U.S. And my thoughts are with Uganda; I have sleepless nights while I worry about my community there.”

Uganda’s LGBTI community has been under escalating public, political, and physical attack in recent years, culminating in the passage of the Anti-Homosexuality Act and its signing into law on February 24, 2014 by President Yoweri Museveni. Wambere, a co-founder of Spectrum Uganda Initiatives, has been in the U.S. since February and filed for asylum on May 6, 2014.

“We are thrilled that John will be able to continue his important work on behalf of the Ugandan LGBTI community from the United States, where he will be free from arrests and incarceration because of his sexual orientation and bold activism,” said Allison Wright, GLAD Staff Attorney.

“The United States must continue to grant asylum to LGBTI people from around the world who can’t enjoy the most basic freedoms in their countries of origin, and whose lives are threatened simply because of who they are,” said Janson Wu, GLAD Senior Staff Attorney. “Asylum is a life-saving system that protects vulnerable members of the LGBTI community forced to flee places like Uganda, Russia, and Jamaica, where it is fundamentally unsafe to be out.”

John “Long Jones” Abdallah Wambere with GLAD attorneys Janson Wu and Allison Wright,
and attorney Hema Sarang-Sieminksi

The anti-homosexuality law criminalized a broad range of offenses and imposed severe penalties ranging from 7 years in jail to life imprisonment. It has since been struck down by Uganda’s Constitutional Court on technical grounds, but lawmakers have vowed to re-introduce it and pass it. Whether or not lawmakers follow through with their promise, homosexuality remains illegal in Uganda under Penal Code 145. Penal Code 145, which criminalizes “unnatural offenses,” has been on the books since the 1950s and is still heavily enforced in Uganda.

In Uganda, Wambere was outed as gay by newspapers, harassed by strangers, received death threats from anonymous phone calls, arrested, evicted from his home, and beaten up. Under the Anti-Homosexuality Act, he would have faced life imprisonment and still faces the threat of arrest should he return to Uganda under Penal Code 145.

The country conditions report submitted with Wambere’s application for asylum can be read at www.gladlaw.org/work/cases/in-re-wambere, as well as his redacted affidavit.

Anti-gay sentiment in Uganda has been promoted by American evangelicals such as Scott Lively, who travelled to the country to preach and promote what was at the time called the “Kill the Gays” bill because it included the death penalty, which was later removed. On August 15, 2014, a federal judge ruled in the case Sexual Minorities Uganda v. Lively that Lively must stand trial for crimes against humanity.

Resources for LGBTI people seeking asylum in the U.S. can be found by contacting www.GLADAnswers.org.

Anplis GLAD, John Wambere reprezante pa Hema Sarang-Sieminski nan Biwo Lwa Hema Sarang-Sieminksi.

GLAD’s National Marriage Work

Lakay » Nasyonal/Federal » Page 51

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 Avril DeBoer ak Jayne Rowse nan ka Michigan an DeBoer kont Snyder and Timothy Love, Lawrence Ysunza, Maurice Blanchard and Dominique James in the Kentucky case Lanmou kont Beshear (ansanm ak Bourke kont Beshear) and same-sex couples across the country.

26 jen 2015: Viktwa! 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. Li plis

Li plis

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 – ballot, legislation, ak litigation. We laid the groundwork for the defeat of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in our cases Gill epi 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 zanmi 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 zanmi brèf nan la Tribinal Apèl 10yèm Awondisman an 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 zanmi kourye filings in all of the other cases pending at a U.S. Court of Appeals.
GLAD has also played an extensive role in coordinating amici 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 kont Haslam; Kentucky, Bourke kont Beshear) and 11th (Florida, Grimsley v. Scott epi Brenner v. Armstrong) circuits.

GLAD’s Own Amici Brèf

In virtually every federal appeal, GLAD filed its own zanmi 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:

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
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 zanmi 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 (Kwizin kont Herbert); the 4th Circuit (Bostic v. Shaefer); the 6th Circuit ) Obergefell v. Himes, Henry v. Himes, DeBoer kont Snyder, Bourke kont Beshear, Tanco kont 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 kont 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).

La 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.

Nouvèl

Lakay » Nasyonal/Federal » Page 51

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 isit la.

Nouvèl

Lakay » Nasyonal/Federal » Page 51

DEMANDEUR EGALITE MARYAJ UTAH YO MANDE TRIBINAL SIPRÈM NOU AN POU REVIZYE KA A

Mizajou 4 septanm 2014: Twa vwa divès – vwa biznis yo, vwa leta yo, ak vwa fanmi ak gwoup egalite yo – depoze zanmi kourye brèf nan la Kwizin kont Herbert kaDokiman yo diskite ke tribinal siprèm lan ta dwe pran yon ka oswa plizyè ka pou rezoud domaj ak diskriminasyon ki enpoze pa entèdiksyon maryaj yo.

Istwa orijinal la:

Jodi a, twa koup ki konteste entèdiksyon Eta Utah la sou maryaj pou koup menm sèks yo te mande Lakou Siprèm Etazini pou aksepte demann ofisyèl eta Utah yo pou revize ka a. Nan dokiman ki te depoze jodi a, demandè yo diskite ke revizyon Lakou Siprèm lan nesesè paske koup menm sèks nan Utah ak atravè peyi a bezwen ijan sekirite maryaj kèlkeswa kote yo travay oswa vwayaje pou pwoteje tèt yo ak fanmi yo nèt. Dokiman an diskite ke se sèlman yon desizyon Lakou Siprèm ki afime dwa yo pou marye epi pou maryaj yo respekte nan tout peyi a ki ka rezoud inegalite fondamantal sa a.

Koup ki pote plent yo—Kody Partridge ak Laurie Wood, Derek Kitchen ak Moudi Sbeity, epi Kate Call ak Karen Archer—di ke lwa eta ki entèdi egalite nan maryaj vyole garanti Konstitisyon Etazini an sou pwoteksyon egal ak pwosesis legal. Koup yo, ki te genyen desizyon favorab nan men tribinal federal ki pi ba yo, te mande Lakou Siprèm nan pou revize ka a paske maryaj koup menm sèks yo p ap vrèman egal sof si yo respekte yo nan tout peyi a.

Nan demann yo a, koup yo di: “Anjeneral nan ka sa a se libète yon klas Ameriken antye, ki bezwen ijan yon desizyon nan men Tribinal sa a ki di yo kapab marye epi pou maryaj yo rekonèt sou yon baz egal ak lòt sitwayen yo. Nan ane ki sot pase a, tribinal ki pi ba yo nan tout peyi a te rekonèt avèk rezon ke lwa eta ki entèdi koup menm sèks marye vyole Konstitisyon an. Men, paske desizyon sa yo pa aplike nan tout peyi a, koup menm sèks yo kontinye ap fè eksperyans gwo ensètitid ak gwo domaj. Yo pa ka planifye pwòp avni yo ak avni pitit yo an sekirite nan konesans ke eta yo pa ka retire rekonesans legal relasyon familyal yo lè yo demenaje oswa vwayaje.”

Koup ki nan ka a—Kwizin kont Herbert—reprezante pa avoka prensipal Peggy Tomsic nan kabinè avoka Magleby & Greenwood, PC nan Salt Lake City, Shannon Minter nan Sant Nasyonal pou Dwa Lesbyèn (NCLR), Mary Bonauto nan Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), ak ansyen Avoka Jeneral par entèrim Neal Katyal nan kabinè avoka Hogan Lovells.

Li plis

Nouvèl

Lakay » Nasyonal/Federal » Page 51

Direktè Pwojè Dwa Sivil GLAD la, Mary Bonauto, ak Direktè Legal la, Gary Buseck, te mete tèt ansanm ak kòlèg yo nan Sant Nasyonal pou Dwa Lesbyèn (NCLR) ak avoka Utah Peggy Tomsic kòm avoka nan yo yon ka federal istorik ki reprezante koup menm sèks k ap chèche libète pou marye nan Utah.

Gras a Kwizin kont Herbert Gras ak estrateji abil ekip legal la ak defans san pran souf la, ka Utah la te premye viktwa tribinal distri federal la ki te anile yon entèdiksyon maryaj nan yon eta depi Lakou Siprèm Etazini an te anile DOMA a. Se te tou premye viktwa nan yon tribinal dapèl federal.

Epi, kounye a se premye ka libète pou marye apre DOMA ke yo mande Lakou Siprèm Etazini an pou egzamine.

“Nou kontan anpil pou n travay avèk zanmi ak kòlèg nou yo nan NCLR sou ka enpòtan sa a,” Buseck di. “GLAD gen yon long istwa kolaborasyon avèk NCLR, epi nou gen yon gwo respè pou ladrès legal yo ak detèminasyon yo.”

Pami anpil lòt viktwa legal an favè kominote LGBT a, NCLR te jwe yon wòl dirijan nan fè Kalifòni dezyèm eta nan peyi a ki te genyen libète pou marye, an 2008. Direktè legal Shannon Minter te plede ka a nan Lakou Siprèm Kalifòni an, ki te deside ke Konstitisyon Kalifòni an garanti diyite egal pou koup menm sèks ak fanmi yo, ki gen ladan libète pou marye.

"Nou kontan anpil tou pou n ap travay kòtakòt ak avoka prensipal Peggy Tomsic nan kabinè avoka Salt Lake City a." Magleby & Greenwood, PC "ki te premye moun ki te depoze ka sa a epi ki te jere ka sa a avèk anpil estrateji," Buseck ajoute. "Menm jan an tou, nou kontan travay avèk ekspè angaje nan Lakou Siprèm nan kabinè avoka DC a Hogan Lovells.”

"La Kwizin Ekip la ofri yon eksperyans ak yon konesans san parèy pandan ka a ap rive nan Lakou Siprèm pou egzamine li. Nou espere itilize sa nou te aprann nan travay nou pou libète pou marye nan tout Nouvèl Angletè, epi kòm yon pati nan efò ekip ki dire plizyè dizèn ane pou devlope yon estrateji maryaj nasyonal, pou pote valè nan ka Utah la epi ede pote egalite maryaj pou chak Ameriken.

Ou vle sipòte travay sa a?

Don ou fè jodi a ap sipòte travay GLAD sou ka maryaj istorik sa a, epi tout travay nou pou jistis egal devan lalwa pou kominote LGBT a ak moun k ap viv ak VIH. Mèsi!

Nouvèl

Lakay » Nasyonal/Federal » Page 51

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.