The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on January 31, 2008 unanimously affirmed District Court Judge Mark L. Wolf’s dismissal of a lawsuit brought by two sets of parents against the Lexington school system.
In the suit, parents David and Tonia Parker and Robert and Robin Wirthlin claimed that a Lexington elementary school violated their constitutional rights by exposing their children to books portraying many different kinds of families, including non-judgmental depictions of families headed by same-sex couples.
GLAD authored an amicus in the case.
The plaintiff parents filed a petition seeking review before the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied in October, 2008.
GLAD applied for and won compensation from the federal September 11 Victim Compensation Fund on behalf of Nancy Walsh, a lesbian whose partner of 13 years was one of the passengers on Flight 11 who died on September 11. Nancy came up against barriers that so often face same-sex partners in times of crisis. For example, her partner, Carol Flyzik, did not have a will, thus making Carol’s biological family the presumptive recipients of any compensation. Nor did Nancy have an automatic right to administer Carol’s estate or continue to live in the home that she and Carol shared.
GLAD helped Nancy to secure her partner’s death certificate so that she was able to proceed with matters relating to the probate of the estate, and assisted her in applying for compensation from the federal Fund. Nancy’s hearing was held on January 26. After considering the facts, the Special Master awarded a favorable monetary ruling for Nancy, compensating her for losses she incurred as a result of this tragedy.
Nancy’s case tragically underscores the vulnerability of same-sex relationships, and reminds us of the comprehensive protections that marriage provides for families.
The morning of September 11, 2001, after Nancy Walsh saw the morning news, after she ran to the refrigerator to check the flight itinerary her partner Carol Flyzik had left there, after she confirmed that Carol was scheduled to be on American Airlines Flight 11, she called the airline.
Maybe Carol had missed her flight. Maybe she was okay.
But even though Nancy and Carol had been together for 12 years, the airline wouldn’t talk to Nancy. They would only give information to family members, they said, and since she and Carol weren’t married, Nancy wasn’t family.
At 6 o’clock that night, more than nine hours after Nancy first flipped on the television, Carol’s sister called the airline and confirmed that Carol was on Flight 11.
Nancy and Carol, who were raising their three children in the small New Hampshire town of Plainstow, had designated each other as domestic partners at their jobs and named each other as beneficiaries on insurance policies and retirement accounts. But Carol hadn’t left a will. As far as New Hampshire was concerned, Nancy and Carol were legal strangers.
GLAD applied for and won for Nancy compensation from the federal September 11 Victim Compensation Fund, and also helped Nancy as she sought Carol’s death certificate, and dealt with probate issues. By helping her stand up for her rights and her relationship with Carol, GLAD helped Nancy reaffirm the life they shared together.
In 2001, GLAD filed a friend of the court brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the case of an HIV-positive dental hygienist who was fired after his doctor revealed his HIV status to his employer. A federal appellate court in Atlanta had ruled that the hygienist was a “direct threat” to patients and therefore that his termination was not a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
In contrast to the cases in which courts have ruled against doctors who refused treatment to HIV-positive patients arguing a “direct threat” (see discussion of Bragdon v. Abbott, below), courts have reacted to cases involving discrimination against HIV-positive health care providers with irrational fear and disregard for the scientific evidence. In effect, the courts have required proof of zero threat from the health care worker, a virtually impossible standard. Although the Supreme Court declined to decide this case and clarify what “direct threat” should mean in this context, the willingness of courts around the country to uphold the termination of HIV-positive health care workers who perform invasive procedures remains one of the most pressing legal challenges ahead.
In a precedent-setting decision with major implications for the business community, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit confirmed that sex discrimination laws reach situations where individuals are discriminated against because of their failure to conform to stereotypes of how men and women are supposed to look and act. In June 2000, the federal court decided that a federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in lending protects our client, Lucas Rosa—a transgender person who appears female but was assigned the sex designation of male at birth—who was told when applying for a bank loan to go home and change to appear more traditionally masculine.
GLAD brought suit on behalf of our client under the federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act as well as under Massachusetts laws prohibiting discrimination because of sex and perceived sexual orientation in lending and public accommodations. In a decision that took just three weeks to issue, the Federal Appeals Court overturned the ruling of a federal district judge, and ruled that our client may be able to prove a case of sex discrimination and remanded the case for trial.
This case has tremendous significance for both GLB people and those who are transgender because the root of much of our shared oppression is the enforcement of stereotypical notions of how “real men” and “real women” should look and act. This case creates a key legal building block for arguing that discrimination because of a person’s failure to meet widely shared normative beliefs about gender—whether that person is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender—is prohibited sex discrimination.
GLAD obtained clarification from the Board of Registration of Cosmetology that an individual completing a cosmetology program does not fail the statutory requirement to be certified as free from infectious diseases simply by virtue of being HIV-positive.
Nan premye ka li a ki te abòde VIH, Lakou Siprèm Etazini an te deside 5 kont 4 nan Bragdon kont Abbott ke Lwa federal sou Ameriken ki gen Andikap (ADA) entèdi diskriminasyon kont moun k ap viv ak VIH, kit yo montre nenpòt sentòm vizib oswa yo gen yon dyagnostik SIDA. Desizyon Tribinal la an 1998 se yon viktwa enpòtan pou moun k ap viv ak VIH paske ADA a ak lwa leta ki sanble sou diskriminasyon kont andikap yo se sèl baz legal pou konbat diskriminasyon ki gen rapò ak VIH nan travay, lojman ak swen sante.
Nan ka sa a, Sidney Abbott, yon rezidan Bangor, Maine, te ale nan Randon Bragdon, DMD pou yo te plen yon kavite. Poutèt laperèz li te genyen pou yon pasyan pa t ka transmèt VIH, Doktè Bragdon te refize plen kavite li nan biwo li a sèlman paske Madanm Abbott te di nan yon kesyonè medikal ke li gen VIH. Doktè Bragdon te deklare ke moun ki gen VIH ki pa t ko manifesteman malad pa t satisfè definisyon "andikap" ADA a. ADA a defini yon andikap kòm yon kondisyon sante ki "limite anpil youn oubyen plizyè aktivite enpòtan nan lavi yo."
Nan desizyon istorik li a, Lakou Siprèm nan te dakò ak GLAD ke prezans sentòm vizib oswa maladi pa nesesè pou pwoteksyon anba ADA a. Jij Anthony Kennedy, ki t ap ekri pou Lakou a, te bay yon entèpretasyon laj ak ekspansif pou definisyon "aktivite prensipal lavi yo," epi li te note espesyalman ke Sidney Abbott te limite anpil nan aktivite prensipal lavi repwodiksyon an akòz risk pou l enfekte patnè li ak pitit li.
Sepandan, langaj ak rezònman Tribinal la ale pi lwen pase reyalite ka Sidney Abbott la epi asire ke tout moun ki gen VIH pral kouvri pa ADA a. Nan yon analiz long, Tribinal la te andose entèpretasyon ADA ki te la depi lontan pa Depatman Lajistis Etazini ak Komisyon Egalite Opòtinite nan Travay, ki te jwenn ke ADA a pwoteje moun ki enfekte ak VIH ki gen sentòm ak moun ki pa gen sentòm kont diskriminasyon, an pati paske VIH limite tou de pwokreyasyon ak relasyon seksyèl. Tribinal Siprèm nan te mande tribinal ki pi ba nan peyi a pou yo swiv entèpretasyon ajans sa yo. Definisyon laj Tribinal Siprèm nan pou "andikap" ak andoseman li bay entèpretasyon administratif sa yo nan ADA a vle di ke Bragdon kont Abbott se yon gwo viktwa, pa sèlman pou Sidney Abbott, men pou tout moun k ap viv ak yon andikap.
Kreyòl Ayisyen 
Español de México 
Português 
简体中文 
香港中文 
Français 
Tiếng Việt 
العربية 
Polski 
Русский 
Deutsch