News

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 illegal, as 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 and Dana Peterson v. City of Hartford

Home » Connecticut » Page 11

Update 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 amicus brief 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

Home » Connecticut » Page 11

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 filed an amicus 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 v. Birken Manufacturing Co.

Home » Connecticut » Page 11

GLAD and the Connecticut Employment Lawyers Association (CELA) applaud a May 4, 2012 ruling from the Connecticut Supreme Court that employers can be liable if they fail to protect employees from harassment based on sexual orientation. In Patino v. Birken Manufacturing Company (Docket No. 18441), the Court also upheld a jury award of $95,000 in favor of plaintiff Luis Patino.

When Patino was employed as a machinist by the defendant, he was the object of pervasive name-calling for several years, including “faggot go home,” and “faggot get out of here.” He was subjected to slurs in English, Spanish and Italian, such as “pato,” “maricon,” “pira,” and “homo.” By affirming that employees can sue employers for anti-gay harassment in the workplace, the Court rejected the defendant’s argument that workplace harassment claims are limited to sexual harassment.

GLAD and CELA filed an amicus brief on behalf of seven Connecticut civil rights groups: the African-American Affairs Commission, the Center for Disability Rights, the Connecticut Alliance for Business Opportunities, the Connecticut Hispanic Bar Association, the Connecticut Transadvocacy Coalition, the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women, and Triangle Community Center.

In urging the Court to find coverage under Connecticut law for cases of antigay workplace harassment, the brief highlighted the scientific literature demonstrating that incidents of discrimination, including based on sexual orientation and race, can lead directly to mental and physical harm.

The plaintiff Luis Patino was represented by Attorney Jon L. Schoenhorn of Hartford. The amicus brief was written by Ben Klein of GLAD in Boston, MA and Nina T. Pirrotti of Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Chimes, Richardson & Fitzgerald, P.C. in New Haven.

Pedersen et al. v. Office of Personnel Management et al.

Home » Connecticut » Page 11

June 26, 2013 U.S. Supreme Court rules DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional in Windsor v. United States

July 31, 2012 – Connecticut Federal District Court Judge Bryant rules that DOMA is unconstitutional.

Judge Bryant issued an order denying BLAG’s Motion to Stay Proceedings on July 4, 2012.

House Leadership via the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings on June 20, 2012. Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Motion to Stay on June 22, 2012

July 15, 2011 Update: GLAD files motion for summary judgment on behalf of plaintiffs

February 23, 2011 Update: DOJ Announces it won’t defend constitutionality of DOMA in Pedersen

On November 9, 2010, GLAD filed Pedersen v. O.P.M., a second major, multi-plaintiff lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Section 3 and the government’s denial of protections and responsibilities to married gay and lesbian couples.

Pedersen v. O.P.M. specifically addresses married couples in Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire.

Kerrigan & Mock v. Connecticut Dept. of Public Health

Home » Connecticut » Page 11

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. v. Manchester Board of Education

Home » Connecticut » Page 11

GLAD used the Connecticut anti-discrimination provisions based on sexual orientation and marital status to help a group of teachers and school administrators in Manchester, CT to obtain insurance benefits for their domestic partners. These educators applied for and were denied these benefits – benefits that constitute a significant portion of an employee’s compensation. GLAD argued the position that withholding these benefits amounted to unequal pay for equal work – something the law does not tolerate. With the discrimination suit pending, the Manchester Board of Education approved new contracts for school administrators and teachers that included health insurance for the partners of its gay and lesbian employees. The Manchester Board of Directors approved the Administrators’ contract on November 18th, 2003 and the Teachers’ contract was agreed upon in arbitration and formally certified by the arbitrator on November 17th.

Brindamour, et al. v. Manchester Board of Education

Home » Connecticut » Page 11

Brett, et al., v. Town of West Hartford

Home » Connecticut » Page 11

GLAD successfully challenged the discriminatory policy of the Town of West Hartford municipal pool, which sought to exclude same-sex couples and their children from a discounted family membership rate. In November 2002, the West Hartford Town Council approved in a 5 to 4 vote a settlement of the long-standing discrimination complaint by five unmarried couples who claimed the town treated their families unfairly by withholding the preferential “family” membership rate at the facility, known as the Cornerstone Aquatics Center. The newly approved policy ensures that all families and households enjoy an identical rate and allows all children to use the pool for free. In addition, the Town paid a portion of the couples’ attorneys’ fees. The family membership rate had previously been offered only to married couples or to parents. The definition of parents included step-, legal and adoptive parents, but excluded same-sex co-parents or anyone who parents a child with a non-marital partner. For most families, the difference in cost was several hundred dollars.

The case had been pending since November 1998, when it was first filed in the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO). Together with attorney Maureen Murphy, GLAD won a ruling from the CHRO that the state’s anti-discrimination laws required the Town to provide equal access and pricing for its pool facility. The case was later removed to the Superior Court where cross-motions for summary judgment were pending.

Boy Scouts of America v. Wyman

Home » Connecticut » Page 11

GLAD worked to stop the special access of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to the Connecticut state employees’ charitable campaign in light of their discrimination based on sexual orientation. Our participation in this matter dated to early 2000, when GLAD submitted a brief to the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Responsibilities (CHRO), explaining that although BSA may use public facilities on terms equal to those offered any other group, they may not enjoy any special privileges. Therefore, GLAD argued, unless BSA endorsed a policy of non-discrimination, as every other group must do in order to participate in the state charitable campaign, they were ineligible.

In large part based on GLAD’s analysis, the CHRO ruled that BSA’s inclusion in the campaign would violate state law. After being advised that they could not participate in the campaign, BSA filed suit in federal court against the state comptroller. Denied the right to appear as a party, GLAD filed an amicus brief on behalf of ourselves, the Connecticut Women’s Education and Legal Fund (CWEALF), and the Connecticut Coalition for LGBT Civil Rights arguing that the exclusion of BSA from the campaign is proper. The U.S. District Court for Connecticut agreed, ruling that the state in no way violated the BSA’s constitutional rights when it excluded them from the campaign because of their anti-gay policy.

The BSA filed an appeal to the federal Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. GLAD again filed an amicus brief on behalf of ourselves, CWEALF, and the CT Coalition, arguing to the appeals court that well-established Connecticut law precludes discriminatory groups from access to state facilities. The Court turned down the BSA’s appeal, confirming GLAD’s position that BSA may not receive special privileges from the state as long as they retain their anti-gay policy. The U.S. Supreme Court denied review of this case, letting stand the lower court’s ruling.