News

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 here.

News

Home » Connecticut » Page 11

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.

Read the full press release here.

News

Home » Connecticut » Page 11

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.