Connecticut Know Your Rights - Page 12 of 12 - GLAD Law
Skip Header to Content
GLAD Logo Skip Primary Navigation to Content

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

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

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.

In re Baby Z & An Act Concerning The Best Interest Of Children In Adoption Matters

GLAD helped win second-parent adoption in Connecticut, through work in the courts and assistance to activists drafting legislation.  In April 1998, GLAD filed an amicus brief in the Connecticut Supreme Court in a case known as Baby Z, which raised the question of the availability of second-parent adoption in Connecticut.  The Supreme Court ruled that the Connecticut adoption statute could not allow such a procedure, making it necessary to look to the legislature to solve this serious problem.  Continuing our advocacy, GLAD worked with Connecticut activists on legislation to redress the problem identified in Baby Z.  The Connecticut legislature passed a second-parent adoption bill in 2000.

In re John/Jane Doe

In November 2000, the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) issued a landmark ruling stating that all transgender people are protected by Connecticut’s sex discrimination prohibitions.  Citing recent cases protective of transgender people, including two brought by GLAD, the CHRO adopted a reading of Connecticut law to include a broad range of people, writing that “…our intent is to see that justice is done for each individual – transsexual or non-transsexual, male or female, straight or gay, black or white, rich or poor – so as to recognize each person as a unique and valued member of our great human family.”  GLAD filed briefs in this case on behalf of itself, The Connecticut Coalition for LGBT Civil Rights, the Connecticut Women’s Educational and Legal Fund, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, FTM International and Gender PAC.

en_USEnglish
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognizing you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

To learn more, visit our privacy policy.