Don’t miss GLAD’s biggest event of the year! The evening brings together over 900 community members and allies to recognize and honor individuals whose achievements reflect a profound dedication to our ideal of a just society. Mark your calendar for a fun and fabulous night of celebration and inspiration, dinner and dancing.
For more information, please contact Stephanie Lowitt at 617.778.6711 or slowitt@glad.org
Statement of Jennifer Levi, Transgender Rights Project Director, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders
This week, opponents of legal protections for transgender people in Massachusetts waged two attacks on the recently enacted law. Jennifer Levi issued the following statement on the anti-transgender ballot initiative, and the lawsuit challenging the law filed by Alliance Defending Freedom:
While opponents have gathered signatures sufficient to put a repeal measure on the 2018 ballot, the broad coalition of transgender people, family members, businesses, faith leaders and other fair-minded Massachusetts residents who fought for and support this law are ready to ensure its important protections are upheld. Meanwhile, the law remains in effect, and we are committed to making sure it works as the legislature intended – to provide fair and commonsense non-discrimination protections for transgender people in public spaces.
The ADF lawsuit has been filed as part of a nationwide effort to roll back protections that the transgender community has fought so long to secure. This effort to halt enforcement of the law is without legal merit. It is premised on baseless, shameless fearmongering, and it mischaracterizes the reach of the law.
Protections for religious individuals and for churches are important, and are built into the Massachusetts non-discrimination law. There’s nothing about adding transgender people to its protections that changes that.
Today the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued a decision in Partanen v. Gallagher, declaring that Karen Partanen, a non-birth mother, can be a legal parent to the two children she raised with her former partner Julie Gallagher. The decision can be read here.
This decision is a major victory for contemporary families, which are formed in so many different ways. It is especially a victory for the children in those families who should not be deprived of their parents because those parents are not married or used assisted reproduction. – Civil Rights Project Director Mary L. Bonauto
Partanen and Gallagher mutually agreed to have children by means of assisted reproduction and then raised the children together. Gallagher had opposed Karen’s efforts to be recognized as a legal parent of the children after the two women separated because she was the birth parent.
“This decision is a major victory for contemporary families, which are formed in so many different ways. It is especially a victory for the children in those families who should not be deprived of their parents because those parents are not married or used assisted reproduction,” said Mary L. Bonauto of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, who represented Partanen before the court.
GLAD and veteran Massachusetts family law practitioners Patience Crozier, Elizabeth Roberts and Teresa Harkins La Vita argued that child-centered laws should protect children born from assisted reproduction whether their parents are a same-sex or different-sex couple, and should ensure equal treatment of all children without regard to their parents’ marital status.
Like every state, Massachusetts provides a means for children who are born to an unmarried couple to have a determination of who are their legal parents (referred to as the “paternity law”). This law ensures that both parents support their children (when able), and that their custody and visitation be allocated based on the children’s best interests.
“I could not be happier,” said Karen. “All I’ve wanted is to give my children the sense of family, continuity, and permanency that come with my being their legal parent.”
Referring to the paternity statute, the decision declares “While the provisions at issue speak in gendered terms, they may be read, as discussed, in a gender-neutral manner, to apply where a child is “born to [two people], is received into their joint home, and is held out by both as their own child. The plain language of the provisions, then, may be construed to apply to same-sex couples, even though at least one member of the couple may well lack biological ties to the children.”
Julie Gallagher and Karen Partanen were a couple for nearly 13 years. They met in Massachusetts and later moved to Florida. While living there, they bought a home and decided to have children together. With Karen’s consent and full involvement, Julie conceived two children through assisted reproduction, and they parented them together. Karen and Julie later moved back to Massachusetts and separated. Their two children are now 4 and 8.
Upon their separation, Karen filed two complaints: one to be declared a “de facto” parent, which currently provides for rights of visitation, and another to be declared a full, legal parent under existing Massachusetts laws. With this ruling, her role and responsibilities as a parent can be legally established.
On October 4, 2016, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued a decision in Partanen v. Gallagher, declaring that Karen Partanen, a non-birth mother, can be a legal parent to the two children she raised with her former partner Julie Gallagher.
“This decision is a major victory for contemporary families, which are formed in so many different ways. It is especially a victory for the children in those families who should not be deprived of their parents because those parents are not married or used assisted reproduction.” – GLAD Civil Rights Project Director Mary Bonauto
Case Background
Jo- and Ja- are siblings, now 7 and 4 years old, the children of Karen Partanen and Julie Gallagher.
Karen and Julie were a couple for nearly 13 years. They met in Massachusetts, moved to Florida where they purchased a home together, and after a time decided to have children together using assisted reproduction. Together they consented to the procedures, chose a donor, and underwent psychological evaluations. Karen first tried to become pregnant, but when she was unsuccessful, Julie became pregnant. Karen even injected Julie with the semen for the conception of their second child.
Their families were thrilled with the news of the pregnancies, and held a baby shower for the couple. From the moment “Jo” was born in 2008, and “Ja” in 2012, Karen (who was present with Julie in the delivery room) was Mommy to them and Julie was Mama.
When the children were born, Karen and Julie sent out birth announcements to friends and family. They raised the children together, sharing all of the normal parenting duties, from night feedings to medical decisions to financial support. They spent holidays and vacations together, and their families and community of friends saw them as a family unit. Jo and Ja saw both Julie’s and Karen’s parents as their grandparents – and were in turn regarded as grandchildren. The children’s schools and medical providers knew both Karen and Julie as the parents.
For the time that Karen and Julie lived in Florida, adoption was not an option that was available to Karen to establish herself as a legal parent. Florida’s ban on “homosexual” adoption (the last in the nation) was struck down by an intermediate appellate court in late 2010 and not appealed by the State. Following this, there was a years-long period of legal uncertainty about whether other mid-level courts of appeal would agree with the ruling and where the Florida Supreme Court stood on the constitutionality of the ban. The adoption ban was repealed only in 2015.
In 2012, Karen and Julie moved from Florida to Massachusetts, where their relationship deteriorated, and they separated in 2014. At that point, Julie had refused Karen’s request to do an adoption. In 2014, Karen filed a legal complaint seeking to be declared a “de facto” parent, so that she could see the children.
Karen filed a second complaint to be declared a full, legal parent under existing Massachusetts laws to secure a clear ruling acknowledging her role and her responsibilities to the children. No appellate case has decided whether that is permissible, although the “paternity” (and “maternity”) law in place since 1986 serves as a backstop to declare the parentage of children whose parents have not married or adopted them.
That groundbreaking law was part of systemic efforts in Massachusetts to ensure that all children receive equal consideration regardless of the circumstances of their birth. Since that law, Chapter 209C, imposes responsibility on people who have children through sexual reproduction, and its terms are general, Karen argues it is broad enough to include children born through assisted reproduction, as here. Such a ruling would provide protections for both same-sex and different-sex couples who use assisted reproduction to create their families, which in Massachusetts is about 5% of all births.
While the judge in the parentage case dismissed Karen’s claim, prompting this appeal, the judge in the de facto case granted Karen shared legal and physical custody and issued a child support obligation. Gallagher is appealing that ruling because she wants to be the only decision maker. A notice of appeal was filed at the Appeals Court in that case.
Julie has opposed Karen’s effort to become a legal parent to Jo and Ja. Karen seeks stability and permanency for her children. “I grew up in a large family, and that sense of family is what I want for my children,” said Karen.
When relationships change, families that have formed by love and intention, but without court involvement, can be vulnerable to legal attack, leading to this kind of high-stakes litigation. Karen hopes that her children will be able to enjoy the same legal protections as other children so that they can continue to have the security of their two parents.
Karen is represented by Mary L. Bonauto of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, Patience Crozier of Kauffman Crozier LLP, Elizabeth Roberts of Roberts & Sauer LLP, Teresa Harkins La Vita of La Vita Law Center.
This decision is a significant precedent for the rights of transgender individuals to be free of discriminatory harassment in the workplace, and the responsibility of employers to take harassment complaints about gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity seriously.
On August 9, 2016, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (“MCAD”) announced an important ruling concerning the rights of Massachusetts employees to be free from discrimination based on their transgender status, gender identity, or sexual orientation.
The decision is a loud and clear legal precedent that intentional misuse of gender pronouns and gender based words to refer to a transgender employee can amount to unlawful, discriminatory harassment.
This decision is a significant precedent for the rights of transgender individuals to be free of discriminatory harassment in the workplace, and the responsibility of employers to take harassment complaints about gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity seriously.
The Tinker v. Securitas (MCAD Docket No. 13-BEM-01906, (August 9, 2016)) decision found that Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. (“Securitas”) discriminated against Mr. Alyx Tinker (“Tinker”) based on his transgender status. Specifically, the commission ruled in favor of Mr. Tinker’s claims of discrimination from Securitas and his former supervisor on the basis of gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation.
To briefly summarize, Mr. Tinker began working at Securitas, prior to his transition, as a female who self-identified as lesbian. During his time at Securitas, Mr. Tinker came out to his co-workers and supervisors as a transgender man and began his transition. He underwent hormone therapy and surgery as part of the transition process, changed his name, and asked his supervisor to refer to him by his new name and with male pronouns.
The MCAD found that Mr. Tinker’s Securitas supervisor did not respect Mr. Tinker because he was transgender and he discriminated against Mr. Tinker because of his gender identity and sexual orientation. The MCAD decision credited Mr. Tinker’s testimony that his supervisor ridiculed Mr. Tinker, stating that he would “never be a real man,” that his insides would fill with scar tissue, and that the transition he was undertaking was wrong. The Securitas’ supervisor was attributed with telling Mr. Tinker that he was “unclean” and “going to go to hell.” After hormone treatment began, the Securitas supervisor was found to have told Mr. Tinker that his brain would continue to grow because biologically men are smarter than women. While Securitas claimed that the supervisor stopped referring to Mr. Tinker with she/her pronouns within months of being asked to transition into using he/him pronouns, this claim was undermined based upon an e-mail following Mr. Tinker’s coming out as transgender in which the supervisor repeatedly referred to him with she/her pronouns (at least nine times in one e-mail). The email was written roughly two years after Mr. Tinker asked to be referred to with male pronouns.
The MCAD found that Mr. Tinker complained about the way he was being treated to several Securitas supervisory managers. Nonetheless, Securitas never disciplined Mr. Tinker’s supervisor for the way he communicated to or about Mr. Tinker, including for the several instances of misgendering. Mr. Tinker suffered emotional stress and anxiousness due to his mistreatment at work. He had nightmares and trouble sleeping, and came to dread the prospect of being alone with his supervisor.
In its August 9, 2016 Decision, the MCAD awarded Mr. Tinker emotional distress damages and invited a petition to reimburse Mr. Tinker for attorneys’ fees in accordance with applicable law. The ruling also required Securitas to take corrective action and conduct training of human resources personnel, managers, and supervisors on issues related to gender and transgender discrimination in the workplace.
This decision supports the right of Massachusetts employees to have their gender identity respected and to not be targeted with intentional misgendering.
This decision is a significant precedent for the rights of transgender individuals to be free of discriminatory harassment in the workplace, and the responsibility of employers to take harassment complaints about gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity seriously.
GLAD and the ACLU of Massachusetts submitted an amicus brief to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination in this case involving the alleged sexual harassment of a college summer intern by a priest of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Worcester (MA) and a claim of retaliation in the investigation process by another priest of the Diocese.
The Diocese and its priests claim they are exempt from certain types of damages on the basis of the “ministerial exception” in the law, and the MCAD agreed and went further and dismissed the claims in their entirety based on the exception. GLAD and the ACLU argue that the MCAD has both misconceived the nature of the claims asserted, and gone too far in applying the ministerial exception.
GLAD Transgender Rights Project Director Jennifer Levi had this statement:
These commonsense guidelines, which in fact reflect what many stores, restaurants and other businesses have been doing for years, demonstrate that this law is workable and will serve to make Massachusetts a more fair, welcoming and thriving place for all.
“The purpose of this guidance is to ensure that the public accommodations law works as the legislature intended – that transgender people are protected and businesses across the Commonwealth have clarity on their responsibilities. We appreciate that both MCAD and the Attorney General have issued practical, common sense guidance that takes into account the needs of both transgender people and the business community. These guidelines, which in fact reflect what many stores, restaurants and other businesses have been doing for years, demonstrate that this law is workable and will serve to make Massachusetts a more fair, welcoming and thriving place for all.”
On August 10, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed into law An Act Relative to HIV-Associated Lipodystrophy Syndrome Treatment, which will go into effect November 9. This first-of-its-kind legislation, sponsored by Senator Mark Montigny and Representative Sarah Peake, requires public and private insurers to cover treatment of a debilitating side effect of early HIV medications. This historic victory means that some of the longest-term survivors of the HIV epidemic will finally have access to the critical health care they need and deserve.
Read our Q&A for more information on what the law means for people seeking treatment.
The Massachusetts House and Senate approved a bill late last night requiring insurance coverage for the treatment of HIV-related lipodystrophy. An Act Relative to HIV-associated Lipodystrophy Syndrome Treatment, sponsored by Representative Sarah Peake and Senator Mark Montigny, mandates that private insurers and MassHealth cover treatment for a debilitating and disfiguring side effect of the first wave of life-saving HIV medications.The bill is the first of its kind in the country, and now goes to Governor Charlie Baker for signature.
Lipodystrophy is characterized by painful, abnormal changes in body shape, such as fat growths on the back of the neck that press on the spine; and facial wasting that is seen as a public disclosure of HIV status. Lipodystrophy causes spinal malformation, posture problems, headaches, restricted mobility, depression, anxiety, suicidality, and stigma. Despite the existence of simple and inexpensive treatments, insurers have refused to cover those treatments, improperly labelling them “cosmetic.”
“People living with lipodystrophy who have survived the AIDS epidemic will no longer be consigned to lives as shut-ins or objects of ridicule,” said Ben Klein, Director of the AIDS Law Project for GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD). “This bill continues Massachusetts’ leadership ensuring sound and compassionate health care for people with HIV.”
In addition to legislators Peake and Montigny, GLAD also expressed gratitude to Senate President Stan Rosenberg and House Speaker Robert DeLeo for shepherding the bill.
Lipodystrophy affects a small, finite, and shrinking number of people with HIV who took the first anti-retroviral medications in the 1990s. Data from the Department of Public Health indicate that between 184 and 459 people with HIV would seek treatment.
People with lipodystrophy, such as John Wallace and Andrew Fullem, lobbied the legislature for relief. Wallace testified that he rarely goes out because “I don’t want people to see me,” and that he often contemplated suicide. Fullem said, “When my lipodystrophy is at its worst, I’m a walking advertisement for HIV. It’s demeaning and psychologically devastating.”
“People with lipodystrophy have only been able to get medical treatment if they lawyered up and threatened to sue their insurer,” said Klein. “Today’s actions right that wrong.”
GLAD founded and leads the Treat Lipodystrophy Coalition, an alliance of people living with HIV, physicians, and HIV service and advocacy organizations, which has been working to pass the bill into law for four years. For more information about the bill, lipodystrophy, and the Treat Lipodystrophy Coalition, visit www.gladlaw.org/tlc.
Over 100 Massachusetts doctors have written a letter to MA House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, urging the passage of An Act Relative to HIV-Associated Lipodystrophy Treatment (H927), a first-of-its-kind bill which would mandate insurance coverage to treat long-term survivors of HIV for a disfiguring condition.
Lipodystrophy is a side effect of early HIV treatments, characterized by painful, abnormal changes in body shape, such as fat growths on the back of the neck that press on the spine; and facial wasting that is seen as a public disclosure of HIV status. Lipodystrophy causes physical pain and psychological anguish: spinal malformation and posture problems, headaches, restricted mobility, depression and anxiety, suicidality, and stigma. Despite the existence of simple and inexpensive treatments, insurers do not cover those treatments, improperly labelling them “cosmetic.”
“As physicians, we work hard every day to treat patients and eliminate unnecessary suffering,” the letter reads in part. “We are distressed that the refusal of insurers to cover lipodystrophy treatment prevents us from obtaining the best health care available for patients with HIV. Treatment of lipodystrophy is basic medical care; it is not cosmetic. It is also sound public health policy.”
The letter was signed by prominent physicians from the state’s leading teaching hospitals, directors of community health centers, professors at Harvard Medical School, and editors of infectious disease journals. Signatories include Dr. Daniel McQuillen, president of the Massachusetts Infectious Disease Society; Dr. Paul Sax, Editor-in-Chief of Journal Watch HIV/AIDS Clinical Care; and Dr. Kenneth Mayer, Co-Chair and Medical Research Director at Fenway Health.
Because lipodystrophy is associated with the earliest effective treatments for HIV, those that transformed the prospects of living a long and healthy life with HIV. People with lipodystrophy tend to be the longest-term survivors of HIV, and that population is small and shrinking.
The bill was passed by the Senate in February. The House and Senate versions of the bill are now at the House Ways & Means Committee.
GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) founded and leads the Treat Lipodystrophy Coalition, which has been working for four years to pass the bill.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on health care for transgender youth is devastating. If you have questions about your rights, our legal infoline can help. Contact GLAD Law Answers today.
Español de México