News

GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) issued the following statement by Transgender Rights Project Director Jennifer Levi after the Massachusetts House and Senate passed the transgender public accommodations bill, now on its way to Governor Charlie Baker for signature:

“Today is a great day for the transgender people of Massachusetts, and for everyone in the Commonwealth who supports equality and opposes discrimination. All transgender people have ever wanted is to live fully and authentically, whether walking through a park, checking a book out of a library, buying a gift for a loved one, or celebrating with a meal in a restaurant.

“So many people have worked hard and acted courageously to bring us to this moment. We owe a debt of gratitude to the legislators who have stood up for equality, and to the transgender people and their families who have told their stories.”

Transgender people who are experiencing discrimination can contact GLAD Answers at www.gladanswers.org. A Q & A about the bill is available here.

Blog

Home » Massachusetts » Page 28

On Thursday, July 7, the Massachusetts House and Senate passed the transgender public accommodations bill. It was signed into law by Governor Baker on July 8. The law goes into effect on October 1, 2016.

What does this law do?

The law adds the phrase “gender identity” to Massachusetts’ public accommodations law. That means that people are protected against discrimination on the basis of gender identity in accessing public accommodations. In other words, transgender people must be given access to public accommodations on equal footing with everyone else.

In 2011, the Massachusetts legislature added gender identity protections to the Commonwealth’s employment, housing, credit, education, and hate crimes laws. The passage of this most recent law fills the gap in coverage that the legislature left open in 2011.

What venues and facilities are covered?

Public accommodations include all entities that provide goods and services to the general public. It includes restaurants, libraries, hotels, malls, public transportation, and beyond. This law means that transgender people must be given access to all such facilities on equal footing with others. The law also makes clear that transgender people must be given access to sex-segregated facilities consistent with their stated gender identity.

Does it address bathrooms and locker rooms?

Yes. The law requires that transgender people have access to any sex-segregated facilities based on their stated gender identity.

When will this go into effect?

The effective date of the non-discrimination protections is October 1. The transgender public accommodations bill included what is termed an “emergency preamble.” The emergency preamble acknowledges the importance of the law quickly going into effect. In order to ensure that covered public accommodations have time to both understand the law and to make any changes to existing policies, the bill specified that the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) and the Attorney General (AG) shall develop guidelines to ensure compliance with the law. The guidance is anticipated to be completed by the AG and MCAD by September 1.

Should I be worried about guidance that MCAD or the AG’s office might write or the way that part of the law was written?

No. The non-discrimination sections of the law are clear and unambiguous. Any concerns advocates had about the language in the section referring to MCAD and the AG were addressed in the conference committee. The law requires MCAD to develop guidance to ensure that all transgender people are protected as long as the person’s gender identity is sincerely held and not asserted for any improper purpose such as fraud or to justify misconduct.

It also authorizes the Attorney General to issue guidance to ensure that public accommodations such as stores or libraries do not report anyone to law enforcement simply because they believe the person is acting improperly. In other words, the guidance will explain that entities must accept a person’s stated gender identity as true. The only basis for ever referring someone to law enforcement is if a person breaks a law, not because of a misunderstanding about a person’s gender identity.

For more information, visit Freedom Massachusetts

For questions about LGBTQ legal rights in New England, contact us at GLADAnswers.org

News

Home » Massachusetts » Page 28

Statement of Janson Wu, Executive Director, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders

Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker’s announcement that he will authorize state police to engage in federal immigration enforcement raises particular concerns for the LGBTQ community. Janson Wu, Executive Director of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, issued the following statement:

“The use of state police to enforce federal immigration policy makes already vulnerable people – LGBTQ immigrants – even more vulnerable.

“LGBTQ immigrants already report high rates of violence and discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and are already reluctant to approach law enforcement for the help they may need as victims of crime. Turning state police into immigration agents places a further obstacle in the road to justice and healing. This is not the kind of place the Commonwealth of Massachusetts should be for its most vulnerable residents.”

News

Home » Massachusetts » Page 28

GLAD issued the following statement by Transgender Rights Project Director Jennifer Levi after the Massachusetts State House passed the transgender accommodations bill by a vote of 116-36:

““This is an incredible moment. After years of brave and steadfast work by transgender people, family members, allies, businesses, faith leaders, and community organizations, we are inches from full equality for transgender people in our state. This bill will not only ensure fair and long overdue protections for transgender people, but enshrine in law a recognition of the dignity and humanity of transgender people.”

News

Home » Massachusetts » Page 28

GLAD issued the following statement by Transgender Rights Project Director Jennifer Levi after the Massachusetts State Senate passed the transgender accommodations bill (SB 735) by a vote of 33-4:

“Today we moved one giant step closer to securing full non-discrimination protections for transgender people in Massachusetts.

Our sincere thanks go out to Senate President Stan Rosenberg for his leadership, and to every senator who chose to stand for equality today. Many thanks as well to Senator Chang-Diaz for her leadership and support.

This is an incredible moment. And we got here through years of steadfast work by transgender people, family members, allies, businesses, faith leaders, and community organizations.

We have every chance to pass this bill this year, to ensure fair and long-overdue protections for transgender people, and to make Massachusetts a leader once again in achieving equality for all.

Together we have built up tremendous momentum, but we can’t stop now. The bill must next be taken up by the House, and I encourage supporters to contact their representatives and urge them to take a stand for equality.”

Blog

Home » Massachusetts » Page 28

We got here through years of steadfast work by transgender people, family members, allies, businesses, faith leaders, community organizations and supporters like you.

Today we moved one giant step closer to securing full non-discrimination protections for transgender people in Massachusetts! The Massachusetts Senate voted 33-4 to pass the transgender public accommodations bill.

Cheers erupt in the Senate gallery upon passage of the bill. Our sincere thanks go out to Senate President Stan Rosenberg for his leadership, and to every senator who chose to stand for equality today. This is an incredible moment. And we got here through years of steadfast work by transgender people, family members, allies, businesses, faith leaders, community organizations and supporters like you. I’m proud that GLAD is a member of the Freedom Massachusetts coalition that has been fighting to make this legislation a priority, and I’m so grateful for everything you have done. I’ve never been more energized in this fight. We have every chance to pass this bill this year, to ensure fair and long-overdue protections for transgender people, and to make Massachusetts a leader once again in achieving equality for all. Together we have built up tremendous momentum, but we can’t stop now. The bill must next be taken up by the House, and I encourage you to urge your representatives to push for a swift vote and to vote yes when given the opportunity to take a stand. You can also volunteer to participate in a phone bank and reach out to local people to discuss the bill.

News

Home » Massachusetts » Page 28

GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) today announced a final resolution in the case Barrett v. Fontbonne Academy, in which a Catholic girls’ high school in Milton, MA rescinded an employment offer as food services manager to Matt Barrett, a gay man, upon learning that Matt was married to a man.

The settlement follows a first-of-its-kind ruling from the Massachusetts Superior Court in December 2015. The court found that Fontbonne discriminated against Barrett on the basis of sexual orientation and sex, in direct violation of Massachusetts non-discrimination laws, and rejected Fontbonne’s claims to an exemption based on its religious beliefs. That decision can be read here.

With Fontbonne electing not to appeal the ruling, the parties reached a settlement on the damages to be paid to Barrett, the amount of which is confidential under the terms of the agreement.

“I’m very happy, not just for myself, but for anyone else who may ever be fired from their job simply because of who they are,” said Barrett. “The humiliation that I went through should not be experienced by anyone else.”

“Non-discrimination laws are vitally important to our civil society,” said Bennett Klein, Senior Attorney at GLAD. “We hope that the consequences for Fontbonne’s discriminatory conduct will not only send a strong message to religious institutions about their legal obligations, but will also move them toward treating LGBT people with the respect and dignity that everyone deserves.”

In rejecting Fontbonne’s constitutional claims asserting rights of free exercise of religion and expressive association, Associate Justice Douglas H. Wilkins wrote, “The state has a compelling interest in prohibiting discrimination against historically disadvantaged people,” citing cases from the U.S. Supreme Court addressing race and sex discrimination. He continued, “That interest is rarely stronger than in the employment context…”

Barrett was born and raised in a Catholic family. He has worked in the food services industry for 20 years, and lives in Dorchester with his husband Ed Suplee.

In addition to Klein, Barrett is represented by GLAD attorney Gary Buseck and GLAD’s founder, John Ward.

Blog

Home » Massachusetts » Page 28

It feels like such a small ask, and yet an essential one, at this point to our governor.

Governor Baker left last night’s Boston Spirit Event when transgender activists, advocates, and allies vocalized their requests for his support of the transgender public accommodations bill. What did he expect?

We need and deserve more than an agreement “to talk to all parties involved.” We ask for Governor Baker’s support for the bill.

The community has waited over 10 years (since the introduction of a bill in 2004) for the most basic guarantees that we won’t be asked to leave or, worse, thrown out or arrested, just for accessing basic services readily accessible to most other people in the community. It feels like such a small ask, and yet an essential one, at this point to our governor. Just say you won’t veto a bill that is now supported by hundreds of major Massachusetts businesses, the Attorney General, faith leaders, women’s groups, and Senateand House leadership along with the full-throated support of the LGBT community. What could be so hard and why is it so important to be a remaining barrier when it is difficult anymore to even find the base of opposition to the bill? Massachusetts has taken so many steps forward to support the transgender community – with the adoption of statewide protections for youth in schools and for out-of-home youth, passage of express housing, employment, school and lending protections, revision of policies to change gender markers on driver’s licenses and birth certificates, reversal of longstanding insurance exclusions. Why maintain this critical barrier – the omission of express protections on the basis of gender identity in our public accommodations law? The community is frustrated and rightly so. We have answered every question about why the law is needed and how it can work in practice. We need and deserve more than an agreement “to talk to all parties involved.” We ask for Governor Baker’s support for the bill. Take Action: Send a message to Gov. Charlie Baker to demand that he meet with transgender people and hear why they need #TransBillMA.

Blog

Home » Massachusetts » Page 28

Karen’s case seeks to ensure that all children are protected whether their unmarried parents are same-sex or different-sex.

All children should be treated equally under the law, and deserve clarity and security about their relationship to their parents – whether or not those parents are married, or are a same-sex or different-sex couple. In Partanen v. Gallagher, now before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, our client, Karen, a non-birth mother, is seeking to be named a legal parent to the children she has raised from birth. Karen and her former partner, Julie, mutually agreed to have children with assisted reproduction and then raised the children together until they separated. Jo and Ja, now 7 and 4, have known Karen as Mommy and Julie as Mama for their whole lives, and have deep bonds with both. Karen and Julie have held themselves out as the children’s parents to the children, to each other, and to the community. But Julie now opposes Karen’s efforts to be recognized as a legal parent.

What Karen wants most is for her children to have a sense of security and permanency. GLAD is fighting by her side to ensure they have the stability, protection, support and legal rights that all children deserve.

Massachusetts’ comprehensive law, Chapter 209C, was put in place so that children who are born to unmarried individuals or couples can get a declaration of who their legal parents are. It is referred to as “the paternity statute” but its own terms say it applies to establish maternity, too. Chapter 209C is a backstop for children and that was its principal purpose when passed. It recognizes that children (and their parents) should have a route to determining who is a legal parent even when the parents did not marry and may not have adopted. With a ruling about legal parentage, both parents must support the child financially (according to ability) and the court will make a judgment about dividing up custody (decision-making and parenting time) as best serves the children’s interest. So far, unmarried same-sex couples have not had access to this law to establish parentage, and Karen’s case seeks to ensure that all children are protected whether their unmarried parents are same-sex or different-sex. Read more about the law and the issues in this case in our Q & A What Karen wants most is for her children to have a sense of security and permanency. GLAD is fighting by her side to ensure they have the stability, protection, support and legal rights that all children deserve.

News

Home » Massachusetts » Page 28

Oral arguments were heard today by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in Partanen v. Gallagher, a case involving legal parentage for a non-birth mother who, with her former partner, mutually agreed to have children by means of assisted reproduction and then raised the children together. GLAD and co-counsel represent Karen Partanen, the non-birth mother. Julie Gallagher, Karen’s former partner, has opposed Karen’s efforts to be recognized as a legal parent of the children they brought into the world and raised together until they separated.

“These children have had a Mommy, Karen, and a Mama, Julie for their whole lives and have deep bonds with each. Fortunately, the parentage laws provide a backstop so that children born to unmarried adults can obtain a determination of parentage and secure appropriate support, custody and visitation,” said Mary L. Bonauto of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, who argued on behalf of Karen before the SJC today. “These child-centered laws should protect children born from assisted reproduction, whether their parents are a same-sex or different-sex couple.”

This case is a matter of first impression under Massachusetts parentage laws. As it stands, the law says that when unmarried parents have and raise a child together in their home and hold out the child as their child to the community, then the non-birth parent is presumed to be a legal parent. Karen and Julie held themselves out as the children’s parents to the children, each other, the community, third parties, and on official forms. Gallagher now claims the presumption evaporates without proof of a biological connection, but GLAD says the law is broader. In addition, Massachusetts policies favor immediate legal parentage for children born to married couples who use assisted reproduction. GLAD says that policy must apply here to ensure equal treatment of all children without regard to their parents’ marital status, as state law and constitutional commands require.

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. When Karen was unable to become pregnant, the couple decided that Julie would be the one to give birth. 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 7.

Upon their separation, Karen filed two complaints: one to be declared a “de facto” parent, which currently provides for rights of visitation but does not confer the full legal and familial advantages of parenthood on the children, and another to be declared a full, legal parent under existing Massachusetts laws, which would acknowledge her role and her responsibilities to the children. Julie has opposed the complaint. “I grew up in a large family, and that sense of family and permanency is what I want for my children,” said Karen.

The complaint to establish legal parentage was dismissed by the trial court in March 2015 and is the focus of this appeal, which was taken on direct review by the SJC.

“People feel no need to involve the legal system in their lives when things are going well, but adult relationships change, and when they do, families can be legally vulnerable – and the children are particularly vulnerable,” said Bonauto. “Karen’s children must have the same rights as other non-marital children, including the stability, care, protection, support and legal rights.”

In addition to Bonauto, Karen is represented by Patience Crozier of Kauffman Crozier LLP, Elizabeth Roberts of Todd & Weld LLP, and Teresa Harkins La Vita of La Vita Law Center.