In re Belynda Dunn

By 2001, thanks to new treatments and therapies, people were living with HIV. But as people with HIV lived longer, they began to face other life-threatening diseases.

In 2001 in Massachusetts, GLAD represented two people whose HIV was under control, but who had only months to live because of end-stage liver disease caused by Hepatitis C (HCV). Both needed liver transplants to live. But private insurers and Medicaid claimed that transplants were “experimental” in people with HIV, and refused to pay.

In two of the first cases of their kind, GLAD challenged these decisions and won, giving people with HIV a fair shot at medical procedures they need to live.

One case involved Boston AIDS activist Belynda Dunn, who had been living with HIV for years. Without a liver transplant, Belynda’s doctors said she had only months to live. But her private insurer, Neighborhood Health Plan, refused to cover it.

Belynda didn’t take “no” for an answer, and teamed up with GLAD and AIDS Action Committee to fight back.

GLAD filed an emergency lawsuit in federal court on July 16, 2001 on Belynda’s behalf, arguing for a preliminary injunction against Neighborhood Health Plan. GLAD argued that NHP’s refusal was based on antiquated medical standards and bias against people with HIV.

GLAD attorney and AIDS Law Project Director Ben Klein said at the time, “The HMO’s actions were a categorical, absolute denial of liver transplant services for any person who also has HIV.

“The HMO is basically saying that people with HIV do not deserve to have their HCV cured. That is an outrage when a liver transplant will prevent certain death.”

While the lawsuit was pending, Neighborhood Health Plan agreed to contribute $100,000 to a fund to pay for liver transplants for Belynda and other people with HIV and HCV. With another $50,000 contributed by Harvard Pilgrim Health Care and several anonymous donations arranged by Mayor Thomas Menino, the fund raised $275,000.

Belynda’s federal lawsuit ended when her individual situation was addressed. GLAD later that year won a landmark victory against MassHealth on behalf of another person living with HIV and HCV who needed a liver transplant. In the first legal ruling of its kind in the country, the Massachusetts Division of Medical Assistance Board of Hearings ruled that there may be no categorical exclusion of HIV-positive people from liver transplants.

Jane Doe v. Roe Moving Company

Home » Massachusetts » Page 39

GLAD won a favorable settlement in a case filed at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) against a central Massachusetts moving company that refused to provide moving services to a mother and her son, upon discovering that the son had AIDS. The case settled following an MCAD finding of probable cause to believe that the company violated Massachusetts anti-discrimination laws.

Doe v. Managed Care Organization

Home » Massachusetts » Page 39

In the first legal ruling of its kind in the country, GLAD prevailed in an action to cover the cost of a life-saving liver transplant for a Medicaid recipient with both HIV and end-stage liver disease as a result of hepatitis C. The case was brought on behalf of a 41 year-old Roxbury, MA man who was in no danger of dying from his HIV, but would have died within months of Hepatitis-related liver disease without the transplant. Medicaid coverage was denied on the ground that liver transplants are “experimental” – and, therefore, are not covered – in the presence of HIV infection. On appeal, the Division of Medical Assistance Board of Hearings rejected the claim that liver transplantation is “experimental” in people with HIV. As a result of this decision, insurers cannot categorically exclude people with HIV from liver transplantation.

Rosa v. Park West Bank

Home » Massachusetts » Page 39

In a precedent-setting decision with major implications for the business community, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit confirmed that sex discrimination laws reach situations where individuals are discriminated against because of their failure to conform to stereotypes of how men and women are supposed to look and act. In June 2000, the federal court decided that a federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in lending protects our client, Lucas Rosa—a transgender person who appears female but was assigned the sex designation of male at birth—who was told when applying for a bank loan to go home and change to appear more traditionally masculine.

GLAD brought suit on behalf of our client under the federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act as well as under Massachusetts laws prohibiting discrimination because of sex and perceived sexual orientation in lending and public accommodations. In a decision that took just three weeks to issue, the Federal Appeals Court overturned the ruling of a federal district judge, and ruled that our client may be able to prove a case of sex discrimination and remanded the case for trial.

This case has tremendous significance for both GLB people and those who are transgender because the root of much of our shared oppression is the enforcement of stereotypical notions of how “real men” and “real women” should look and act. This case creates a key legal building block for arguing that discrimination because of a person’s failure to meet widely shared normative beliefs about gender—whether that person is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender—is prohibited sex discrimination.

In the Matter of Jane Doe

Home » Massachusetts » Page 39

In response to an assault against a lesbian student by a number of her peers at a Western Massachusetts high school, GLAD secured the school’s agreement to do mandatory teacher and student trainings to ensure the safety of all GLBT students. GLAD intervened in discussions on behalf of the student after the attack, which was the culmination of months of anti-gay harassment since the student came out to friends, family and other students.

See also Doe v. Yunits (under Transgender).

Commonwealth v. Ortiz

Home » Massachusetts » Page 39

A single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court issued an opinion strongly affirming the absolute privacy of a person’s HIV status under Massachusetts law. In this case, in which GLAD filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of itself and AIDS Action Committee, Justice Martha Sosman overturned an order from the Springfield District Court that a criminal defendant disclose to police officers whether he is HIV+, after an arrest that involved contact with the defendant’s blood. The ruling is important not only for the affirmation of privacy rights, but also because it puts to rest arguments that there should be “implied exceptions” to our confidentiality statute.

Beger v. Division of Medical Assistance

Home » Massachusetts » Page 39

In this case, a Superior Court in Suffolk County ordered the state of Massachusetts to pay for a surgical procedure it had denied to a transsexual woman, but would have provided to a non-transsexual woman. Germaine Beger is a 50-year-old Medicaid recipient who completed sex-reassignment surgery over 25 years ago, including receiving breast implants. In 1999, she sought treatment for a possible cyst in her right breast and learned that she needed the implants removed and follow-up breast reconstruction surgery. The state approved the implant removal but denied the breast reconstruction, relying on a state regulation that excludes Medicaid coverage for any procedure related to sex-reassignment surgery.

GLAD successfully argued that breast reconstruction in this case was not related to sex-reassignment, since Germaine had been legally and medically a woman for half a lifetime. The Court ruled that the state could not refuse a medically necessary procedure simply on the basis that Germaine is a transsexual.

Doe v. Yunits

Home » Massachusetts » Page 39

In 2000, GLAD obtained a landmark ruling, in the first reported decision ever in a case brought by a transgender student, that a middle school may not prohibit a transgender student from expressing her female gender identity. Disciplining a biologically male student for wearing girls’ clothing violates her First Amendment rights of free expression and constitutes sex discrimination. The Superior Court decision confirms that a school may not exert its authority over a student simply to enforce stereotyped ideas of how boys and girls should look, a ruling that has significant impact for all gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students.

GLAD brought the case against the Brockton School Department when the school prohibited our client, known in court documents only as Pat Doe, from attending school wearing what the principal considered to be girls’ clothing after nearly two years of disciplinary action against Pat for her choice of clothes.

A single justice of the appeals court affirmed the Superior Court injunction. Also, the trial court denied the school’s motions to dismiss Pat Doe’s disability and due process claims. In a first of its kind ruling, the court held that Massachusetts disability law, unlike federal law, does not exclude transgender people from its protections.

Jason H. v. Boston Public Schools

Home » Massachusetts » Page 39

Representing a Boston student subjected to peer harassment, GLAD negotiated a settlement that includes system-wide training and information regarding sexual orientation and the appointment of a support person in every school.

Crandall v. Boston Concession Group

Home » Massachusetts » Page 39

GLAD won a ruling that Massachusetts non-discrimination law applies equally to every employee of Massachusetts companies, even if the employee works out-of-state. GLAD represented two women from Maine who worked in Maine and were essentially terminated after their employers learned they were lesbians. Our clients filed a complaint at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) under the Massachusetts non-discrimination law because their former employer was a Massachusetts-based company. After the MCAD dismissed our clients’ claim for lack of jurisdiction because the events occurred in Maine, GLAD appealed to Suffolk Superior Court. The Superior Court denied motions to dismiss by the MCAD and the employer, and the MCAD then agreed to reverse its position and announced that it would hear claims brought by out-of-state employees against in-state employers. The employer also negotiated a settlement with our clients.