The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on January 31, 2008 unanimously affirmed District Court Judge Mark L. Wolf’s dismissal of a lawsuit brought by two sets of parents against the Lexington school system.
In the suit, parents David and Tonia Parker and Robert and Robin Wirthlin claimed that a Lexington elementary school violated their constitutional rights by exposing their children to books portraying many different kinds of families, including non-judgmental depictions of families headed by same-sex couples.
GLAD authored an amicus in the case.
The plaintiff parents filed a petition seeking review before the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied in October, 2008.
GLAD applied for and won compensation from the federal September 11 Victim Compensation Fund on behalf of Nancy Walsh, a lesbian whose partner of 13 years was one of the passengers on Flight 11 who died on September 11. Nancy came up against barriers that so often face same-sex partners in times of crisis. For example, her partner, Carol Flyzik, did not have a will, thus making Carol’s biological family the presumptive recipients of any compensation. Nor did Nancy have an automatic right to administer Carol’s estate or continue to live in the home that she and Carol shared.
GLAD helped Nancy to secure her partner’s death certificate so that she was able to proceed with matters relating to the probate of the estate, and assisted her in applying for compensation from the federal Fund. Nancy’s hearing was held on January 26. After considering the facts, the Special Master awarded a favorable monetary ruling for Nancy, compensating her for losses she incurred as a result of this tragedy.
Nancy’s case tragically underscores the vulnerability of same-sex relationships, and reminds us of the comprehensive protections that marriage provides for families.
The morning of September 11, 2001, after Nancy Walsh saw the morning news, after she ran to the refrigerator to check the flight itinerary her partner Carol Flyzik had left there, after she confirmed that Carol was scheduled to be on American Airlines Flight 11, she called the airline.
Maybe Carol had missed her flight. Maybe she was okay.
But even though Nancy and Carol had been together for 12 years, the airline wouldn’t talk to Nancy. They would only give information to family members, they said, and since she and Carol weren’t married, Nancy wasn’t family.
At 6 o’clock that night, more than nine hours after Nancy first flipped on the television, Carol’s sister called the airline and confirmed that Carol was on Flight 11.
Nancy and Carol, who were raising their three children in the small New Hampshire town of Plainstow, had designated each other as domestic partners at their jobs and named each other as beneficiaries on insurance policies and retirement accounts. But Carol hadn’t left a will. As far as New Hampshire was concerned, Nancy and Carol were legal strangers.
GLAD applied for and won for Nancy compensation from the federal September 11 Victim Compensation Fund, and also helped Nancy as she sought Carol’s death certificate, and dealt with probate issues. By helping her stand up for her rights and her relationship with Carol, GLAD helped Nancy reaffirm the life they shared together.
In 2001, GLAD filed a friend of the court brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the case of an HIV-positive dental hygienist who was fired after his doctor revealed his HIV status to his employer. A federal appellate court in Atlanta had ruled that the hygienist was a “direct threat” to patients and therefore that his termination was not a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
In contrast to the cases in which courts have ruled against doctors who refused treatment to HIV-positive patients arguing a “direct threat” (see discussion of Bragdon v. Abbott, below), courts have reacted to cases involving discrimination against HIV-positive health care providers with irrational fear and disregard for the scientific evidence. In effect, the courts have required proof of zero threat from the health care worker, a virtually impossible standard. Although the Supreme Court declined to decide this case and clarify what “direct threat” should mean in this context, the willingness of courts around the country to uphold the termination of HIV-positive health care workers who perform invasive procedures remains one of the most pressing legal challenges ahead.
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.
GLAD obtained clarification from the Board of Registration of Cosmetology that an individual completing a cosmetology program does not fail the statutory requirement to be certified as free from infectious diseases simply by virtue of being HIV-positive.
In its first case addressing HIV, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Bragdon v. Abbott that the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against people living with HIV, whether or not they show any visible symptoms or have an AIDS diagnosis. The Court’s 1998 decision is a critical victory for people living with HIV because the ADA and similar state disability discrimination statutes are the only legal bases to fight HIV-related discrimination in jobs, housing and health care.
In this case, Bangor, Maine resident Sidney Abbott went to Randon Bragdon, D.M.D. to have a cavity filled. Citing his fears of HIV transmission from a patient, Dr. Bragdon refused to fill her cavity in his office solely because Ms. Abbott disclosed on a medical questionnaire that she has HIV. Dr. Bragdon claimed that people with HIV who were not yet manifestly ill did not meet the ADA’s definition of “disability.” The ADA defines a disability as a health condition that “substantially limits one or more major life activities.”
In its landmark decision, the Supreme Court agreed with GLAD that the presence of visible symptoms or illness is not necessary for coverage under the ADA. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the Court, gave a broad, expansive interpretation to the definition of “major life activities,” and specifically noted that Sidney Abbott was substantially limited in the major life activity of reproduction because of the risk of infecting her partner and her child.
The Court’s language and reasoning, however, go far beyond the facts of Sidney Abbott’s case and ensures that all people with HIV will be covered by the ADA. In a lengthy analysis, the Court endorsed long-standing interpretations of the ADA by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which found that the ADA protects symptomatic and asymptomatic HIV-infected individuals from discrimination, in part because HIV limits both procreation and sexual relations. The Supreme Court directed the nation’s lower courts to follow these agency interpretations. The Supreme Court’s broad definition of “disability” and its endorsement of these administrative interpretations of the ADA mean that Bragdon v. Abbott is an enormous victory, not only for Sidney Abbott, but for all people living with a disability.
Español de México 
Português 
简体中文 
香港中文 
Français 
Tiếng Việt 
العربية 
Polski 
Русский 
Deutsch 
Kreyòl Ayisyen