Notícias

Today, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders praised the Connecticut Insurance Department for issuing a bulletin directing all health insurers operating in the state to pay for treatment related to a patient’s gender transition. The bulletin is a significant step toward increasing access to critical health care for transgender residents of Connecticut, who have long been arbitrarily denied coverage for medical treatments related to gender transition.

The bulletin, which was issued Dec. 19, directs entities licensed by the Department of Insurance and writing individual and group health insurance policies to “ensure that there is no discrimination against insured individuals with gender dysphoria and ensure that individuals are not denied access to medically necessary care because of the individual’s gender identity or expression.”

Gender dysphoria is defined as a “condition in which an individual is intensely uncomfortable with their biological gender and strongly identifies with, and wants to be, the opposite gender.”

“We applaud the Connecticut Insurance Department for this significant step to ensure that transgender people have access to life-saving, medically necessary care,” said Staff Attorney Zack Paakkonen. “First, it brings Connecticut health insurers into alignment with state and federal law prohibiting discrimination against transgender people in the health care setting. Second, the bulletin comports with the position of all of the major medical and psychological associations, which is that gender dysphoria is a legitimate medical condition with a prescribed course of effective, medically necessary treatment that should be determined by an individual’s doctor rather than an insurance company.”

Connecticut enacted a law in 2011 that prohibits discrimination against transgender people in employment, public accommodations, housing, credit, public schools, state contracts and numerous other areas. The Department of Insurance interpreted the legislative intent of the law to extend to health insurance practices as well. The federal Affordable Care Act also prohibits insurers from adopting benefit designs that discriminate against transgender people or on the basis of a specific health condition.

Insurance regulators in California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, and the District of Columbia have issued similar bulletins instructing insurers in their respective jurisdictions to cover treatment for transgender patients equitably. Efforts are underway to have other New England states issue similar bulletins.

Read the full bulletin from the Connecticut Insurance Department aqui.

Notícias

Lar » Connecticut » Page 11

Today, GLAD praised the Connecticut Insurance Department for issuing a bulletin directing all health insurers operating in the state to pay for treatment related to a patient’s gender transition. The bulletin is a significant step toward increasing access to critical health care for transgender residents of Connecticut, who have long been arbitrarily denied coverage for medical treatments related to gender transition.

Read the full press release here.

Notícias

Lar » Connecticut » Page 11

The Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) sent out a “Dear Colleague” letter dated March 4, 2012, reminding school principals, superintendants and PTA and PTO presidents of their responsibilities under federal and Connecticut law to address instances of bullying and harassment, calling special attention to discrimination against transgender students.

The letter states that “Both this agency and the Connecticut Department of Education continue to receive complaints about harassment and discrimination against students including but not limited to students who are transgendered,” and goes on to remind recipients that “Discrimination on the basis of transgender status is illegal, as codified by Public Act 11-55, which added “gender identity or expression” to the protected classes covered under Connecticut law.”

You can read the full “Dear Colleague” letter on the CHRO’s website.

CHRO e Dana Peterson v. Cidade de Hartford

Lar » Connecticut » Page 11

Update The Connecticut Appeals Court sided with the City of Hartford, ruling on September 18, 2012, that the trial court improperly reversed the original finding of the CHRO referee. Peterson’s petition to have the case reviewed by the Connecticut Supreme Court was denied, leaving her with no further recourse and ending the matter.

GLAD participated in the appeal of a Connecticut Commission on Human Rights (CHRO) finding against a police sergeant, Dana Peterson, who was denied a position as a canine handler – a coveted and publicly visible position within the force – because she is transgender. The Connecticut Superior Court issued an initial ruling that the CHRO referee ignored serious evidence of discrimination. The City of Hartford appealed that decision in the Connecticut Appeals Court. GLAD filed an amicus apresentação in the case, and oral argument took place Tuesday, November 29, 2011.

The Hartford Courant: Transgender Police Officer Still Fighting for Equality

Raftopol v. Ramey

Lar » Connecticut » Page 11

In a first-of-its kind decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled on Jan. 5, 2011 that a gay male couple who wanted to have children and used a gestational surrogate are the children’s legal parents, and that the state must permit both men’s names to be placed on the birth certificates.

GLAD filed an amicus brief to the Connecticut Supreme Court in this case concerning the legal status of non-genetic parents of children born through gestational surrogacy. The brief, filed on behalf of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the American Academy of Assisted Reproductive Technology Attorneys, Connecticut Fertility Associates and New England Fertility Institute, argues that the Superior Court can and should confirm the legal relationships between these children and both of their intended parents by issuing pre-birth orders of parentage and by directing the Department of Public Health to issue birth certificates that reflect the joint parentage of these children.

GLAD was joined in this brief by Ken Bartschi and Karen Dowd of Horton, Shields and Knox, Tom Ude of Lambda Legal, and John Weltman and Scott Buckley of the Weltman Law Group. The Raftopols are represented by Victoria Ferrara of Fairfield, CT.

Patino v. Birken Manufacturing Co.

Lar » Connecticut » Page 11

A GLAD e a Associação de Advogados Trabalhistas de Connecticut (CELA) aplaudem uma decisão de 4 de maio de 2012 da Suprema Corte de Connecticut, que determina que os empregadores podem ser responsabilizados caso não protejam os funcionários contra assédio com base na orientação sexual. Patino v. Birken Manufacturing Company (Processo nº 18441), o Tribunal também manteve a indenização do júri de $95.000 em favor do autor Luis Patino.

Quando Patino foi contratado como maquinista pelo réu, ele foi alvo de xingamentos generalizados por vários anos, incluindo "bicha, vá para casa" e "bicha, saia daqui". Ele foi alvo de insultos em inglês, espanhol e italiano, como "pato", "maricon", "pira" e "homo". Ao afirmar que os empregados podem processar os empregadores por assédio homofóbico no local de trabalho, o Tribunal rejeitou o argumento do réu de que as alegações de assédio no local de trabalho se limitam ao assédio sexual.

A GLAD e a CELA apresentaram uma amicus resumo em nome de sete grupos de direitos civis de Connecticut: a Comissão de Assuntos Afro-Americanos, o Centro de Direitos das Pessoas com Deficiência, a Aliança de Connecticut para Oportunidades de Negócios, a Associação Hispânica da Ordem dos Advogados de Connecticut, a Coalizão Transadvocacy de Connecticut, a Comissão Permanente sobre a Condição da Mulher e o Centro Comunitário Triangle.

Ao instar o Tribunal a encontrar cobertura na lei de Connecticut para casos de assédio sexual no local de trabalho, o resumo destacou a literatura científica que demonstra que incidentes de discriminação, inclusive com base na orientação sexual e raça, podem levar diretamente a danos mentais e físicos.

O autor Luis Patino foi representado pelo advogado Jon L. Schoenhorn, de Hartford. O amicus curiae foi escrito por Ben Klein, da GLAD, em Boston, Massachusetts, e Nina T. Pirrotti, da Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Chimes, Richardson & Fitzgerald, PC, em New Haven.

Pedersen e outros contra Escritório de Gestão de Pessoal e outros.

Lar » Connecticut » Page 11

June 26, 2013 U.S. Supreme Court rules DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional in Windsor v. Estados Unidos

July 31, 2012 – Connecticut Federal District Court Judge Bryant rules that DOMA is unconstitutional.

Judge Bryant issued an order denying BLAG’s Motion to Stay Proceedings on July 4, 2012.

House Leadership via the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings on June 20, 2012. Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Motion to Stay on June 22, 2012

July 15, 2011 Update: GLAD files motion for summary judgment on behalf of plaintiffs

February 23, 2011 Update: DOJ Announces it won’t defend constitutionality of DOMA in Pedersen

On November 9, 2010, GLAD filed Pedersen v. O.P.M., a second major, multi-plaintiff lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Section 3 and the government’s denial of protections and responsibilities to married gay and lesbian couples.

Pedersen v. O.P.M. specifically addresses married couples in Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire.

Kerrigan & Mock v. Departamento de Saúde Pública de Connecticut

Lar » Connecticut » Page 11

Na sexta-feira, 10 de outubro de 2008, a Suprema Corte de Connecticut decidiu que casais gays e lésbicos têm direito à plena igualdade no casamento.

Em 25 de agosto de 2004, a GLAD entrou com uma ação em nome de oito casais gays e lésbicas de Connecticut que tiveram suas licenças de casamento negadas em Madison, Connecticut, contestando a negação discriminatória, pelo Estado, dos direitos de casamento a casais do mesmo sexo. Os casais autores, que mantêm relacionamentos sérios há entre 10 e 30 anos, muitos deles criando filhos, alegam que somente o casamento lhes proporcionará as proteções e os benefícios necessários para viver em segurança como família. Os réus são o Departamento de Saúde Pública (DPH), que supervisiona o registro de todos os casamentos, e Dorothy C. Bean, a registradora de estatísticas vitais da cidade de Madison.

Houve pedidos de intervenção no caso apresentados pelo Instituto da Família de Connecticut e dois escrivães municipais. Os pedidos foram negados pela Juíza Patty Jenkins Pittman, do Tribunal Superior de New Haven. Os escrivães desistiram do recurso, mas o Instituto da Família recorreu à Suprema Corte de Connecticut, que confirmou a negativa do Tribunal de Primeira Instância em decisão proferida em 15 de agosto de 2006.

A GLAD apresentou um requerimento de julgamento sumário e memoriais extensos sobre o mérito do caso em si. Além disso, foi apresentada uma petição de amicus curiae assinada por 25 amici curiae apoiando nossa posição. O Procurador-Geral, que defende o caso, apresentou uma réplica e quatro memoriais de amici curiae de oposição foram apresentados. Os argumentos do requerimento de julgamento sumário foram ouvidos em 21 de março de 2006 no Tribunal Superior de New Haven.

Em 12 de junho de 2006, o Juiz Pittman negou o pedido do autor, decidindo que a exclusão de casais do mesmo sexo do casamento não violava a Constituição de Connecticut. Os autores recorreram dessa decisão à Suprema Corte de Connecticut.

Em 14 de maio de 2007, o advogado sênior da GLAD, Ben Klein, apresentou argumento oral no caso perante a Suprema Corte de Connecticut.

Brindamour, et al. v. Conselho de Educação de Manchester

Lar » Connecticut » Page 11

A GLAD utilizou as disposições antidiscriminação de Connecticut com base na orientação sexual e no estado civil para ajudar um grupo de professores e administradores escolares em Manchester, Connecticut, a obter benefícios de seguro para seus parceiros domésticos. Esses educadores solicitaram e tiveram esses benefícios negados – benefícios que constituem uma parcela significativa da remuneração de um funcionário. A GLAD argumentou que a retenção desses benefícios equivalia a remuneração desigual por trabalho igual – algo que a lei não tolera. Com o processo de discriminação pendente, o Conselho de Educação de Manchester aprovou novos contratos para administradores escolares e professores que incluíam seguro saúde para os parceiros de seus funcionários gays e lésbicas. O Conselho de Administração de Manchester aprovou o contrato dos Administradores em 18 de novembro de 2003, e o contrato dos Professores foi firmado em arbitragem e formalmente certificado pelo árbitro em 17 de novembro.

Brindamour, et al. v. Conselho de Educação de Manchester

Lar » Connecticut » Page 11