Brett, et al., v. Town of West Hartford

GLAD successfully challenged the discriminatory policy of the Town of West Hartford municipal pool, which sought to exclude same-sex couples and their children from a discounted family membership rate. In November 2002, the West Hartford Town Council approved in a 5 to 4 vote a settlement of the long-standing discrimination complaint by five unmarried couples who claimed the town treated their families unfairly by withholding the preferential “family” membership rate at the facility, known as the Cornerstone Aquatics Center. The newly approved policy ensures that all families and households enjoy an identical rate and allows all children to use the pool for free. In addition, the Town paid a portion of the couples’ attorneys’ fees. The family membership rate had previously been offered only to married couples or to parents. The definition of parents included step-, legal and adoptive parents, but excluded same-sex co-parents or anyone who parents a child with a non-marital partner. For most families, the difference in cost was several hundred dollars.

The case had been pending since November 1998, when it was first filed in the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO). Together with attorney Maureen Murphy, GLAD won a ruling from the CHRO that the state’s anti-discrimination laws required the Town to provide equal access and pricing for its pool facility. The case was later removed to the Superior Court where cross-motions for summary judgment were pending.

Escoteiros da América v. Wyman

Lar » Connecticut » Page 12

A GLAD trabalhou para impedir o acesso especial dos Escoteiros da América (BSA) à campanha beneficente dos funcionários estaduais de Connecticut, em vista da discriminação com base na orientação sexual. Nossa participação neste caso remonta ao início de 2000, quando a GLAD apresentou um memorando à Comissão de Direitos Humanos e Responsabilidades de Connecticut (CHRO), explicando que, embora a BSA possa usar instalações públicas em condições iguais às oferecidas a qualquer outro grupo, ela não pode usufruir de quaisquer privilégios especiais. Portanto, a GLAD argumentou que, a menos que a BSA endossasse uma política de não discriminação, como todos os outros grupos devem fazer para participar da campanha beneficente estadual, eles seriam inelegíveis.

Em grande parte com base na análise da GLAD, o CHRO decidiu que a inclusão da BSA na campanha violaria a lei estadual. Após ser informada de que não poderia participar da campanha, a BSA entrou com uma ação na justiça federal contra o controlador estadual. Negada a participação como parte, a GLAD apresentou um amicus curiae em nosso nome, do Fundo de Educação e Assistência Jurídica para Mulheres de Connecticut (CWEALF) e da Coalizão de Connecticut pelos Direitos Civis LGBT, argumentando que a exclusão da BSA da campanha é adequada. O Tribunal Distrital dos EUA para Connecticut concordou, decidindo que o estado não violou de forma alguma os direitos constitucionais da BSA ao excluí-la da campanha devido à sua política anti-gay.

A BSA interpôs recurso ao Tribunal Federal de Apelações do 2º Circuito. A GLAD apresentou novamente um amicus curiae em nosso nome, da CWEALF e da Coalizão de Connecticut, argumentando ao tribunal de apelações que a legislação consolidada de Connecticut impede o acesso de grupos discriminatórios a instalações estaduais. O Tribunal rejeitou o recurso da BSA, confirmando a posição da GLAD de que a BSA não poderá receber privilégios especiais do estado enquanto mantiver sua política anti-gay. A Suprema Corte dos EUA negou a revisão deste caso, mantendo a decisão do tribunal inferior.

In re Baby Z & An Act Concerning The Best Interest Of Children In Adoption Matters

Lar » Connecticut » Page 12

GLAD helped win second-parent adoption in Connecticut, through work in the courts and assistance to activists drafting legislation. In April 1998, GLAD filed an amicus brief in the Connecticut Supreme Court in a case known as Baby Z, which raised the question of the availability of second-parent adoption in Connecticut. The Supreme Court ruled that the Connecticut adoption statute could not allow such a procedure, making it necessary to look to the legislature to solve this serious problem. Continuing our advocacy, GLAD worked with Connecticut activists on legislation to redress the problem identified in Baby Z. The Connecticut legislature passed a second-parent adoption bill in 2000.

In re John/Jane Doe

Lar » Connecticut » Page 12

In November 2000, the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) issued a landmark ruling stating that all transgender people are protected by Connecticut’s sex discrimination prohibitions. Citing recent cases protective of transgender people, including two brought by GLAD, the CHRO adopted a reading of Connecticut law to include a broad range of people, writing that “…our intent is to see that justice is done for each individual – transsexual or non-transsexual, male or female, straight or gay, black or white, rich or poor – so as to recognize each person as a unique and valued member of our great human family.” GLAD filed briefs in this case on behalf of itself, The Connecticut Coalition for LGBT Civil Rights, the Connecticut Women’s Educational and Legal Fund, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, FTM International and Gender PAC.