Declaração da Diretora Executiva da GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, Janson Wu, sobre a pressa de Trump em preencher a vaga da juíza Ginsburg na Suprema Corte
Com a nomeação anunciada hoje de Amy Coney Barrett para preencher a vaga na Suprema Corte dos EUA, deixada em aberto pela morte da juíza Ruth Bader Ginsburg há apenas uma semana, o presidente Trump está avançando com um processo que só criará mais polarização e divisão em nosso país e prejudicará a credibilidade da Corte.
Embora seja responsabilidade do presidente nomear um juiz e do Senado confirmá-lo, também é desígnio da nossa democracia que o povo americano tenha voz nessa escolha por meio da eleição regular do presidente e dos membros do Senado. A votação já está em andamento nesta eleição e a nomeação de um novo juiz para a Suprema Corte deve ser feita pelo próximo presidente.
A decisão sobre quem ocupará um assento vitalício na mais alta corte do nosso país é de extrema importância para todos nós, e o Senado dos EUA tem a responsabilidade de examinar minuciosamente qualquer pessoa que busque esse cargo, seja Amy Coney Barrett ou qualquer outra pessoa. Este não é um processo que deva ser apressado para fins políticos.
A Juíza Ginsburg deixa um legado de integridade, pensamento jurídico disciplinado e a convicção de que nossa Constituição existe para proteger os direitos de todos. A próxima Juíza Associada a assumir seu cargo deve compartilhar esse compromisso de nos aproximar da nação de iguais que aspiramos ser.
Declaração da GLAD sobre a decisão de indiciamento pela morte de Breonna Taylor
O GLAD se une a todos que estão de luto, irritados e clamando por justiça após as notícias de ontem sobre a decisão de indiciamento pela morte de Breonna Taylor.
Breonna Taylor deveria estar viva, trabalhando como paramédica e ansiosa por momentos com sua família e entes queridos. Nossos corações estão com sua família e comunidade, que agora vivenciam a angústia da decisão de ontem enquanto lamentam sua morte.
A vida de Breonna Taylor como mulher negra foi importante. Devemos continuar a pressionar por mudanças em nossos sistemas de justiça, policiamento e em todos os sistemas que continuam a visar pessoas negras, até que a verdade de que todas as vidas negras importam seja aceita, incontestável e plenamente compreendida em toda a nossa sociedade.
Yesterday we lost a phenomenal human, a pathbreaking woman, a feminist hero, and a stalwart champion of justice for all.
I’m heartbroken at the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as I know you are too. And I’m so grateful for the life she lived and for the extraordinary work she did in that lifetime.
And as we mourn her loss and celebrate her incredible legacy, all of us who care about justice and democracy must also fight like hell to defend and expand that legacy.
Justice Ginsburg blazed a trail for gender justice and the equal treatment of women and LGBTQ people. And in her 27 years of service on our nation’s highest court she held steadily to a conviction that our Constitution is there to protect the rights of all, especially those who are vulnerable to the whims of the powerful.
As a lawyer Ginsburg set a shining example of what it means to advocate fiercely for those who have been left out of the protections of the law. She inspired countless others to fight for justice – including all of us at GLAD.
It’s that inspiration that we must follow now.
It’s time for every one of us to act.
Ginsburg told her granddaughter her dying wish was that she not be replaced on the Court until the next presidential term begins.
Justice Ginsburg fought every day of her life to move our country closer to being the nation of equals we aspire to be. We owe it to her, to our country, and to ourselves to keep up her fight in every way we can.
GLAD Mourns the Passing and Celebrates the Legacy of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Statement of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders Executive Director Janson Wu:
Today we have lost a phenomenal human, a pathbreaking woman, and a stalwart champion of justice. As an attorney Ruth Bader Ginsburg blazed a trail for gender justice and the equal treatment of women, and set a shining example of what it means to advocate fiercely for those who have been left out of the protections of the law. As a Justice on our nation’s highest court for 27 years she held steadily to a conviction that our Constitution is there to protect the rights of all, especially those who are vulnerable to the whims of the powerful. She recognized the humanity and dignity of LGBTQ people long before a majority of colleagues on the Court did. And she did all of this with compassion, brilliance, and a keen sense of humor.
As our nation mourns her passing and recognizes her extraordinary legacy, we must also honor her dying wish that no move be made to replace her on the Court until the next presidential term begins. We owe her and our country that much, for her incredible contribution to moving us closer to the nation of equals we aspire to be.
Once again, the Trump administration is attacking LGBTQ people.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has proposed a new rule that would dismantle equal access protections for transgender people who seek shelter services. If the proposed rule goes into effect, taxpayer-funded shelters would be able to turn away transgender and non-binary people.
This rule change would hurt transgender and non-binary people, and it will hit BIPOC and disabled people the hardest. According to the 2015 US Transgender Survey, nearly one-third of transgender and gender non-binary people experience homelessness at some point in their life; and about one-half of transgender and non-binary people who identify as Black, Middle Eastern, multiracial, or undocumented experience homelessness at some point in their life.
Gutting discrimination protections would be dangerous and unjust at any time, but during the COVID-19 crisis the effects are immediate and clear. People who need shelter access often are connected to individual housing through shelters, and that is the best way to prevent exposure and spread of COVID-19. And as eviction moratoriums begin to expire around the country, the need for safe and healthy shelter is only likely to increase. Especially during this crisis, we need more access to shelters for as many people as possible, not less.
GLAD e outras organizações LGBTQ pedem à Suprema Corte que não anule proteções contra discriminação estabelecidas e vitais
GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, juntamente com outras 27 organizações nacionais, regionais e estaduais de defesa LGBTQ, entraram com uma ação memorando de amigo do tribunal 20 de agosto, instando a Suprema Corte dos EUA a não criar uma ampla isenção constitucional às leis de não discriminação que minaria as garantias de proteção igualitária e introduziria um esquema perigoso e impraticável na legislação local, estadual e federal. A petição foi apresentada em apoio à Prefeitura da Filadélfia em Fulton v. Cidade da FiladélfiaEm 2018, a cidade suspendeu um contrato com a Catholic Social Services (“CSS”) para fornecer serviços de colocação em lares adotivos porque a agência se recusou a trabalhar com casais do mesmo sexo e casais não casados, violando a lei antidiscriminação da Filadélfia. A CSS entrou com uma ação judicial, alegando que a exigência de cumprir a lei antidiscriminação violava seus direitos de liberdade religiosa e buscando uma liminar ordenando que a cidade concedesse à CSS um contrato de acordo com os termos desejados pela CSS. Tribunais inferiores negaram o pedido de liminar, decidindo que a cidade estava dentro de seus direitos de exigir que qualquer agência com a qual contratasse cumprisse a lei. Se a Suprema Corte apoiasse a CSS, poderia criar uma ampla isenção das leis antidiscriminação que se estende não apenas a qualquer entidade de base religiosa que receba financiamento do contribuinte para fornecer serviços contratados pelo governo, mas potencialmente a qualquer funcionário público individual ou entidade privada que alegue crença religiosa como motivo para não cumprir a lei. Tal regra convidaria ao aumento da discriminação contra pessoas LGBTQIA+, bem como pessoas de cor, mulheres e membros de religiões minoritárias. “A crença religiosa é protegida nas nossas leis e na Constituição e é-lhe devido respeito”, disse Mary L. Bonauto, Diretora do Projeto de Direitos Civis da GLAD. “No entanto, a amplitude da isenção buscada pelo CSS em Fulton levaria nossa nação para trás. Permitiria que a desaprovação religiosa individual se infiltrasse novamente na legislação – uma situação contrária à promessa de proteção igualitária para todos, consagrada em nossa Constituição, e que o povo americano e duas décadas de precedentes da Suprema Corte já rejeitaram.” Mais imediatamente no contexto do bem-estar infantil, a regra buscada pelo CSS estigmatizaria ainda mais tanto os pais LGBTQ quanto os jovens LGBTQ impactados pelo sistema de bem-estar infantil. No entanto, poderia ir muito além disso, introduzindo discriminação em outros serviços governamentais vitais, incluindo instituições de atendimento a crianças, idosos ou pessoas com deficiência grave, programas de tratamento para transtornos por uso de substâncias, bancos de alimentos e roupas e muito mais. Tal regra também poderia se estender perigosamente a funcionários do governo ou da saúde, que poderiam ser autorizados a se basear em crenças religiosas individuais para recusar ou negar serviços a pessoas LGBTQ, desde tratamento médico até benefícios da previdência social. Um funcionário de hospital que desaprova relacionamentos entre pessoas do mesmo sexo pode tentar impedir o cônjuge ou filho de visitar um ente querido doente ou ferido no hospital. O resumo da organização LGBTQ narra o crescente reconhecimento e inclusão de pessoas LGBTQ como cidadãos iguais e participantes plenos na sociedade americana ao longo do tempo, tanto por meio do processo democrático quanto pela força de mais de duas décadas de precedentes da Suprema Corte – desde Romer (1996) e Lourenço (2003), para Windsor (2013), Obergefell (2015), Bolo Obra-prima (2018) e mais recentemente Bostock (2020). Destaca a perigosa reversão em jogo na regra buscada pelo CSS, que negaria a plena promessa de liberdade e igualdade às pessoas LGBTQIA+, bem como a outros americanos que já enfrentam duras barreiras à equidade e à igualdade. A petição, apresentada por GLAD e Goodwin em nome de GLAD, BiLaw, Equality Federation, Freedom for All Americans, Human Rights Campaign, Movement Advancement Project, National Black Justice Coalition, National Equality Action Team, Transgender Law Center, Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, Basic Rights Oregon, Equality Florida Institute, Inc., Equality Illinois, Equality Maine, Equality Ohio, Equality Utah, Equality Virginia, Fair Wisconsin, Fairness Campaign, FreeState Justice – Maryland's LGBTQ Advocates, Georgia Equality, Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition, MassEquality, Montana Gender Alliance, OutFront Minnesota, OutNebraska e Tennessee Equality Project, é disponível aqui.
Hospice Nurse Alexander Pangborn’s Case Challenges New “1557” Rule
Alexander Pangborn is a hospice nurse in Western Massachusetts. He loves his job, and the patients and families he cares for every day. So Alexander was crushed to discover that his employer would not provide him with healthcare benefits equal to those provided to his coworkers. While preparing in consultation with his doctor to schedule medically-necessary gender-affirming surgery, Alexander learned that his employer had a blanket exclusion for any care related to gender transition.
“Along with the stress of not being able to get medical treatment I need, the denial made me feel devalued as an employee and as a person,” Alexander says. “I put my all into my job, and I pay into the same system as all my coworkers to receive medical care, but my employer said that my healthcare isn’t necessary.”
Alexander Pangborn (left) and his wife Katherine
GLAD filed a lawsuit, Pangborn v. Ascend, on Alexander’s behalf in federal court in Western Massachusetts. The suit alleges that by treating him differently — not offering him the same benefits other employees get — because he is a transgender man, Alexander’s employer is discriminating against him on the basis of sex and transgender status, in violation of the nondiscrimination provisions in the Affordable Care Act, as well as Massachusetts and federal employment law.
Section 1557 of the ACA bars discrimination in healthcare access and insurance on the basis of sex, as well as race, color, national origin, age, and disability. On June 12, the federal Department of Health and Human Services formalized the Trump administration’s claim that Section 1557 does not protect transgender people, despite multiple court rulings and HHS’s own prior interpretation that the provision against sex-based discrimination applies to transgender status.
“The Trump administration’s new 1557 rule contradicts the ACA,” said Jennifer Levi, GLAD Transgender Rights Project Director. “It’s another callous and dangerous attack on transgender people like Alexander, who should be able to access medically-necessary care on the same terms as anyone else. And it’s contrary to established case law, including the recent ruling from the Supreme Court, in the context of employment law, which makes it perfectly clear that sex discrimination by definition includes transgender status discrimination.”
As Alexander’s suit continues in court, it will test the legitimacy of Trump’s reversal of healthcare protections for transgender people under the ACA.
“Alexander Pangborn is a hospice nurse who provides compassionate care every day to his patients and their families, yet he was denied access to the health care he himself needs,” says Chris Erchull, GLAD Staff Attorney representing Pangborn. “We are fighting alongside Alexander to put an end to the discriminatory practice of excluding transition-related care from health benefits plans.”
Click here to learn more and read the entire Summer 2020 issue of GLAD Briefs.
The United States Supreme Court will hear the case of Fulton v. Cidade da Filadélfia during its next term (which begins in October 2020). The case arose after the City of Philadelphia stopped referring children to Catholic Social Services (CSS) for foster-care placements because the agency refused to work with same-sex couples, thus violating the City’s nondiscrimination ordinance as well as the terms of its contract with the City. CSS sued the city, claiming, among other things, that the City’s actions violated its rights of free exercise of religion. Seeking an injunction against the City, CSS lost in the federal trial court and then again on appeal. With the Supreme Court granting review, Fulton is poised to be a landmark case on the question of whether religiously-operated social welfare agencies that receive taxpayer dollars under contracts with the government can nonetheless be exempt from having to comply with nondiscrimination laws.
So many people rely on government-funded entities like CSS to fulfill essential needs — for food, housing, health care, and more. Fulton could lay the foundation for the reversal of protections on which the most vulnerable in our community rely to ensure equal access to goods and services. For example, a decision in favor of CSS could be relied upon by a religiously-operated homeless shelter to turn away anyone who does not fit within the shelter’s religious beliefs, including LGBTQ people in need.
There is a possibility that a decision in the Fulton case could come to mean that nearly any religious entity, or even a private company asserting its religious beliefs, would have permission to refuse to serve or work with anyone simply because of who they are. It could also require the government at all levels to fund discriminatory groups. That’s why GLAD will be working this summer to prepare and file an amicus brief in support of the City of Philadelphia’s position that its actions with respect to CSS were wholly in accord with a proper view of the law.
Click here to learn more and read the entire Summer 2020 issue of GLAD Briefs.
On June 15, 2020 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in Bostock v. Condado de Clayton that the protections against sex discrimination in federal employment law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender status.The decision immediately secured critical workplace nondiscrimination protections for nearly four million LGBTQ people living in the 29 U.S. states without express protections under state law.
Arriving at this landmark decision was decades in the making, as more and more courts over time have come to understand that it is impossible to discriminate against a person because they are LGBTQ without discriminating because of the person’s sex.
The three cases considered by the Supreme Court and decided together in Bostock were brought by Gerald Bostock, who was fired when his employer found out he joined a gay softball team; by the family of Don Zarda, who lost his job as a skydiving instructor when he told a client he was gay to make her more comfortable with the proximity needed for a joint dive; and by Aimee Stephens, a skilled, long-time funeral home director who was fired when she came out as transgender. Sadly neither Don nor Aimee lived to see the outcome of their cases. The queer community assuredly owes them both, and Gerald, a debt of gratitude. Their courage and determination, along with that of the many other LGBTQ people who brought cases in lower courts before them, brought about this important victory.
Dee Farmer: An Early Transgender Rights Hero
Aimee Stephens’ case marks only the second time the Supreme Court has ruled in a case brought by a transgender plaintiff. The first case was one decided in 1994, when Dee Farmer, an African-American transgender woman won the right to bring an Eighth Amendment claim against prison officials after she suffered a brutal sexual assault while incarcerated, an assault that prison guards witnessed and allowed to happen. Dee’s case set the standard under the Eighth Amendment for prison officials’ liability for the damages incurred from such an assault. Aimee Stephens joins Dee Farmer as a transgender hero.
O Bostock ruling was remarkable in its clarity and simplicity. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, says plainly that a person’s sexual orientation or transgender status can only be understood in relationship to their sex, and that this conclusion “has been standing before us all along.” The ruling also notes: “To refuse enforcement just because the parties before us happened to be unpopular at the time of the law’s passage… would tilt the scales of justice in favor of the strong or popular and neglect the promise that all persons are entitled to the benefit of the law’s terms.”
The impact of these cases — that LGBTQ people nationwide, have protections from discrimination in the workplace — is huge in and of itself. But the Court’s determination that anti-LGBTQ discrimination is “necessarily” based on sex has far reaching implications for other critical areas in which federal law also prohibits sex discrimination. These include healthcare, housing, and education — all areas in which the Trump administration has sought to reverse protections for LGBTQ people. The crystal clear reasoning in Bostock provides a strong legal basis to challenge those attempts. It also boosts challenges to other anti-LGBTQ Trump policies, including the transgender military ban which GLAD continues to fight in court.
Litigation establishing the Bostock analysis in other areas will take time, of course. Federal and many state laws still leave too many LGBTQ people and others unprotected in critical areas of life, including access to public places like stores or public transportation as well as in vital federally-funded social services. GLAD’s work is far from done. But the Bostock ruling is truly a cause for celebration as we continue fighting to ensure discrimination is off limits in every arena, and that the words of our civil rights statutes have meaning and real-world impacts for all Americans.
GLAD plaintiffs on why employment protections matter
Diana Smithson e Jacqueline Cote. Foto: 777 Portraits Myrtle Beach, Carolina do Sul
“The company I worked for (Walmart) always touted itself as diverse, inclusive, and like a family. At first, I believed it was true. All that changed when I was told I couldn’t add my legal wife to my medical insurance. There’s absolutely no reason that who a person loves and shares their life with should give employers an opportunity to treat them differently than any other person.”
“I know what it’s like to be told I can’t do a job I’m qualified for just because I’m transgender. This ruling is an important step to ensure LGBTQ people can do what we all want: to work hard, support ourselves and our families, and contribute to our communities. Especially now when so many have lost jobs and are struggling, the last thing we should be doing is erecting barriers that keep people who want to work and contribute from doing so. It only hurts our communities and our national security when we allow bias to keep qualified, dedicated people from doing their jobs.”
– Nic Talbott, plaintiff, Stockman x Trump, challenging the transgender military ban.
Alexander Pangborn (right) with his wife Katherine
“Employment discrimination is wrong, no matter the reason. If I am qualified to do the job and perform to the best of my ability, the fact that I am transgender should have no impact on my job security or being treated as an equal to my colleagues. There are far too many people living in areas of our country that have little to no protections for LGBTQ employees. The decision from the Supreme Court recognizes that a person’s gender identity or sexual orientation is not an excuse for employers to discriminate and provides protections at a federal level.”
GLAD, together with national, state, and local civil rights and healthcare organizations, submitted an amicus brief to the Second Circuit Court in State of New York v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and consolidated cases challenging the Department’s “denial of care” regulation.
The new regulation eliminates protections that have advanced access to healthcare for LGBTQ people, inviting discrimination and worsening barriers LGBTQ people already face in healthcare settings.
A Suprema Corte foi solicitada a rever a igualdade no casamento, mas o caso é fraco e a lei está firmemente do nosso lado. Saiba mais e conheça seus direitos.
Português 
Español de México 
简体中文 
香港中文 
Français 
Tiếng Việt 
العربية 
Polski 
Русский 
Deutsch 
Kreyòl Ayisyen