National/Federal Know Your Rights - Page 33 of 59 - GLAD Law
Pular cabeçalho para conteúdo
GLAD Logo Pular navegação primária para conteúdo

Ação judicial GLAD testa a reversão de Trump nas proteções de saúde para pessoas trans sob a ACA

“A nova interpretação da Seção 1557 pelo governo Trump contradiz a Lei de Assistência Médica Acessível, é perigosa para pessoas transgênero e não sobreviverá a uma contestação federal”, afirmou a GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders. A GLAD está atualmente em um tribunal federal contestando a negação de assistência médica a um homem transgênero sob o estatuto de não discriminação da ACA, conhecido como Seção 1557.

Pangborn v. Ascend, uma ação federal movida pela GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) em nome de um homem transgênero que teve cobertura negada para cuidados de afirmação de gênero, testará a legitimidade da reversão, pelo governo Trump, de uma regra do HHS que havia deixado claro anteriormente que pessoas transgênero são cobertas pela disposição de não discriminação da ACA conhecida como Seção 1557. O caso alega, entre outras alegações, que o empregador de Alexander Pangborn violou a ACA ao excluir categoricamente a cobertura do seguro para as necessidades médicas de pessoas transgênero relacionadas à transição de gênero.

A Seção 1557 da Lei de Cuidados de Saúde (ACA) proíbe a discriminação no acesso e seguro de saúde com base em sexo, raça, cor, nacionalidade, idade e deficiência. Departamento de Saúde e Serviços Humanos publicou uma regra final formalizando hoje a alegação do governo Trump de que a Seção 1557 não protege pessoas transgênero da discriminação na assistência médica, revertendo a interpretação anterior da lei pelo HHS.

“A nova regra 1557 do governo Trump contradiz o estatuto. É contrária à jurisprudência estabelecida, perigosa para pessoas transgênero e não pode sobreviver a contestações legais”, disse Jennifer Levi, Diretora do Projeto de Direitos Transgêneros da GLAD. “Infelizmente, a nova regra provavelmente confundirá profissionais de saúde, seguradoras e empregadores, e incentivará os provedores a rejeitarem pessoas transgênero na busca por cuidados médicos básicos. Esta é mais uma política insensível vinda de um governo que pretende apaziguar a extrema direita e ignorar políticas jurídicas e médicas sólidas.”

“Alexander Pangborn é um enfermeiro de cuidados paliativos que presta cuidados compassivos todos os dias aos seus pacientes e às suas famílias, mas foi-lhe negado o acesso aos cuidados de saúde de que ele próprio necessita”, disse Chris Erchull, Advogado da GLAD representando Pangborn. “O objetivo da ACA é garantir que os americanos tenham acesso à saúde. O objetivo e o significado jurídico das proteções contra a discriminação da Seção 1557 são garantir que indivíduos como Alexander não tenham acesso a cuidados de saúde negados por preconceito anti-transgênero ou outros preconceitos. A rejeição dessas proteções pelo governo Trump é cruel e injusta. Não se sustentará em juízo.”

Leia o comentário do GLAD enviado em oposição a esta regra.

Advocacy Groups Urge NCAA to Remove Events from Idaho

June 10, 2020: GLAD and other advocacy groups signed onto a letter calling for the NCAA to remove events in Idaho in response to new anti-trans legislation. The letter can be found below, and the fully annotated version is available in PDF here.

Click here for sample social media posts to share, encouraging the NCAA to relocate their championship events from Idaho.

Dear NCAA Bid Selection Committees,

We are writing to request you relocate all NCAA events, including the 2021 NCAA Men’s Basketball Championship games, from Idaho due to the state’s recent passage of dangerous anti-transgender legislation that prohibits certain groups of student athletes from participating in school sports.

Given Idaho’s adoption of a discriminatory law that directly impacts college athletics, violates NCAA values, and undermines the dignity and well-being of NCAA athletes, Idaho schools no longer qualify to host NCAA events.

On March 30, 2020, Idaho enacted House Bill 500 (HB500), a law that bans transgender girls from competing on college teams, including at Idaho’s NCAA member schools. This law also forces women and girls to be subject to invasive medical procedures simply because they are, or are suspected to be, transgender. Idaho is the only state in the country with such an extreme, harmful, and discriminatory blanket ban on the participation of transgender women and girls in sports. This law is in direct conflict with NCAA Championship policies. In fact, Idaho’s law is so extreme that it prompted the NCAA to speak out against its passage.

Idaho’s law blatantly targets an already-marginalized community in athletics and decreases their participation in sports. Transgender students already participate at significantly lower rates and feel unsafe in athletic spaces. Further, while the harm of this law explicitly falls on transgender girls, the impact extends even further. Idaho’s new law is the first in the country to categorically ban transgender girls from sports statewide, but past research has found that when states adopt policies that create new barriers for transgender athletes to participate in sports, the number of participants in sports among all LGBTQ youth drops. This harms the NCAA’s goals of protecting athlete wellbeing and promoting diversity and inclusion in athletics.

As a law that expressly violates the NCAA’s values, HB500 disqualifies Idaho schools from hosting the seminal NCAA event. According to the NCAA’s anti-discrimination policy, the NCAA “must and shall operate [their] championships and events in alignment with [their] values as [they] strive to promote an inclusive atmosphere in which student-athletes participate…”. This includes NCAA Championship sessions, series, and final events. When North Carolina passed HB2 in 2016, the most extreme anti-LGBTQ law in the country at the time, the NCAA recognized that a law targeting transgender people’s access to restrooms went against their values, and subsequently relocated championship games from North Carolina.  Like HB2, HB500 strikes directly at the core of the NCAA’s values, going even further in excluding students from college athletics. All NCAA sponsored events therefore should be removed from Idaho immediately.

Further, Idaho should not be permitted to host an NCAA event while HB500 is in effect. With this sweeping discriminatory law in place, they simply cannot reflect NCAA values and treat all athletes with the dignity and respect expected of NCAA membership schools.

We appreciate the NCAA’s commitment to inclusion and anti-discrimination. In keeping with these values, we encourage you to take immediate action to ensure the integrity of NCAA events and the wellbeing of all athletes.

Sinceramente,

  • Centro Nacional para a Igualdade Transgênero
  • American Civil Liberties Union
  • Leadership Conference on Civil and
  • National Women’s Law Center
  • American Association of University Women
  • Athlete Ally
  • Atlanta Pride Committee
  • Billie Jean King Leadership Initiative
  • Center for American Progress
  • Center for Disability Rights
  • CenterLink: The Community of LGBT Centers
  • Clearinghouse on Women’s Issues
  • Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund
  • Igualdade Califórnia
  • Federação da Igualdade
  • Igualdade na Carolina do Norte
  • Igualdade Texas
  • Igualdade Familiar
  • Feminist Majority Foundation
  • Fenway Health
  • FORGE, Inc.
  • Freedom for All Americans
  • Advogados e Defensores Legais GLBTQ (GLAD)
  • GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ Equality
  • Campanha de Direitos Humanos
  • Inclusion Playbook
  • Japanese American Citizens League
  • JustUs Health
  • Lambda Legal
  • Legal Voice
  • LGBTQ Allyship
  • Lou Weaver Consulting
  • Centro Mazzoni
  • Veteranos Minoritários da América
  • Modern Military Association of America
  • National Black Justice Coalition
  • Centro Nacional para os Direitos Lésbicos
  • Coalizão Nacional para a Saúde LGBT
  • National Education Association
  • Equipe Nacional de Ação pela Igualdade
  • Força-Tarefa Nacional LGBTQ
  • National Partnership for Women & Families
  • Oasis Legal Services
  • OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates
  • One Colorado
  • OutNebraska
  • PFLAG Nacional
  • Planned Parenthood Federation of America
  • SAGE: Advocacy and Services for LGBT Elders
  • Silver State Equality-Nevada
  • SPLC Action Fund
  • O Projeto Trevor
  • The Volunteer Lawyers Project of Onondaga County, Inc.
  • Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund
  • Transgender Resource Center of New Mexico
  • Verdadeiras Cores Unidas
  • Whitman-Walker Health and Whitman-Walker Institute
  • Women’s Sports Foundation

 

The accompanying letter from student athletes is here: https://www.athleteally.org/student-athletes-ncaa-idaho
The accompanying letter from professional athletes is here: https://www.athleteally.org/athletes-ncaa-idaho

 

Take action by showing your support on social media!

Here are some sample social media posts for you to share:

Twitter:

I urge the @NCAA to relocate their championship events from Idaho, where lawmakers passed a bill banning transgender youth from playing high school sports. ALL young athletes should be able to play the sport they love and be part of a team. #SupportTransAthletes

Transgender student athletes simply want to play the sport they love and be a part of a team, just like any other student. That’s why I urge @NCAA to move their events from Idaho, which passed #HB500, banning trans youth from participating in high school athletics.

Facebook:

I’m standing up for ALL youth athletes—including those who are transgender, and simply want to play they love and be part of a team. Our laws should protect trans youth, not encourage discrimination against them. That’s why I’m urging the NCAA to relocate their championship events from Idaho, where lawmakers passed a bill banning trans youth from participating in high school athletics. I hope the NCAA continues to demonstrate their commitment to inclusion by taking swift action.

 

Blogue

O trabalho pela igualdade LGBTQ+ está intimamente ligado ao trabalho pela justiça racial, e é fundamental que pessoas LGBTQ+ brancas se engajem no trabalho antirracista.

No dia 9 de junho, pessoas brancas que trabalham no movimento LGBTQ+, em parceria com a Prefeitura LGBTQ #BlackLivesMatter organizado pela Equality Florida, realizou uma conversa ao vivo com foco na responsabilidade e nas oportunidades que os brancos têm de desafiar o racismo sistêmico e a supremacia branca e de responsabilizar os sistemas de poder.

YouTube #!trpst#trp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=155#!trpen#vídeo#!trpst#/trp-gettext#!trpen#

PALESTRANTES:

  • Shannon Minter, Ele/Dele, Centro Nacional para os Direitos das Lésbicas
  • Rea Carey, ela/eles, Força-Tarefa Nacional LGBTQ
  • Mary Bonauto, ela/seus defensores e defensores legais GLBTQ (GLAD)
  • Monica Meyer, ela ou qualquer outra, OutFront Minnesota
  • Ian Palmquist, ele/dele, Federação pela Igualdade

Clique aqui para mais recursos

Este evento foi coorganizado pela GLAD, GLSEN, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National LGBTQ Task Force, OutFront Minnesota e Equality Federation.

LGBTQ+ Community Dismantling White Supremacy: White People Engaging White People

Work for LGBTQ+ equality is inextricably linked to work for racial justice.

That work could not be more urgent.

GLAD invites you to attend a virtual town hall discussion on how white people can work for racial justice in and beyond the LGBTQ community.

RSVP and more info below


Fill out my online form.

LGBTQ Organizations Unite to Combat Racial Violence

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” Those words, written over 30 years ago by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, remind us that indifference can never bridge the divide of hate. And, today, they should serve as a call to action to all of us, and to the Movement for LGBTQ equality.

This spring has been a stark and stinging reminder that racism, and its strategic objective, white supremacy, is as defining a characteristic of the American experience as those ideals upon which we claim to hold our democracy — justice, equality, liberty.

  • We listened to the haunting pleas of George Floyd for the most basic of human needs — simply, breath — as a Minneapolis police officer kneeled with cruel indifference on his neck.
  • We felt the pain of Breonna Taylor’s boyfriend as he called 9-1-1 after plainclothes Louisville police kicked down the door of their home and shot her eight times as she slept in her bed.
  • We watched the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery by white vigilantes in Brunswick, GA, aware that they evaded the consequence of their actions until the video surfaced and sparked national outrage.
  • We saw the weaponizing of race by a white woman who pantomimed fear in calling the police on Christian Cooper, a Black gay man bird-watching in Central Park.
  • We have heard and read about the killings of transgender people — Black transgender women in particular — with such regularity, it is no exaggeration to describe it as a epidemic of violence. This year alone, we have lost at least 12 members of our community: Dustin Parker, Neulisa Luciano Ruiz, Yampi Méndez Arocho, Monika Diamond, Lexi, Johanna Metzger, Serena Angelique Velázquez Ramos, Layla Pelaez Sánchez, Penélope Díaz Ramírez, Nina Pop, Helle Jae O’Regan, and Tony McDade.

All of these incidents are stark reminders of why we must speak out when hate, violence, and systemic racism claim — too often with impunity — Black Lives.

The LGBTQ Movement’s work has earned significant victories in expanding the civil rights of LGBTQ people. But what good are civil rights without the freedom to enjoy them?

Many of our organizations have made progress in adopting intersectionality as a core value and have committed to be more diverse, equitable, and inclusive. But this moment requires that we go further — that we make explicit commitments to embrace anti-racism and end white supremacy, not as necessary corollaries to our mission, but as integral to the objective of full equality for LGBTQ people.

We, the undersigned, recognize we cannot remain neutral, nor will awareness substitute for action. The LGBTQ community knows about the work of resisting police brutality and violence. We celebrate June as Pride Month, because it commemorates, in part, our resisting police harassment and brutality at Stonewall in New York City, and earlier in California, when such violence was common and expected. We remember it as a breakthrough moment when we refused to accept humiliation and fear as the price of living fully, freely, and authentically.

We understand what it means to rise up and push back against a culture that tells us we are less than, that our lives don’t matter. Today, we join together again to say #BlackLivesMatter and commit ourselves to the action those words require.

SIGNED:

Affirmations, Dave Garcia, Executive Director

AIDS Foundation of Chicago, Aisha N. Davis, Director of Policy

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director

Arkansas Transgender Equity Collaborative, Tonya Estell, Board of Directors

Campaign for Southern Equality, Rev. Jasmine Beach-Ferrara, Executive Director

Cathedral Of Hope UCC, Rev. Dr. Neil G Thomas, Senior Pastor

Center on Halsted, Modesto Valle, CEO

Equality Arizona, Michael Soto, Executive Director

Equality California, Rick Chavez Zbur, Executive Director

Equality Delaware, Mark Purpura and Lisa Goodman, Board Chairs

Equality Federation, Rebecca Isaacs, Executive Director

Equality Florida, Nadine Smith, Executive Director

Equality Illinois, Brian Johnson, CEO

Equality New Mexico, Adrian N. Carver, Executive Director

Equality New York, Amanda Babine, Executive Director

Equality North Carolina, Kendra R Johnson, Executive Director

Equality Ohio, Grant Stancliff, Communications Director

Equality Texas, Ricardo Martinez, CEO

Fair Wisconsin, Megin McDonell, Executive Director

Fairness Campaign, Tamara Russell, Board Member

Family Equality, Denise Brogan-Kator, Chief Policy Officer

Freedom for All Americans, Kasey Suffredini, CEO & National Campaign Director

FreeState Justice, Mark Procopio, Executive Director

Gay City: Seattle’s LGBTQ Center, Fred Swanson, Executive Director

Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC), Kelsey Louie, CEO

Georgia Equality, Jeff Graham, Executive Director

GLAAD, Sarah Kate Ellis, President and CEO

GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), Janson Wu, Executive Director

GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ Equality, Hector Vargas, Executive Director

GLSEN, Eliza Byard, Executive Director

GSAFE, Brian Juchems, Co-Director

Human Rights Campaign, Alphonso David, President

Immigration Equality, Aaron C. Morris, Executive Director

Ingersoll Gender Center, Karter Booher, Executive Director

Lambda Legal, Kevin Jennings, CEO

LGBT Community Center of the Desert, Mike Thompson, CEO

LGBT Life Center, Stacie Walls, CEO

Louisiana Trans Advocates, Peyton Rose Michelle, Director of Operations

Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition, Tre’Andre Valentine, Executive Director

MassEquality, Tanya V. Neslusan, Executive Director

Movement Advancement Project, Ineke Mushovic, Executive Director

National Black Justice Coalition, David Johns, Executive Director

National Center for Lesbian Rights, Imani Rupert-Gordon, Executive Director

National Center for Transgender Equality, Mara Keisling, Executive Director

National LGBTQ Task Force, Rea Carey, Executive Director

NMAC, Paul Kawata, Executive Director

Oakland LGBTQ Community Center, Joe Hawkins, CEO

Out & Equal Workplace Advocates, Erin Uritus, CEO

One Colorado, Daniel Ramos, Executive Director

One Iowa, Courtney Reyes, Executive Director

OutFront Minnesota, Monica Meyer, Executive Director

OutNebraska, Abbi Swatsworth, Executive Director

Pacific Center for Human Growth, Michelle Gonzalez, Executive Director

PFLAG National, Brian K. Bond, Executive Director

PRC, Brett Andrews, CEO

Rainbow Community Center of Contra Costa County, Kiku Johnson, Executive Director

Resource Center, Cece Cox, CEO

Sacramento LGBT Community Center, David Heitstuman, CEO

San Francisco Community Health Center, Lance Toma, CEO

SF LGBT Center, Rebecca Rolfe, Executive Director

SAGE, Michael Adams, CEO

San Diego LGBT Community Center, Cara Dessert, CEO

Silver State Equality, André C. Wade, State Director

Tennessee Equality Project, Chris Sanders, Executive Director

The Diversity Center, Sharon E Papo, Executive Director

The Gala Pride and Diversity Center, Michelle Call, Executive Director

The Lesbian, Gay Bisexual and Transgender Community Center, Glennda Testone, Executive Director

The LGBTQ Center, Long Beach, Porter Gilberg, Executive Director

The LGBTQ Center, NYC, Reg Calcagno, Senior Director of Government Affairs

The Trevor Project, Amit Paley, CEO

Transgender Education Network of Texas (TENT), Emmett Schelling, Executive Director

Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund (TLDEF), Andy Marra, Executive Director

TransOhio, James Knapp, Chair & Executive Director

Uptown Gay & Lesbian Alliance (UGLA), Carl Matthes, President

Wyoming Equality, Sara Burlingame, Executive Director

 

Click here to view this letter as a PDF.

Blogue

As the new Supreme Court term begins, the issues we care about are already front and center at the nation’s highest court.

One case, Fulton vs. City of Philadelphia, scheduled for oral argument on November 4, could have sweeping ramifications for our community.

Watch GLAD’s Transgender Rights Project Director Jennifer Levi explain what the case is about and what’s at stake:

YouTube #!trpst#trp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=155#!trpen#vídeo#!trpst#/trp-gettext#!trpen#

LEARN MORE AND STAY UP-TO-DATE ABOUT THE CASE

 

TRANSCRIPT:

>> Hi, I’m here with GLAD attorney Jennifer Levi to talk about case, Fulton v. Cidade da Filadélfia, that the United States Supreme Court will hear next term. Hi Jennifer, thanks so much for joining me today. I’ve heard Fulton is an important case for the LGBTQ community. Can you tell me a little bit about it?

>> Yeah, sure. This is a case in which Catholic Social Services sued after the City of Philadelphia ended its contract with them because the agency refused to work with same-sex couples who wanted to become foster parents.

It’s a case like so many we’ve seen where a religiously-based organization is asking to be exempted from non-discrimination laws. You probably remember a case from 2018 brought against a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Many of us expected that case, Masterpiece Cake Shop, to be the one where the Supreme Court would decide whether religiously owned businesses get a pass on complying with non-discrimination laws. But Bolo Obra-prima didn’t turn out to be that case. Instead with Justice Kennedy as the swing vote the Court decided the case narrowly, avoiding the larger legal question. That makes Fulton, the case the Court has now taken up the first to be heard on the issue since Justice Kavanaugh replaced Justice Kennedy.

>> Okay then. Wow. That makes it sound pretty important. What else can you tell me about it?

>> Catholic Social Services is one of about 30 agencies – almost all religious – that contracts with Philly to do foster placements. And after the City learned that Catholic Social Services wouldn’t work with married same-sex couples, it ended their contract. And Catholic Social Services sued. They lost in the trial court. They lost in the appeals court. And now they’re making their case to the Supremes. GLAD is part of a national team strategizing to make sure this case doesn’t end up gutting the non-discrimination laws that are so important to so many people.

>> I can surely see why this is an important case for couples in the Philadelphia area who want to become foster parents. But what makes it so important for everyone else?

>> That’s a great question. I mean there are a number of issues in the case but probably most significant for the LGBTQ community is one that pits Philly’s non-discrimination requirement against Catholic Social Services free exercise claim. But we should probably back up a little bit.

Under well settled precedent, laws that don’t specifically target religious entities and applied equally to everyone, religious and non-religious people alike, are presumptively constitutional. The court calls those neutral laws of general applicability. The court says that they would stand constitutional challenge even if they have some incidental impact on a person’s religious practices. And this isn’t some progressive idea. It’s based on a case called Smith that was decided by Justice Antonin Scalia decades ago. The reason so many eyes are on Fulton now is because it’s a case where the new conservative majority could change the law in a way that would allow substantially more discrimination against LGBTQ people and others in a wide variety of contexts. It’s been a goal of the Religious Right to do this basically since Smith was decided.

>> But doesn’t our constitution provide special protections for people to be able to follow their religious beliefs? I mean what’s so wrong with that?

>> Well sure our Constitution does say that you can’t target religious beliefs for a particular hostile treatment by the government. But that’s not what non-discrimination laws do. Far from it. And what Justice Scalia reasoned in Smith was that allowing a person to do whatever they want based on their religious beliefs would basically mean that every person becomes a law unto themselves and that would undermine the rule of law and create chaos.

You also have to remember that this is a case about the conditions a city like Philly gets to put on its spending. I mean the city is basically just saying if you want to get government money you can’t discriminate against LGBTQ people. Seems pretty straightforward when you think of it that way.

>> Yeah I guess it does. So how big a deal is this case anyway?

>> That depends on where the court lands on how far it extends its analysis. At the far end a decision in the case could allow pretty much any religious entity to refuse to provide services to anyone and it can also force government at all levels to fund discriminatory groups. Pretty scary really.

>> Wow. I see that. I mean, so many people rely on government services for food, housing, health care, and so much more. Are you saying people could be turned away from housing shelter just because they’re gay?

>> That’s certainly possible if the court overturns the Smith precedent. It might even mean that private businesses could do that. The implications are seriously far-reaching.

>> Okay wow. I’m really just trying to take this all in. The case sounds seriously important. Thanks for talking to me about it. Definitely sounds like something all of us who care about non-discrimination should follow closely. I’ll make sure to keep checking GLAD’s website regularly so I can keep up on this case and so many more that I know will make a big difference in my life and the lives of so many people I care about. Thanks again and I hope you’ll come back and talk to me again sometime.

>> You bet I will. Any time.

(Video recorded in May 2020)

Blogue

Jennifer Levi, GLAD’s Transgender Rights Project Director, explains the Supreme Court cases that will decide whether LGBTQ workers are legally protected from discrimination. The Court will rule any day now – sign up to hear as soon as they do and learn directly from GLAD experts what the decision means to you!

YouTube #!trpst#trp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=155#!trpen#vídeo#!trpst#/trp-gettext#!trpen#

Register for the exclusive online briefing.

Dee Farmer, a primeira autora transgênero em um caso na Suprema Corte, lamenta o falecimento de Aimee Stephens

Dee Farmer, a primeira autora transgênero em um caso na Suprema Corte, lamenta o falecimento de Aimee Stephens

Dee Farmer, a primeira demandante transgênero a levar um caso à Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos, emitiu a seguinte declaração em resposta à morte de Aimee Stephens, uma mulher transgênero cujo caso de discriminação no emprego está atualmente pendente na Suprema Corte:  

“Estou triste com o falecimento de Aimee Stephens, minha irmã na fé e no amor. No entanto, meu coração se enche de alegria por saber que sua voz continuará a ser ouvida em seu caso na Suprema Corte. Que este fato nos conforte a todos.”

O litígio de Dee Farmer começou em 1989, quando ela entrou com uma ação federal para responsabilizar os agentes penitenciários por não protegê-la de abuso sexual em uma prisão federal em Indiana, onde foi alojada com detentos do sexo masculino. O caso de Farmer finalmente chegou à Suprema Corte, que emitiu um parecer histórico em 1994, sustentando que os presos têm o direito de ser protegidos contra violência sexual e que Farmer poderia buscar indenização dos agentes que a colocaram em perigo.

A decisão do Tribunal, Fazendeiro v. Brennan, foi citado por milhares de tribunais. O caso do fazendeiro também foi um grande catalisador para a Lei de Eliminação do Estupro em Prisões, que foi promulgada pelo Congresso e sancionada pelo presidente George W. Bush em 2003.

O agricultor, que passou décadas encarcerado, foi libertado em 10 de maio, apenas um dia antes Morte de Aimee Stephen em 11 de maio de 2020.

“Enquanto aguardamos a decisão da Suprema Corte no caso histórico de Aimee Stephen, é importante lembrar as décadas de advocacia que tornaram este momento possível”, disse Shannon Minter, um homem transgênero que atua como diretor jurídico do Centro Nacional para os Direitos das Lésbicas. “Dee Farmer é uma lenda no movimento pelos direitos transgêneros. Junho marcará o vigésimo sexto aniversário de sua vitória pioneira, que marcou a primeira vez que a Suprema Corte teve a oportunidade de aprender sobre as dificuldades enfrentadas pelas pessoas transgênero. Nas décadas seguintes, a coragem de Dee inspirou inúmeros outros defensores a educar legisladores e tribunais sobre a humanidade das pessoas transgênero e sua necessidade urgente de proteções legais básicas.”

“Poucas pessoas fizeram uma diferença tão grande na vida de outras pessoas quanto Dee Farmer”, disse Jennifer Levi, Diretora do Projeto de Direitos Transgêneros da GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, e co-advogada da NCLR em vários casos que desafiam Proibição militar de transgêneros por Trump. “O movimento transgênero fez um progresso tremendo desde que Dee apresentou seu caso, e devemos grande parte disso à sua coragem e visão.”

Em 2019, Farmer foi destaque em um documentário premiado, Onde a Justiça Termina, que conta a história de sua prisão por um crime não violento, o tratamento horrível que ela sofreu enquanto estava encarcerada e o processo que mudou a lei do país.

Nos últimos dois anos, Farmer consultou a NCLR para orientar sua defesa em nome de outras prisioneiras transgênero. Atualmente, a NCLR representa Adree Edmo, uma mulher transgênero encarcerada em Idaho. No ano passado, um tribunal distrital federal ordenou que a prisão fornecesse à Sra. Edmo os cuidados médicos necessários para tratar sua disforia de gênero. O Nono Circuito confirmou essa decisão, e Idaho pediu ao Supremo Tribunal que assumisse o caso.

“Nosso movimento tem uma enorme dívida de gratidão com Dee Farmer e muitas outras mulheres transgênero negras que lideraram o caminho na luta por justiça e dignidade para todas as pessoas”, disse Imani Rupert-Gordon, que ingressou na NCLR como Diretora Executiva em março. “A NCLR está comprometida em honrar o legado de Dee e em continuar o trabalho que ela e outros começaram, e não descansaremos até que todas as pessoas transgênero possam viver com segurança e liberdade, e até que a violência horrível e os maus-tratos que muitos prisioneiros transgêneros ainda sofrem cheguem ao fim.”

GLAD e NCLR respondem à Marinha dos EUA que concedeu isenção a oficial transgênero que processou para contestar proibição militar

A Marinha dos EUA anunciou ontem à noite que concedeu a primeira isenção a um membro transgênero do serviço militar sob a proibição militar de transgêneros, que está em vigor há mais de um ano.

Defensores e Advogados GLBTQ (GLAD) e o Centro Nacional para os Direitos das Lésbicas (NCLR) entrou com uma ação em março em nome do Oficial da Marinha a quem foi concedida a isenção. O governo deveria apresentar sua resposta à ação na próxima semana.

“A proibição está em vigor há mais de um ano e esta é a primeira isenção a ser concedida”, disse Jennifer Levi, Diretora do Projeto de Direitos Transgêneros da GLAD. “Embora estejamos aliviados que nossa cliente, uma oficial da Marinha altamente qualificada, possa continuar seu serviço, há outros militares transgêneros igualmente qualificados que buscaram isenções e ainda estão no limbo, apesar de estarem perfeitamente aptos a servir. Militares dedicados não deveriam ter que entrar com uma ação judicial para poderem continuar exercendo seu trabalho.”

“Não há base para tratar os militares transgêneros de forma diferente, exigindo que eles busquem uma isenção que ninguém mais precisa obter para continuar a servir”, disse Shannon Minter, Diretora Jurídica da NCLR. “Embora estejamos aliviados pelo nosso cliente, exigir que militares transgêneros passem por essa fase discriminatória não faz sentido e apenas reforça a irracionalidade da proibição. Ser transgênero não tem nada a ver com a aptidão de uma pessoa para servir, e indivíduos transgêneros devem ser submetidos aos mesmos padrões que os demais militares.”

“Estamos em êxtase tanto pelo Marinheiro quanto pela quebra do impasse da renúncia”, disse Emma Shinn, presidente da SPART*A, que defende o serviço ativo a militares transgêneros, veteranos e suas famílias. "Tenho esperança de que este seja o primeiro de muitos; mas a luta está longe de terminar."

Clique aqui para saber mais sobre o caso.

Notícias

GLAD Executive Director Janson Wu issued the following statement on the death of Aimee Stephens, whose landmark transgender status employment discrimination case is currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court:

“We are deeply saddened by the news of Aimee Stephens’ death. Our hearts go out to Aimee’s wife, Donna, their daughter Elizabeth, and all who loved her.

All of us owe Aimee a debt of gratitude. Her decision to speak out and challenge the discrimination she faced at a job she had loved for years demonstrated true courage. Her willingness to publicly share her story and to persist in her fight all the way to the Supreme Court has already made a tremendous difference to transgender people across the country.

Aimee’s life reminds us that at the center of every civil rights case is a human story, an individual who made the choice to try and change things for themselves and for all of us. Today we celebrate Aimee’s life and thank her and her loved ones for the gift they gave our community.”

Aimee Stephens’ case, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court and concerns the question of whether transgender workers are protected from discrimination under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act.

pt_PTPortuguês
Visão geral de privacidade

Este site utiliza cookies para que possamos oferecer a melhor experiência de usuário possível. As informações dos cookies são armazenadas no seu navegador e desempenham funções como reconhecê-lo quando você retorna ao nosso site e ajudar nossa equipe a entender quais seções do site você considera mais interessantes e úteis.