National/Federal Know Your Rights - Page 39 of 59 - GLAD Law
Pular cabeçalho para conteúdo
GLAD Logo Pular navegação primária para conteúdo

Fulton v. Cidade da Filadélfia

ATUALIZAR: On June 17, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a narrow and limiting ruling for Catholic Social Services that focuses on specific contractual language. The ruling leaves intact the broader principle that governments can require contractors, including religious agencies, to comply with nondiscrimination laws – including those that protect same-sex married couples – when providing taxpayer-funded social services. While the Court found Philadelphia’s contract with CSS to be unenforceable, it did so because the contract allowed individual discretionary exemptions on a case-by-base basis but would not consider CSS’s claim. The case stemmed from a claim by Catholic Social Services that it should have been allowed to decline to work with same-sex couples when providing foster care placement services under contract with the City of Philadelphia. Read GLAD’s full statement.

Watch the virtual briefing about what the ruling means for the LGBTQ community.


In 2018, the City of Philadelphia suspended a contract with Catholic Social Services (“CSS”) to provide foster care placement services because the agency refused to work with married same-sex couples and unmarried couples, violating Philadelphia’s nondiscrimination ordinance. 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. The case was heard by the Supreme Court on November 4, 2020 (audio available here).

Fulton is poised to be a landmark case on the question of whether religiously-based social welfare organizations that receive taxpayer dollars through local government contracts can be exempt from the government’s nondiscrimination laws. There is a possibility that a decision in Fulton 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.

So many people rely on government-funded entities like CSS to fulfill essential needs — for food, housing, health care, and more. This case 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. It could also require the government at all levels to fund discriminatory groups. That’s why GLAD, joined by 27 other national, regional, and state LGBTQ advocacy organizations, apresentou uma petição de amigo do tribunal on August 20, 2020 in support of the City of Philadelphia’s position, urging the U.S. Supreme Court not to introduce a broad exemption to nondiscrimination laws that would undermine Constitutional equal protection guarantees and introduce a dangerous and unworkable scheme into local, state, and federal lawmaking.

View GLAD’s brief here ou click here to read all of the filings em Fulton v. Cidade da Filadélfia.

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

NCLR and GLAD, the LGBT Legal Organizations Leading the Fight to Stop the Trump-Pence Trans Military Ban, Joint Statement on 7 Years Since the End of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

WASHINGTON, DC—Today marks seven years since the U.S. Department of Defense ended Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell—the military policy that prohibited gay, lesbian, and bisexual servicemembers from open service. National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) Legal Director Shannon Minter e GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) Transgender Rights Project Director Jennifer Levi, the attorneys who filed the first lawsuit to stop Trump’s transgender military ban and the first to secure a nationwide preliminary injunction halting the ban while the case is heard in court, issued the following joint statement:

“Seven years ago, our country discarded a baseless and discriminatory policy that forced dedicated and courageous servicemembers into the shadows.

“But under President Trump, we see history repeating itself. The same stigma and false stereotypes used to justify Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell are being reprised by the Trump-Pence administration in an attempt to force out 9,000 trained, qualified transgender troops, who are serving honorably at home and overseas.

“To date, every court to hear a case challenging the ban has recognized that these arguments ring hollow and that any servicemember who can meet the standards should be permitted to serve. But the Trump-Pence administration continues to try to push the ban forward.

“Just as we stood with our community during Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, we will continue to stand with transgender servicemembers now until Trump’s unconstitutional, discriminatory transgender military ban is relegated to the dustbin of history.”

###

Por meio de litígios estratégicos, defesa de políticas públicas e educação, Advogados e defensores jurídicos GLBTQ trabalha na Nova Inglaterra e nacionalmente para criar uma sociedade justa e livre de discriminação com base na identidade e expressão de gênero, status de HIV e orientação sexual. www.GLAD.org

Centro Nacional para os Direitos Lésbicos é uma organização jurídica nacional comprometida em promover os direitos humanos e civis da comunidade lésbica, gay, bissexual e transgênero por meio de litígios, defesa de políticas públicas e educação pública. www.NCLRights.org

GLAD Calls for Investigation of Sexual Assault Allegation and Halt to Kavanaugh Confirmation Vote

Statement of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) Executive Director Janson Wu:

Allegations of sexual assault are serious and must be treated as such. Christine Blasey Ford has taken considerable risk by coming forward publicly. These assertions regarding Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh must be thoroughly and conscientiously investigated before any further action is taken regarding his potential appointment to a lifetime term on our nation’s highest court.

We call on the leaders and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to take their duty seriously. The Committee cannot go forward with any vote until there is a full, transparent process to ensure these recently disclosed allegations receive the respectful and sober attention they warrant.

 

Blogue

Quarenta anos atrás, durante um verão diferente, quente e tumultuado, no altura da discoteca e na esteira da rainha do suco de laranja De Anita Bryant Nascia a cruzada nacional anti-gay, a GLAD. O jovem advogado de Boston, John Ward, apresentou os estatutos de uma nova organização jurídica que seria conhecida como "Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders".

Em 1978, Ward sabia que era revolucionário para uma organização ter as palavras “gay e lésbica” em seu nome, muito menos defender os direitos legais LGBTQ. Mas as revoluções nascem da necessidade. A necessidade daquele momento era uma operação policial de Boston que visou e expôs centenas de homens gays. Eles precisavam de defesa e representação legal, e John se posicionou.

Essa revolução necessária lançou as bases para o que conquistamos juntos nas últimas quatro décadas.

Nos últimos 40 anos, o GLAD mudou o panorama dos direitos LGBTQIA+ de maneiras incontáveis. Mas aqui estão algumas:

  • Conquistar o direito de um aluno do último ano do ensino médio de Rhode Island de levar o namorado ao baile de formatura em 1980 em nossa primeira vitória no tribunal distrital federal, defendida pelo fundador do GLAD, John Ward.
  • Garantir a antidiscriminação proteções para pessoas vivendo com HIV em nossa primeira vitória na Suprema Corte há 20 anos, defendida pelo advogado da GLAD, Ben Klein.
  • Conquistamos a igualdade no casamento em todos os seis estados da Nova Inglaterra e, depois, em toda a nação, em nossa segunda vitória na Suprema Corte há três anos, argumentada pela advogada da GLAD, Mary Bonauto.
  • Garantindo vitórias inéditas em direitos transgêneros, incluindo a primeira decisão da Suprema Corte estadual a afirmar o direito de estudantes transgêneros de usar o banheiro apropriado, defendida pela advogada da GLAD, Jennifer Levi. (E a jovem que a GLAD representou naquele caso, Nicole Maines agora está pronta para ser a primeira super-heroína transgênero da TV).
  • Protegendo as famílias, incluindo pais LGBTQ não biológicos que não se casaram ou adotaram, por meio de vitórias judiciais e legislativas, lideradas pela advogada da GLAD, Polly Crozier.
  • Vencendo asilo para John Wambere, um homem gay de Uganda cuja vida estava em perigo devido ao seu ativismo LGBTQ, graças à representação da advogada da GLAD, Allison Wright.

Esses casos mudaram profundamente a vida das pessoas, ampliaram a imagem pública de quem são e podem ser as pessoas LGBTQIA+ e as pessoas vivendo com HIV. Alguns deles são agora ensinados em faculdades de direito em todo o país, além de citados em decisões estaduais e federais.

Temos muito do que nos orgulhar. Mas nosso trabalho conjunto está longe de terminar. Se houve um momento em que precisávamos de outra revolução, é agora.

Estamos enfrentando ataques profundos.

  • Este ano, vimos mais de 150 projetos de lei anti-LGBTQ apresentados em legislaturas estaduais em todo o país.
  • Testemunhámos a primeira, mas não a última tentativa da nossa oposição de incluir a discriminação na nossa constituição sob o pretexto de “liberdade religiosa”.
  • E estamos em à beira de perder uma quinta votação crítica na Suprema Corte dos EUA, ameaçando todas as conquistas legais que obtivemos em direitos LGBTQ nos últimos 20 anos.

Já enfrentamos ataques e desafios antes. E, como demonstram nossos últimos 40 anos de vitórias, sabemos como lutar, sabemos como persistir e sabemos como vencer.

Um lutador que a GLAD tem orgulho de representar é o nosso autor Nicolas Talbott. Alistar-se na Força Aérea era o sonho de Nic há anos. Quando o presidente Trump tuitou sua proibição de militares transgêneros no verão passado, Nic sentiu como se todo o seu futuro tivesse sido destruído: "Isso basicamente destruiu todos os meus planos."

Mas, em vez de cair no desespero e na apatia, Nic escolheu lutar. Ele diz: "Finalmente me foi dada a oportunidade de me levantar, fazer com que minha voz seja ouvida e lutar pelos meus direitos". E, graças a Nic e seus coautores nos dois casos do GLAD, desde janeiro deste ano, pessoas transgênero têm a chance de se alistar abertamente pela primeira vez na história do nosso país.

O que sabemos que nos dá esperança é isto: nós são a maioria. A maioria dos americanos é justa, compassiva e acredita na igualdade e na decência humana básica.

Aqueles que acreditam que todos devemos ser celebrados por quem somos e por quem amamos – nós somos a maioria. Aqueles que entendem que os imigrantes sempre fizeram a América grande – nós somos a maioria. Aqueles que sabem que a força da nossa nação está enraizada na nossa diversidade, não na divisão e exclusão – nós somos a maioria.

Mas mesmo sendo a maioria, só venceremos se nos unirmos em prol de uma causa comum.

Crescemos além dos nossos sonhos mais ousados, partindo do punhado de ativistas apaixonados e determinados que iniciaram uma revolução há 40 anos, quando fundaram a GLAD. Nosso trabalho hoje é dar continuidade ao trabalho deles e nunca, jamais, parar de lutar por um futuro que concretize a promessa da nossa Constituição de igualdade e justiça para todos.

Juiz rejeita tentativas de Trump de anular processo de proibição de entrada de pessoas trans no exército e de dissolver liminar

A juíza distrital Colleen Kollar-Kotelly nega os pedidos do governo Trump para rejeitar Doe v. Trump e para dissolver a liminar que impede a proibição de entrar em vigor.

WASHINGTON, DC—Tribunal Distrital dos EUA A juíza Colleen Kollar-Kotelly negou hoje a moção da administração Trump para rejeitar o caso da NCLR e da GLAD Doe v. Trump, a primeira ação judicial movida contestando a proibição militar de pessoas transgênero imposta por Trump e Pence e a primeira a obter uma liminar impedindo a proibição de entrar em vigor enquanto o caso é julgado pelo tribunal. A juíza Kollar-Kotelly também negou o pedido do governo Trump para dissolver a liminar, o que teria colocado em risco as carreiras de quase todos os milhares de soldados transgêneros atualmente em serviço e permitido que o governo Trump começasse a implementar a proibição. A juíza Kollar-Kotelly ainda não se pronunciou sobre o pedido dos autores da ação por julgamento sumário, que resolveria o caso com uma sentença final declarando que a proibição é inconstitucional e não pode ser implementada. Na ordem da juíza Kollar-Kotelly, ela enfatizou a importância do serviço militar transgênero Em relação à prontidão militar, “Não se deve esquecer que as Forças Armadas dos Estados Unidos continuam envolvidas em inúmeros conflitos armados em todo o mundo, e militares ainda estão sendo feridos e mortos nesses conflitos. O interesse público e a equidade residem em permitir que jovens, homens e mulheres qualificados e dispostos a servir à nossa Nação, o façam.” A Juíza Kollar-Kotelly também afirmou a capacidade da comunidade transgênero de servir, observando que “o Plano de Implementação Mattis ainda cumpre uma proibição extremamente ampla ao serviço militar de indivíduos transgêneros, que parece estar dissociada da capacidade real de qualquer indivíduo transgênero de servir. Na ausência da política contestada, os indivíduos transgêneros estão sujeitos aos mesmos padrões e requisitos de acesso e retenção que qualquer outro membro do serviço. O Plano de Implementação Mattis estabelece uma adicional regra de exclusão que impede indivíduos que, de outra forma, atenderiam aos rigorosos padrões aplicáveis a todos os militares simplesmente por apresentarem certas características associadas à transgeneridade. "Os argumentos do governo Trump para rejeitar nossa ação judicial e prosseguir com a proibição de pessoas transgênero no exército estão repletos de generalizações e falsos estereótipos sobre pessoas transgênero. É claro que a juíza Kollar-Kotelly não está acreditando nisso — e ninguém deveria", disse Jennifer Levi, Diretora do Projeto de Direitos Transgêneros da GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD). “Qualquer pessoa que atenda aos padrões deve poder servir. Não há razão para submeter pessoas transgênero a tratamento inconstitucional e discriminatório, diferentemente da forma como as Forças Armadas tratam qualquer outro grupo.” “Nenhuma outra política militar exclui uma classe de pessoas de servir por quem elas são, e não por sua capacidade de desempenhar a função”, disse Shannon Minter, Diretor Jurídico do Centro Nacional para os Direitos Lésbicos (NCLR). “A decisão de hoje rejeita veementemente a tentativa do governo Trump de burlar a liminar e prosseguir com seu plano destrutivo de excluir indivíduos transgêneros qualificados do serviço militar. Segundo as próprias contas militares, milhares de militares transgêneros estão servindo atualmente — um dos nossos Corça Os autores cumpriram diversas missões no exterior, duas delas no Iraque. Essa proibição não só é inconstitucional, como também prejudica militares dedicados e corrói a prontidão militar. Continuaremos lutando por aqueles que lutam pelo nosso país. FUNDO 30 de junho de 2016:O Departamento de Defesa dos Estados Unidos (DOD) adotou uma política permitindo que pessoas transgênero sirvam nas forças armadas com base em uma revisão de quase dois anos do DOD, determinando que não havia razão válida para excluir pessoal qualificado do serviço militar simplesmente porque são transgêneros. 26 de julho de 2017: O presidente Trump tuitou que “o governo dos Estados Unidos não aceitará nem permitirá que indivíduos transgêneros sirvam em nenhuma função nas Forças Armadas dos EUA”. 9 de agosto de 2017: NCLR e GLAD arquivados Doe v. Trump, a primeira ação judicial movida para impedir a proibição, contestando sua constitucionalidade e solicitando que o tribunal emita uma liminar nacional para impedir que ela entre em vigor enquanto o caso estiver sendo ouvido no tribunal. 25 de agosto de 2017: O presidente Trump emitiu um memorando ordenando que o secretário de Defesa, James Mattis, apresentasse "um plano para implementar" a proibição até 21 de fevereiro de 2018. O secretário Mattis entregou isso (o "Plano Mattis" e o relatório do painel) ao presidente Trump em 22 de fevereiro de 2018. 30 de outubro de 2017:O Tribunal Distrital dos Estados Unidos para o Distrito de Columbia decidiu que Doe v. Trump os demandantes estabeleceram uma probabilidade de sucesso em sua alegação de que a proibição do presidente Trump viola a proteção igualitária, que os demandantes seriam irreparavelmente prejudicados sem uma liminar para interromper a proibição e que o interesse público e o equilíbrio das dificuldades pesaram a favor da concessão de uma liminar e da suspensão temporária da proibição enquanto o caso é ouvido pelo tribunal. 23 de março de 2018:O presidente Trump aceita o “Plano Mattis” e emite um memorando no qual “revoga” seu Memorando de 25 de agosto. 20 de abril de 2018: Os réus apresentam uma moção para dissolver a liminar nacional de 30 de outubro que proíbe a proibição de militares transgêneros emitida pelo Tribunal Distrital dos EUA para o Distrito de Columbia; uma moção para rejeitar a Segunda Reclamação Emendada dos Autores; e uma Moção para Julgamento Sumário. 11 de maio de 2018: Os autores apresentam sua reconvenção para julgamento sumário, bem como moções em oposição às moções do réu para dissolver a liminar e rejeitar a queixa dos autores. NCLR e GLAD têm estado no centro da batalha jurídica que contesta a proibição militar de transgêneros imposta por Trump e Pence desde o ajuizamento. Doe v. Trump, o primeiro de quatro processos movidos contra a proibição, em 9 de agosto de 2017. Para mais informações, acesse o site do NCLR e do GLAD https://notransmilitaryban.org/. ### Por meio de litígios estratégicos, defesa de políticas públicas e educação, Advogados e defensores jurídicos GLBTQ trabalha na Nova Inglaterra e nacionalmente para criar uma sociedade justa e livre de discriminação com base na identidade e expressão de gênero, status de HIV e orientação sexual. www.GLAD.org Centro Nacional para os Direitos Lésbicos é uma organização jurídica nacional comprometida em promover os direitos humanos e civis da comunidade lésbica, gay, bissexual e transgênero por meio de litígios, defesa de políticas públicas e educação pública. www.NCLRights.org

Rhines v. Young

GLAD joined five other civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, Lambda Legal, National Center for LGBTQ Rights, and National LGBT Bar Association, filed an amici brief today urging the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to hear the appeal of Charles Rhines, a gay man on death row in South Dakota.

According to the filing, new evidence “suggests that at least some members of the jury accepted the notion that life in prison without parole would be fun for a gay person – so much so that they felt it was necessary to impose the death penalty instead. In other words, significant evidence suggests that the jury may have sentenced Mr. Rhines to death based not on the facts of his case, but because he is gay.”  Ler mais

Organizações de direitos civis pedem que o Oitavo Circuito aceite o recurso de um homem que pode ter sido condenado à morte por ser gay

New evidence shows some jurors may have voted for death for Charles Rhines because they believed he would enjoy life in prison with other men

(St. Louis, Missouri) Six civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, Lambda Legal,  GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and National LGBT Bar Association, filed an amici brief today urging the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to hear the appeal of Charles Rhines, a gay man on death row in South Dakota. According to the filing, new evidence “suggests that at least some members of the jury accepted the notion that life in prison without parole would be fun for a gay person – so much so that they felt it was necessary to impose the death penalty instead. In other words, significant evidence suggests that the jury may have sentenced Mr. Rhines to death based not on the facts of his case, but because he is gay.” “Mr. Rhines’s case represents one of the most extreme forms anti-LGBT bias can take. Evidence suggests that he has been on death row for the past 25 years because he is a gay man. The constitutional right to a fair trial must include the right to establish whether a verdict or sentence was imposed due to jury bias,” said Lambda Legal Fair Courts Project Attorney Ethan Rice. “Lambda Legal is proud to work with the ACLU, the ACLU of South Dakota, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the National LGBT Bar Association to provide important information to the Eighth Circuit on the history of bias against LGBT people and how that bias impacts LGBT rights in the criminal legal system.” The amicus brief can be viewed here: https://tinyurl.com/y8eslggc Mr. Rhines’s Application for Certificate of Appealability can be viewed at https://tinyurl.com/y778msud and its exhibits at https://tinyurl.com/y8bz8jor. During jury deliberations, the jury sent a note to the judge that indicated that Mr. Rhines’s status as a gay man had become a focal point for deliberations. The note asked whether, if sentenced to life without parole, Mr. Rhines would “be allowed to mix with the general inmate population,” be able to “brag about his crime to other inmates, especially new and/or young men,” enjoy “conjugal visits” and asked other questions about Mr. Rhines’s access to other men while in prison. (Application at p. 6.) The new evidence comes in the form of three statements from jurors who served at Mr. Rhines’s capital trial and sentencing. One juror stated that the jury “knew that [Mr. Rhines] was a homosexual and thought that he shouldn’t be able to spend his life with men in prison.” Another juror recalled a juror commenting that “if he’s gay we’d be sending him where he wants to go if we voted for [life without parole].” A third juror confirmed that “[t]here was lots of discussion of homosexuality. There was a lot of disgust.” (Application at p. 8.) (See also Amici brief at p. 1). The new evidence confirms what the jury’s note strongly indicated at the time of Mr. Rhines’s sentencing: anti-gay bias played a role in some jurors’ decisions to impose the death penalty on Mr. Rhines. The brief of the amici documents America’s long and painful history of discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, which persisted at the time of trial and continues in the present day. The amici wrote to the court: “Well into the twentieth century, gay people were ‘prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate.’” (Amici Brief at p. 5 quoting Obergefell v. Hodges) In 2017, in Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, the U.S. Supreme Court held that states must consider evidence that jurors relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a defendant in a non-capital case. As Ria Tabacco Mar has previously discussed, “juror deliberations are considered sacrosanct, but last year the Supreme Court carved out an important exception for cases of racial bias in the jury room.” Attorneys for Mr. Rhines argue that since the principles underlying Peña-Rodriguez apply to anti-gay prejudice, the Eighth Circuit should allow Mr. Rhines the opportunity to present evidence that anti-gay bias was a factor in some jurors’ decisions to sentence him to death. The need for review is especially compelling because the anti-gay bias in Mr. Rhines’s case may have made the difference between life and death. Charles Rhines Case Overview Charles Rhines is a gay man on death row in South Dakota. New evidence shows that some of the jurors who sentenced him to death “knew that he was a homosexual and thought he shouldn’t be able to spend his life with men in prison” and thought that “if he’s gay we’d be sending him where he wants to go if we voted for [life in prison].” The jury’s anti-gay bias deprived him of his rights to a fair trial and due process under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Before trial, Mr. Rhines’s attorneys asked prospective jurors if they had any anti-gay bias that would prevent them from giving Mr. Rhines a fair trial. The jurors selected to hear his case said they could be fair and free of prejudice. This turned out not to be true. At trial, the jury heard through witnesses presented by the state that Mr. Rhines was gay and had relationships with other men. They were asked to choose between life in prison without parole and the death penalty for a murder committed when an employee surprised Mr. Rhines in the course of a commercial burglary. During their deliberations, the jury sent a note to the judge indicating that deliberations had become infected with anti-gay stereotypes and prejudices. (Application at p. 6.) The judge did not address these questions and failed to head off the anti-gay bias that the questions revealed. The same day, about eight hours later, the jury voted to sentence Mr. Rhines to death. (Application at pp. 5-6.) New evidence confirms that some of the jurors who voted to impose the death penalty on Mr. Rhines did so because they thought the alternative – a life sentence in a men’s prison – was something he would enjoy as a gay man. Three jurors have made statements indicating that anti-gay prejudices played a significant role in the jury’s decision-making. (Amici brief at p. 1.) As Chief Justice Roberts has explained, the core premise of our criminal justice system is that “[o]ur law punishes people for what they do, not who they are.” (Buck v. Davis) Bias based on a characteristic that cannot be changed, such as race or sexual orientation, goes against this foundational principle. Allowing bias to play any role in sentencing is especially alarming when the bias may have made the difference between life and death. After a verdict and sentencing, the courts do not usually inquire into jury deliberations. However, in 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized an exception to this rule and directed states to consider evidence that jurors relied on racial stereotypes or prejudice in convicting a defendant. (Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado) In Peña-Rodriguez, after the jury voted to convict a person in a non-death penalty case, two jurors said that another juror believed that the defendant was guilty of unlawful sexual contact and harassment “because he’s Mexican and Mexican men take whatever they want.” (Amici brief at pp. 2-3.) The Court found that evidence of anti-Mexican bias “cast serious doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the jury’s deliberations and resulting verdict” and set the verdict aside. (Amici brief at p. 3, quoting Peña-Rodriguez.) On July 26, 2018, Mr. Rhines filed an Application for Certificate of Appealability with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit asserting that Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado applies to his evidence that at least one juror relied on anti-gay stereotypes and animus to sentence him to death. On August 2, 2018, six civil rights groups with a vital interest in eradicating anti-gay bias from America’s legal system filed an amici brief with the Eighth Circuit urging the court to afford Mr. Rhines the opportunity to establish whether bias based on his sexual orientation was a motivation for some jurors in sentencing him to death. As the amici document explains, the jury’s decision to allow Mr. Rhines to live or die occurred in the context of the history of discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in the United States. (Amici brief at pp. 7- 9.) While many of the laws that allowed or required discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people were repealed or found unconstitutional after Mr. Rhines’s trial, recent years have seen renewed efforts to ban same-sex couples from adopting children, allow discrimination against them by public and private actors, and otherwise maintain their inferior status under the law. (Amici brief at p. 5.) Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people continue to experience negative consequences because of their sexual orientation. Despite significant progress, eliminating bias based on sexual orientation on the part of the government and private individuals continues to be difficult. For example, the current Attorney General of the United States has argued that employers should be able to fire lesbian, gay, and bisexual people because of their sexuality under federal law and that businesses open to the public should be able to discriminate against same-sex couples. (Amici brief at pp. 11-12.) Today, the federal government and 28 states have no laws that expressly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, leaving lesbian, gay, and bisexual people at risk for discrimination in jobs, housing, education, credit, healthcare, jury service, retail stores, and other aspects of public life. (Amici brief at p. 12.) In 2017, 46 percent of LGBTQ employees reported remaining closeted at work. (Amici brief at p. 13.) 2016 was the deadliest year on record for hate crimes against this community with more than 1,000 incidents of hate violence reported. (Amici brief at p. 15.) Historic and present-day anti-gay bias infects the justice system, just as it does other aspects of life. In a 2008 study, a majority of police chiefs said they believed that being gay constitutes “moral turpitude” and a “perversion.” This continuing bias helps explain why gay men are still targeted for lewdness offenses and why young lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are more likely to get stopped by police or arrested than their heterosexual peers. (Amici brief at pp. 14-15.) Research shows that discriminatory attitudes against lesbians, gays, and bisexual people negatively affect their experiences in the civil and criminal courts as jurors, litigants, court employees, and other participants. For example, in a 2001 study of the California court system, more than a third of lesbian, gay, and bisexual court users “felt threatened in the court setting because of their sexual orientation.” (Amici brief at p. 17.) (See also Application at p. 12.) Of jurors who participated in mock trials between 2002 and 2008, a jury research firm found that 45 percent believed that being gay “is not an acceptable lifestyle.” (Amici brief at p. 19.) These persistent attitudes open the door to a gay defendant who is convicted of murder to receive the death penalty, instead of a sentence of life without parole, because of his sexual orientation, rather than the nature of the crime. Punishing people based on who they are is fundamentally “inconsistent with our commitment to the equal dignity of all persons.” (Amici brief at p. 4, quoting Peña-Rodriguez.) The court should accept Mr. Rhines’s case to allow him to show whether anti-gay prejudice factored into the jury’s decision to sentence him to death.  ### For more information, or to speak with Mr. Rhines’s attorneys or one of the amici civil rights organizations, please contact Margot Friedman at mfriedman@dupontcirclecommunications.com or 202-332-5550 or 202-330-9295 (c).

GLAD & NCLR Statement on the Transgender Military Ban, a Year After Trump’s Tweets

“One of our plaintiffs, Jane Doe 3, served in both Iraq and Afghanistan and said she was having breakfast after completing her morning PT [physical training] when she first saw news coverage of Trump’s tweets. She remembered taking a sip of coffee and wondering if at that exact moment her commander was signing her separation paperwork.”

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today marks one year since President Trump tweeted that the U.S. Government would not allow transgender individuals “to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.” Two weeks later, NCLR and GLAD filed the first lawsuit to stop Trump’s ban and then were first to secure a nationwide preliminary injunction halting the ban while it is being heard by the court. To date, four lawsuits have now been filed against Trump’s ban, each respectively securing a preliminary injunction. While this fight continues, there are more than 9,000 currently serving transgender troops and transgender Americans are openly seeking to enlist. National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) Legal Director Shannon Minter e GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) Transgender Rights Project Director Jennifer Levi, two transgender attorneys at the center of the fight to stop Trump’s ban, issued the following joint statement in response: “One year ago, President Trump launched an attack on his own troops. No other military policy excludes a class of persons from enlisting or serving. The Trump-Pence ban discriminates against people based on who they are—not whether they can do the job. “One of our plaintiffs, Jane Doe 3, served in both Iraq and Afghanistan and said she was having breakfast after completing her morning PT [physical training] when she first saw news coverage of Trump’s tweets. She remembered taking a sip of coffee and wondering if at that exact moment her commander was signing her separation paperwork. Her life and career had been turned upside down in an instant. “This reckless, impulsive ban wreaked havoc on the lives and families of the more than 9,000 currently serving trans troops. During the course of litigation, discovery has confirmed that the ban took even the most senior military leaders by surprise. It contradicts military research and experts and undermines our nation’s military readiness. “So far, this ban has failed in court at every level. But the Trump administration continues to dig in its heels, and so this fight must continue on behalf of our brave trans troops and those transgender Americans willing to sacrifice everything to serve.” For more information, go to www.notransmilitaryban.org.

Tribunal é solicitado a decidir contra a política anti-PrEP e anti-gay da Mutual of Omaha em caso de preconceito

Hoje o GLAD apresentou uma moção para julgamento sumário em um caso inédito que desafia a discriminação contra um homem gay que toma o medicamento Truvada como profilaxia pré-exposição (PrEP) para prevenir a transmissão do HIV.

O autor em Doe v. Mutual of OmahA afirma que a recusa da seguradora em lhe vender uma apólice de cuidados de longa duração se baseia na exclusão categórica de qualquer pessoa HIV-negativa que tome PrEP. Doe afirma que a exclusão geral da Mutual constitui discriminação por orientação sexual, visto que 80% dos usuários de PrEP são homens gays. Ele também alega discriminação com base na percepção de deficiência.

“Não há razão legítima para a regra de exclusão da Mutual. Ela não tem fundamento comercial e vai contra o bom senso”, disse Bennett Klein, Advogado Sênior e Diretor do Projeto de Lei de AIDS da GLAD.

“A Mutual asseguraria a mesma pessoa não em PrEP — que apresenta maior risco de HIV. A política da Mutual é ilógica e contrária à forma como trata outros medicamentos. A única explicação para a exclusão de pessoas que tomam um medicamento associado a homens gays é que se baseia na aversão à sexualidade gay masculina e nada mais. Na nossa opinião, é pura homofobia.

Em depoimentos citados pelo GLAD, os próprios especialistas da Mutual e seu diretor médico fizeram diversas admissões, entre elas:

  • A PrEP é “altamente eficaz” contra o VIH;
  • A política da Mutual é contrária ao seu objectivo declarado de subscrição de reduzir o número de pessoas com VIH entre os seus segurados; e
  • Embora a Mutual exclua candidatos que tomam PrEP conforme as instruções e apresentam baixo risco de HIV, a empresa vende seguro para candidatos que não tomam PrEP e, portanto, apresentam maior risco de HIV.

A Mutual of Omaha alegou, em diversas ocasiões, que o tratamento de pessoas que tomam Truvada se justifica devido a preocupações com a adesão ao tratamento e à falta de dados de longo prazo sobre os efeitos do Truvada. No entanto, essas justificativas são contrariadas pela oferta, pela Mutual, de seguro de cuidados de longo prazo a candidatos que tomam medicamentos para outras doenças.

Este caso, o primeiro a desafiar a política antigay disseminada no setor, trouxe destaque nacional à questão e levou algumas agências estaduais de seguros a considerarem medidas. Em junho, o Departamento de Serviços Financeiros de Nova York emitiu um diretiva que a exclusão de pessoas em PrEP do seguro de vida, invalidez e cuidados de longo prazo é uma discriminação ilegal.

Apresentada no Tribunal Distrital dos EUA para o Distrito de Massachusetts, a moção também refuta as objeções jurisdicionais da Mutual.

Blogue

July 4º has always been one of my favorite holidays.

I’ve always loved fireworks on the Esplanade, grilling in friends’ backyards, and Sousa marches – no surprise after many years of marching band.

But loving “Independence Day” has also meant reconciling two conflicting truths: one, that America was founded on the genocide of a continent’s native people, the enslavement of Africans for use as a labor force, and the subjugation of women; the other, that America’s trajectory toward our ideals of equality and justice led us to elect our first African-American president, despite having Hussein as a middle name.

It is because I have faith in our country to be better, that I do the work that I do.

And yet, these past weeks have shaken me. I have felt anger, and cynicism, and despair.

Two weeks ago, we saw the unfolding of a humanitarian catastrophe with the separation of refugee children – including toddlers and babies – from their parents. The response across the U.S. – horror, outrage, condemnation – was palpable.

It’s hard not to give into despair.

But then I remember: we are the majority in this country.

Those who believe that immigrants have always made America great, are the majority.

Those who understand that the free press protects all of us, are the majority.

Those who understand that our nation’s strength is rooted in our diversity, not division and exclusion – we are the majority.

The majority of Americans are fair, compassionate, and believe in equality.

So then, if we are the majority, how is it that supporters of fairness and democracy have lost power and influence within all three branches of our federal government?

A large part of the explanation is that our opponents have cheated. They have picked their own voters to ensure their reelection, through redistricting and voter disenfranchisement; they have willfully distorted perceptions of reality, appealing to fear rather than truth; they have stolen a Supreme Court seat to solidify their power.

It is infuriating. And while a part of me wants to fight fire with fire, to stoop to their level – we must be better. We must take the higher road.

The way we can win is by being even more disciplined than we already are.

First, we have to be more disciplined in our principles.

We are stronger when we are together, and we can’t afford to leave anyone behind, especially the most vulnerable communities. We are one justice movement. That is how we will fight, and that is how we will win.

Second, we have to be more disciplined in our focus.

Two weeks ago, we saw the unfolding of a humanitarian catastrophe with the separation of refugee children – including toddlers and babies – from their parents. The response across the U.S. – horror, outrage, condemnation – was palpable.

Perhaps for the first time, we saw a real chink in President Trump’s armor of amorality.

Then, in the midst of this moment, the conversation turned to what the First Lady was wearing.

To be clear, no person of any decency would have thought that jacket was acceptable.

But it also shifted the news coverage from the horrific videos of crying children ripped from their parent’s arms, which we know alarmed some soft Trump supporters.

And just as expected – or perhaps intended – soft Trump supporters yet again fell back along tribal lines, the second they felt our attacks against the First Lady as attacks against themselves.

We cannot afford to allow our nation to forget about those children for one second. They deserve that chance.

The marches and rallies that took place across the U.S. on June 30 are part of that sustained focus. And as the advocates who have been fighting unjust immigration practices for years can tell us, we have to keep showing up.

Third, we have to be more disciplined in our tactics. In a word, we have to vote.

We must do everything we can to protect the fundamental right to vote for every one of us. That means working for the restoration of the Voting Rights Act, and to remove barriers to registration. It means pushing back against unconstitutional gerrymandering.

We must stay engaged in the electoral process at the local, state and federal level. We must communicate with our representatives. And we must get ourselves and our neighbors to the polls every single election day.

We have to be more disciplined in our tactics. In a word, we have to vote.

Finally, we have to be more disciplined in our social justice habits.

Just like a runner training for a marathon, we must build habits that incorporate social justice into our daily lives.

Join a community of social justice friends, such as Indivisible or the Movement for Black Lives. Make friends to go with you to rallies, knock on doors, or attend a fundraiser. Because evidence shows it is easier to form habits when you have a community of accountability and support.

Become a sustaining donor to an organization. Given Justice Kennedy’s impending retirement, I would recommend three organizations at the front lines of that battle –Alliance for Justice, o Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, e o American Constitution Society.

We cannot afford to wait until it is too late. Now is the time to fight, with everything we’ve got.

Creating habits also requires rest. Take the sabbath off – whatever that means for you. Spend time with loved ones. Enjoy a favorite hobby. Take a walk.

When I need a break at work, I often take a walk to the Old South Meeting House, where the seeds of the American Revolution were planted. It was a site for protest, dissent, and resistance. At the time, those planting the seeds did not know for sure whether they would prevail. But they knew that authoritarianism was too great an evil to ignore.

Likewise, we must act now, not to forge a new nation, but rather to save one that we have fought so hard to make better. To preserve a union that generations of freedom fighters have given their lives to make fairer and more just. To free a society from the shackles of hatred, resentment, and distrust.

We cannot afford to wait until it is too late.

Now is the time to fight, with everything we’ve got.

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.