National/Federal Know Your Rights - Page 51 of 59 - GLAD Law
Pular cabeçalho para conteúdo
GLAD Logo Pular navegação primária para conteúdo

Notícias

(Washington, DC, October 6, 2014)—The United States Supreme Court today declined to review the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down Utah’s marriage ban for same-sex couples, thereby permitting that decision to stand, as well as a similar decision from Oklahoma. The Court also denied review of decisions by the Fourth and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeals, which had struck down marriage bans in Virginia, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

By denying review of the Kitchen v. Herbert case, the Court let stand the June 2014 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that found Utah’s ban on marriages by same-sex couples unconstitutional. Today’s decision means that same-sex couples in Utah, Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas and Wyoming—all in the Tenth Circuit—have a constitutionally protected right to marry and to have their marriages treated equally.

The plaintiff couples in the Utah case are Kody Partridge and Laurie Wood, Derek Kitchen and Moudi Sbeity, and Kate Call and Karen Archer. The couples are represented by Peggy Tomsic of the Salt Lake City law firm Magleby & Greenwood, P.C., Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), Mary Bonauto of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), and former acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal of the law firm Hogan Lovells.

“We are thrilled by today’s decision, which means that same-sex couples are now equal citizens of this state,” said Derek Kitchen. “We are honored to be part of this historic moment and to know that as a result of today’s decision by the Supreme Court, never again will same-sex couples and their families be subjected to the discrimination and indignity that has caused so much harm to so many children and families over the years in Utah. This is a great day, and we are grateful to everyone who worked so hard to make it possible.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision today is a long-awaited victory not only for the courageous couples who brought this case, but for the entire state,” said Tomsic. “By allowing the Tenth Circuit’s ruling to stand, the Supreme Court has ensured that same-sex couples and their families in Utah will be treated equally and can have the same protection and stability that other families enjoy.”

Minter, who serves as NCLR legal director, said: “This is a huge step forward for Utah and the entire country. We are hopeful that the other cases pending across the country will also vindicate the freedom to marry so that all couples, no matter where they travel or live, will be treated as equal citizens and have the same basic security and protections for their families that other Americans enjoy.”

Added Bonauto: “This is fantastic news for the citizens of Utah and the 10 other states who are no longer denied the ability to marry or respect for their marriages.  It is also a powerful signal to the many other courts considering the issue that there is no reason to delay and perpetuate the harms to same-sex couples around the nation.”

Kitchen was the first federal district court victory in a marriage equality case after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor, and the first such victory in a federal court of appeals. Since then, three other federal appeals courts also ruled in favor of the freedom to marry for same-sex couples.

Notícias

There exist both state and federal employment anti-discrimination laws that protect employees if they are discriminated against because they possess certain characteristics.  All the state employment anti-discrimination laws in New England have sexual orientation as an explicit protected characteristic and, with the exception of New Hampshire, also have gender identity as a protected characteristic.  The federal employment anti-discrimination law is called Title VII, and it does not contain explicit protections for either sexual orientation or gender identity.  The federal agency that receives employment discrimination complaints is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

In 2012, the EEOC announced that it would accept discrimination complaints from transgender employees as a form of sex discrimination.  Recently EEOC Commissioner Chai R. Feldblum issued a memorandum that further clarifies protections for LGBT employees.  The Commissioner states:  “Any LGBT person who has experienced workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity may file a charge . . . claiming sex discrimination.  A charge must be filed within 300 days (or sometimes 180 days) from the date of the discriminatory act.”

The EEOC considers gender identity discrimination a form of sex discrimination and will accept all charges of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and investigate them to determine if they state a claim of sex discrimination.  For example, one type of sex discrimination involving sexual orientation is when it is assumed that men and women should only be sexually attracted to and marry individuals of a different gender.

In this memorandum, the EEOC also advocates for changing Title VII to include both sexual orientation and gender identity as specific protected characteristics because “. . . civil rights laws that explicitlyprotect LGBT people will raise visibility regarding such protection, will be a deterrent to discrimination, and will provide certainty that courts across the country will enforce the protections of these laws for LGBT people.”

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would add sexual orientation and gender identity protections to Title VII, has been introduced in Congress repeatedly, but has never passed.

You can see Commissioner Feldblum’s memorandum aqui.

If you have questions or want further information, please contact GLAD Answers by email or live chat at www.GLADAnswers.org ou por telefone em 800-455-GLAD (4523).

Tevyaw v. Colvin

Atualizar: After a three-year-long battle, Deborah Tevyaw has finally received the Social Security survivor’s benefits she has been due since the death of her wife Patricia Baker in 2011. Over $30,000 in back benefits were paid to Deb on Monday, December 1, 2014, by SSA.

Read GLAD’s statement here.

Histórico do caso

GLAD filed suit against the Social Security Administration (SSA) in U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, charging SSA with wrongfully denying survivor benefits to 56-year-old Deborah Tevyaw after the death of her wife, Patricia Baker.

Leia o complaint e attached exhibits.

Deb was married in Massachusetts in 2005 to Pat, a career Rhode Island corrections officer. Pat was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer and died in August 2011. Her final months were spent lobbying for marriage equality in Rhode Island, and trying to ensure Deb’s financial security. But SSA has repeatedly denied survivor benefits to Deb, who as a result has been living on virtually no income for more than three years.

Apesar do casamento válido de Deb com Pat, a Previdência Social inicialmente se recusou, em 2012, a fornecer a Deb o benefício de viúva incapacitada e uma indenização única por morte, citando a Lei de Defesa do Casamento (DOMA). Embora Deb tenha recorrido dessa negação, ela vivia com uma renda por invalidez de apenas $723 por mês. Ela foi forçada a vender sua casa, onde morou por 38 anos, o que a deixou na miséria e dependente de amigos e familiares.

Depois que a DOMA foi anulada pela Suprema Corte dos EUA em junho de 2013, a SSA continuou a negar o apelo de Deb, alegando que o estado de Rhode Island não teria reconhecido o casamento de Deb e Pat no momento da morte de Pat.

The complaint filed on Deb’s behalf asserts that Rhode Island would have recognized Pat and Deb as validly married at the time of Pat’s death in 2011.

“There is no doubt in our minds that Rhode Island would have recognized Pat and Deb as validly married at the time of Pat’s death in 2011, and that Social Security’s reading of the law is just plain wrong.” – Senior Staff Attorney Janson Wu

More about Deb and Pat’s Story:

Patricia Baker and Deborah Tevyaw Testify in Favor of Marriage Equality Before RI Senate Committee (Deseret News)

Cote v. Walmart

Em 15 de maio de 2017, um juiz federal aprovou o acordo de ação coletiva $ de 7,5 milhões entre o Walmart e a ex-associada do Walmart, Jacqueline Cote, que contestou a falta de benefícios de seguro saúde do Walmart para cônjuges do mesmo sexo de associados do Walmart antes de 2014. Ler mais.

O GLAD e o co-advogado do Comitê de Advogados de Washington, Peter Romer-Friedman, da Outten & Golden LLP, entraram com uma ação coletiva contra o Walmart, acusando o varejista de discriminar funcionários casados com cônjuges do mesmo sexo ao negar benefícios de seguro saúde aos seus cônjuges.

Em 22 de dezembro de 2016, o Tribunal Distrital que preside a ação coletiva concedeu aprovação preliminar de um acordo e determinou que as partes enviassem notificação aos membros da classe do acordo para que pudessem tomar conhecimento do acordo e tivessem a oportunidade de enviar reivindicações para receber pagamentos.

O aviso foi fornecido aos membros da classe em 23 de janeiro de 2017. Ler mais

Para receber os pagamentos sob o Acordo, os Membros da Classe do Acordo foram orientados a registrar reivindicações junto ao Administrador do Acordo até 20 de março de 2017.

Esta ação coletiva decorreu de uma queixa apresentada pela GLAD em nome de Jackie junto à Comissão de Igualdade de Oportunidades de Emprego (EEOC) em setembro de 2014. Em 29 de janeiro de 2014, a EEOC emitiu uma decisão final afirmando que o tratamento dado pelo Walmart a Jackie constituía discriminação sexual ilegal. Em 29 de maio de 2015, a EEOC emitiu uma carta de direito de ação.

Além do GLAD, Outten & Golden LLP e do Washington Lawyers' Committee, Jacqueline Cote é representada pelo Arnold and Porter LLP.

Diana Smithson e Jacqueline Cote. Foto: 777 Portraits Myrtle Beach, Carolina do Sul  Baixar foto

Notícias

John “Longjones” Abdallah Wambere, a prominent Ugandan gay activist for over 17 years, has been recommended for asylum in the United States. In a letter dated September 11, 2014, the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services informed Wambere that his application was recommended for approval, pending a routine security check.

“I am overwhelmed,” said Wambere. “I must say that I am blessed, but there are many stories out there.  I call upon everyone who helped me to continue to support LGBTI people around the world and all asylum seekers in the U.S.  And my thoughts are with Uganda; I have sleepless nights while I worry about my community there.”

Uganda’s LGBTI community has been under escalating public, political, and physical attack in recent years, culminating in the passage of the Anti-Homosexuality Act and its signing into law on February 24, 2014 by President Yoweri Museveni. Wambere, a co-founder of Spectrum Uganda Initiatives, has been in the U.S. since February and filed for asylum on May 6, 2014.

“We are thrilled that John will be able to continue his important work on behalf of the Ugandan LGBTI community from the United States, where he will be free from arrests and incarceration because of his sexual orientation and bold activism,” said Allison Wright, GLAD Staff Attorney.

“The United States must continue to grant asylum to LGBTI people from around the world who can’t enjoy the most basic freedoms in their countries of origin, and whose lives are threatened simply because of who they are,” said Janson Wu, GLAD Senior Staff Attorney. “Asylum is a life-saving system that protects vulnerable members of the LGBTI community forced to flee places like Uganda, Russia, and Jamaica, where it is fundamentally unsafe to be out.”


John “Long Jones” Abdallah Wambere with GLAD attorneys Janson Wu and Allison Wright,
and attorney Hema Sarang-Sieminksi

The anti-homosexuality law criminalized a broad range of offenses and imposed severe penalties ranging from 7 years in jail to life imprisonment. It has since been struck down by Uganda’s Constitutional Court on technical grounds, but lawmakers have vowed to re-introduce it and pass it. Whether or not lawmakers follow through with their promise, homosexuality remains illegal in Uganda under Penal Code 145.  Penal Code 145, which criminalizes “unnatural offenses,” has been on the books since the 1950s and is still heavily enforced in Uganda.

In Uganda, Wambere was outed as gay by newspapers, harassed by strangers, received death threats from anonymous phone calls, arrested, evicted from his home, and beaten up.  Under the Anti-Homosexuality Act, he would have faced life imprisonment and still faces the threat of arrest should he return to Uganda under Penal Code 145.

The country conditions report submitted with Wambere’s application for asylum can be read at www.gladlaw.org/work/cases/in-re-wambere,  as well as his redacted affidavit.

Anti-gay sentiment in Uganda has been promoted by American evangelicals such as Scott Lively, who travelled to the country to preach and promote what was at the time called the “Kill the Gays” bill because it included the death penalty, which was later removed.  On August 15, 2014, a federal judge ruled in the case Sexual Minorities Uganda v. Lively that Lively must stand trial for crimes against humanity.

Resources for LGBTI people seeking asylum in the U.S. can be found by contacting www.GLADAnswers.org.

Além da GLAD, John Wambere é representado por Hema Sarang-Sieminski do Escritório de Advocacia de Hema Sarang-Sieminksi.

GLAD’s National Marriage Work

Taking Marriage Over the Finish Line

GLAD Civil Rights Project Director Mary L. Bonauto argued before the U.S. Supreme Court April 28, 2015 on behalf of same-sex couples challenging their states’ marriage bans. She stood on behalf of petitioners April DeBoer e Jayne Rowse no caso de Michigan DeBoer v. Snyder and Timothy Love, Lawrence Ysunza, Maurice Blanchard and Dominique James in the Kentucky case Amor v. Beshear (juntou-se com Bourke v. Beshear) and same-sex couples across the country.

26 de junho de 2015: Vitória! In a blockbuster legal and cultural moment for the country, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples in the United States, no matter where they live, have the same legal right to marry as different-sex couples. Ler mais

Ler mais

Background: GLAD’s work for marriage in New England and beyond

GLAD won the first marriage state in Massachusetts in 2003 with our Goodridge case, and took part in winning every New England state by every conceivable method – ballotlegislation, e litigation. We laid the groundwork for the defeat of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in our cases Brânquia e Pedersen.

We developed unparalleled expertise in winning marriage, and helped our colleagues across the nation do the same. Since the Supreme Court struck down DOMA in June 2013 (Windsor), GLAD has remained steadfast in its commitment to ending marriage discrimination nationwide.

AMICUS WORK

GLAD also helped movement colleagues and private attorneys with their amicus strategies:

  • GLAD wrote an amicus brief at the request of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights and the ACLU on behalf of New Mexico civil rights groups in the case Griego v. Oliver in the New Mexico Supreme Court in September 2013.
  • GLAD led coordination of the amicus briefs in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals after trial court wins in Utah and Oklahoma. GLAD’s work in the 10th Circuit, the first federal appeals court to hear marriage cases post-Windsor, has streamlined the process for amici curiae filings in all of the other cases pending at a U.S. Court of Appeals.
  • GLAD has also played an extensive role in coordinating amici filings in the 4th (Virginia, Bostic v. Shaefer), 5th (Texas, DeLeon v. Perry), 6th (Michigan, DeBoer v. Snyder; Ohio, Obergefell v. Himes, Henry v. Himes; Tennessee, Tanco v. Haslam; Kentucky, Bourke v. Beshear) and 11th (Florida, Grimsley v. Scott e Brenner v. Armstrong) circuits.

GLAD’s Own Amici Cuecas

In virtually every federal appeal, GLAD filed its own amicus brief discussing “rational basis review.”

These briefs reinforce the government’s guarantee of equal protection and its promise of even-handedness when the rights of persons are at stake. We set forth the two elements of rational basis review:

  1. the government’s actions in classifying who can and cannot marry must be for “legitimate” reasons rather than because of stereotypes, prejudice or favoritism; and
  2. the classification system – who is in and who is out – must have a relationship to the government’s claimed objectives.

Under these standards, GLAD’s briefs demolish each rationale advanced by the states defending their marriage bans and the amicus briefs supporting the state’s positions.

GLAD’s briefs were authored with Wilmer Hale attorneys Paul Wolfson, Mark Fleming, Alan Schoenfeld, Felicia Ellsworth and Dina Mishra.

See our briefs in the 10th Circuit (Kitchen v. Herbert); the 4th Circuit (Bostic v. Shaefer); the 6th Circuit ) Obergefell v. Himes, Henry v. Himes, DeBoer v. Snyder, Bourke v. Beshear, Tanco v. Haslam); the 7th Circuit (Baskin v. Bogan); and the 5th Circuit (DeLeon v. Perry).
CONSULTING

GLAD consulted with attorneys around the nation about legal arguments and strategy in marriage and marriage recognition cases in both state and federal courts.

For example, we were on the ground when the Michigan case DeBoer v. Snyder went to trial, identifying and prepping expert witnesses and providing trial support to the legal team of private attorneys (Carole Stanyar, Kenneth Mogill, Dana Nessel and Robert Sedler).

judge found in favor of the couple, and the case was then heard on appeal (on August 6, 2014) at the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently issued a decision upholding bans on marriage for same-sex couples in Michigan as well as Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. The Supreme Court has now agreed to review all four cases this Term.

Notícias

In a letter to Congress on September 4, 2013, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that President Obama has directed the Executive Branc to take steps allowing for same-sex spouses of military veterans to collect federal benefits.

The Attorney General’s letter to Congress can be found aqui.

Notícias

UTAH MARRIAGE EQUALITY PLAINTIFFS ASK U.S. SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW CASE

Update September 4, 2014: Three diverse voices – those of business, states, and family and equality groups – filed amici curiae briefs in the Kitchen v. Herbert caso. The briefs argue that the high court should take a case or cases in order to resolve the harm and discrimination imposed by marriage bans.

Original Story:

Today, the three couples challenging the State of Utah’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples asked the United States Supreme Court to accept the request of Utah state officials to review the case. In the brief filed today, the plaintiffs argue that Supreme Court review is required because same-sex couples in Utah and across the country urgently need to have the security of marriage wherever they work or travel to fully protect themselves and their families. The brief argues that only a Supreme Court decision affirming their right to marry and to have their marriages respected nationwide can resolve this fundamental inequality.

The plaintiff couples—Kody Partridge and Laurie Wood, Derek Kitchen and Moudi Sbeity, and Kate Call and Karen Archer—argue that state laws banning marriage equality violate the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process. The couples, who won favorable decisions from lower federal courts, asked the Supreme Court to review the case because the marriages of same-sex couples will not truly be equal unless they are respected throughout the country.

In their request, the couples say: “At stake in this case is the liberty of an entire class of Americans, who urgently need a ruling from this Court that they are able to marry and to have their marriages recognized on an equal basis with other citizens.  In the past year, lower courts around the country have correctly recognized that state laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying violate the Constitution. Yet because these rulings do not apply nationwide, same-sex couples continue to experience great uncertainty and serious harm. They cannot plan for their own and their children’s futures secure in the knowledge that states may not strip them of legal recognition of their familial relationships when they move or travel.”

The couples in the case—Kitchen v. Herbert—are represented by lead counsel  Peggy Tomsic of the Salt Lake City law firm of Magleby & Greenwood, P.C., Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), Mary Bonauto of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), and  former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal of the law firm of Hogan Lovells.

Ler mais

Notícias

GLAD Civil Rights Project Director Mary Bonauto and Legal Director Gary Buseck have joined colleagues at the Centro Nacional para os Direitos Lésbicos (NCLR) and Utah attorney Peggy Tomsic as counsel in their historic federal case representing same-sex couples seeking the freedom to marry in Utah.

Thanks to the Kitchen v. Herbert legal team’s adept strategy and tireless advocacy, the Utah case was the first federal district court victory striking down a state marriage ban since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down DOMA. It was also the first victory in a federal court of appeals.

And, it is now the first post-DOMA freedom to marry case that the U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to review.

“We are thrilled to work with our friends and colleagues at NCLR on this important case,” says Buseck. “GLAD has a long history of collaborating with NCLR, and we have enormous respect for their legal acumen and determination.”

Among countless other legal victories on behalf of the LGBT community, NCLR played a leading role in making California the second state in the country to win the freedom to marry, in 2008. Legal Director Shannon Minter argued the case in the California Supreme Court, which ruled that the California Constitution guarantees equal dignity to same-sex couples and their families, including the freedom to marry.

“We are also thrilled to be working shoulder to shoulder with lead counsel Peggy Tomsic of the Salt Lake City law firm of Magleby & Greenwood, P.C. who first filed and has so strategically handled this case,” Buseck adds.” Likewise, we are excited about working with the committed Supreme Court experts at the D.C. firm of Hogan Lovells.”

“The Kitchen team offers unparalleled experience and knowledge as the case heads to the Supreme Court for consideration. We hope to use what we’ve learned in our work for the freedom to marry across New England, and as part of the decades-long team effort to develop a national marriage strategy, to bring value to the Utah case and help bring marriage equality to every American.”

 

 

 

Want to Support This Work?

Your gift today will support GLAD’s work on this historic marriage case, and all our work for equal justice under law for the LGBT community and people living with HIV. Thank you!

Notícias

Every day we hear about LGBT people who are not treated equally on the job. We agree with the President that workers should be judged only by their ability to get the job done, but know that is not always the reality.

We applaud today’s executive order, which demonstrates a concrete commitment to nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It’s a step that will make the workplace better and fairer for LGBT employees, including the tens of thousands of federal employees in the New England states.

We are proud that New England has been a leader in establishing protections on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation and that, in the absence of broad federal protections, this executive order extends important protections for LGBT employees who work for federal contractors.

LGBT employees of the federal government or of federal contractors can contact GLADAnswers for information about their rights in the workplace, and to access information and resources: www.GLADAnswers.org.

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.