In re A.M.B.

家 » 缅因州 » Page 16

GLAD 提交了一份 法庭之友 brief with the Maine high court in support of a transgender man who was denied a name change by Cumberland County Probate court. Ignoring the well-established legal standard that allows anyone to take a new name as long as it is not for fraudulent purposes, the probate judge asked persona, intrusive questions about the petitioner’s reasons for the change and then ultimately denied it.

On June 24, 2010 the Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the Cumberland County Probate Court and ordered that the petitioner, A.M.B., receive a new hearing on his name change application.

普尔西弗诉波特兰案

家 » 缅因州 » Page 16

同性恋者联盟（GLAD）代表缅因州波特兰市，对抗十位纳税人以及两大反同性恋组织——婚姻法中心和联盟防御基金法律中心——对该市同居伴侣登记制度的攻击。这些组织声称缅因州的反同性婚姻限制及其规范婚姻的一般权力，阻碍了该市向在该市生活和工作的未婚家庭提供市政福利。2004年4月28日，坎伯兰县高等法院法官托马斯·汉弗莱（Thomas Humphrey）裁定波特兰市胜诉，承认缅因州立法机构颁布的同性婚姻禁令并未禁止同居伴侣条例，并认定波特兰市完全有权通过同居伴侣登记制度保护其公民的健康和福祉。

这项决定是在缅因州立法机构采取措施，为所有公民创造平等的公民权利一周后做出的。州长约翰·巴尔达奇签署了一项法案，允许异性恋或同性恋成年人在长期安排下同居，从而建立同居关系。新法律还赋予同居伴侣在已婚伴侣去世且无遗嘱的情况下与配偶享有同等的继承权，并允许在世的同居伴侣自行安排葬礼和安葬事宜。

CEW诉DEW

家 » 缅因州 » Page 16

GLAD 与缅因州的共同律师合作，为缅因州一位非亲生女同性恋母亲争取到了获得完全父母权利和责任的权利。该母亲的前伴侣，也就是孩子的亲生母亲，正试图终止我们的客户与她们共同抚养的孩子之间的任何法律关系。缅因州最高法院（即法律法院）一致裁定，事实上的父母，即基于行为而非仅仅基于亲生或收养关系而与孩子建立亲子关系的人，在争取父母权利和责任方面拥有同等地位。

Guardianship of I.H.

家 » 缅因州 » Page 16

GLAD represented a committed lesbian couple from Kennebec County who jointly decided to have children together. They took all legal steps available to them to protect their relationship with each other and their son, executing parenting agreements, wills, and other financial and medical documents. They also petitioned the Probate Court in Kennebec County for a full co-guardianship of their son so that either could act legally on his behalf.

The Probate Court Judge reported the case to the state’s highest court, the Maine Law Court, and asked whether two unmarried people may be co-guardians of a child if one is the natural parent and the other is not. On November 4, 2003, the Maine Law Court affirmed that the Probate Courts have the power to grant full co-guardianships in these cases, enabling gays and lesbians to create a legal relationship to their children. Co-guardianships are in place until the child is 18, unless it is terminated earlier to serve the child’s best interests. Unlike the “delegation of parental authority” that some parents complete, the co-guardianship does not have to be renewed every six months.

Lambert v. MetLife Insurance Company

家 » 缅因州 » Page 16

GLAD won the restoration of disability insurance benefits for a Portland man suffering from disabling fatigue where the insurer sought to rely on mere stabilization from new medications to terminate benefits.

关于 DG

家 » 缅因州 » Page 16

在该案中，缅因州南部的一所学校试图通过让一名学生提前一年毕业来“解决”其两年来遭受的骚扰；GLAD 成功地将焦点重新转移到适当的教育和结束骚扰上。

Crandall v. Boston Concession Group

家 » 缅因州 » Page 16

On July 26, 2000, GLAD won a ruling that Massachusetts non-discrimination law applies equally to every employee of Massachusetts companies, even if the employee works out-of-state. GLAD represented two women from Maine who worked in Maine and were essentially terminated after their employers learned they were lesbians. Our clients filed a complaint at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) under the Massachusetts non-discrimination law because their former employer was a Massachusetts-based company. After the MCAD dismissed our clients’ claim for lack of jurisdiction because the events occurred in Maine, GLAD appealed to Suffolk Superior Court. The Superior Court denied motions to dismiss by the MCAD and the employer, and the MCAD then agreed to reverse its position and announced that it would hear claims brought by out-of-state employees against in-state employers. The employer also negotiated a settlement with our clients.

Doe v. Maine Correctional Center

家 » 缅因州 » Page 16

GLAD succeeded in obtaining proper medical care and medications for an HIV-positive prisoner denied even access to a doctor knowledgeable about HIV.

布拉格登诉阿博特案

家 » 缅因州 » Page 16

在首例涉及艾滋病毒的案件中，美国最高法院以 5 比 4 的判决裁定 布拉格登诉阿博特案 联邦《美国残疾人法案》（ADA）禁止歧视艾滋病毒感染者，无论他们是否出现任何明显症状或被诊断患有艾滋病。法院1998年的裁决对艾滋病毒感染者来说是一个至关重要的胜利，因为《美国残疾人法案》和类似的州残疾歧视法规是打击就业、住房和医疗保健领域与艾滋病毒相关的歧视的唯一法律依据。

本案中，缅因州班戈居民西德尼·阿博特（Sidney Abbott）前往兰登·布拉格登（Randon Bragdon）牙医诊所进行补牙。布拉格登医生以担心患者会传播艾滋病毒（HIV）为由，拒绝在其诊所为她补牙，仅仅因为阿博特女士在一份医疗问卷中披露了自己感染了艾滋病毒。布拉格登医生声称，尚未出现明显症状的艾滋病毒感染者不符合《美国残疾人法案》（ADA）对“残疾”的定义。《美国残疾人法案》将残疾定义为“严重限制一项或多项主要生活活动”的健康状况。

在其具有里程碑意义的裁决中，最高法院同意了同性恋者联盟（GLAD）的观点，即可见症状或疾病并非《美国残疾人法案》（ADA）承保的必要条件。安东尼·肯尼迪大法官代表法院撰写了裁决，对“主要生活活动”的定义进行了宽泛的解释，并特别指出，由于存在感染伴侣和孩子的风险，西德尼·阿博特在生殖这一主要生活活动方面受到了严重限制。

然而，法院的措辞和推理远远超出了西德尼·阿博特案的事实范围，并确保所有艾滋病毒感染者都将受到《美国残疾人法案》的保护。在一份冗长的分析中，法院认可了美国司法部和平等就业机会委员会长期以来对《美国残疾人法案》的解释，这些解释认为，《美国残疾人法案》保护有症状和无症状的艾滋病毒感染者免受歧视，部分原因是艾滋病毒限制了生育和性关系。最高法院指示全国下级法院遵循这些机构的解释。最高法院对“残疾”的宽泛定义及其对《美国残疾人法案》这些行政解释的认可意味着 布拉格登诉阿博特案 这是一次巨大的胜利，不仅对于西德尼·阿博特来说如此，对于所有残疾人来说也是如此。