National/Federal Know Your Rights - Page 46 of 59 - GLAD Law
跳过标题到内容
GLAD Logo 跳过主导航到内容

Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College

Victory! The full bench of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled April 4, 2017 that discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

阅读更多

Lambda Legal represents Kimberly Hively, who charges that she was repeatedly passed over for full-time employment and was ultimately fired because she is a lesbian, in her claim against former employer Ivy Tech Community College.

Following an initial panel ruling upholding the dismissal of the case based on existing circuit precedent, GLAD and the National Center for LGBTQ Rights filed an amicus brief in support of Hively’s petition to have the full court rehear the case, arguing the Court should not be bound to follow the existing Circuit rule because it is unworkable and leads to inconsistent results.

The Court heard argument 全庭 on November 30, 2016.

消息

“We will continue to file lawsuits representing transgender students and litigate them to the fullest extent of the law.”

(Fort Worth, TX – August 22, 2016) – A U.S. District Court judge today issued a preliminary injunction against the federal government’s guidance to public school districts regarding their legal responsibility to allow transgender students to use the same restrooms as other students. The ruling came in the multi-state lawsuit, Texas v. United States.

Five civil rights organizations who had submitted a joint amicus (friend-of-the-court) brief in the lawsuit – Lambda Legal, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and ACLU of Texas; National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR); Transgender Law Center; and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) – issued the following statement in response to U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor’s ruling:

“A ruling by a single judge in one circuit cannot and does not undo the years of clear legal precedent nationwide establishing that transgender students have the right to go to school without being singled out for discrimination. This unfortunate and premature ruling may, however, confuse school districts that are simply trying to support their students, including their transgender students. So let us make it clear to those districts: your obligations under the law have not changed, and you are still not only allowed but required to treat transgender students fairly. The scope of this injunction has no effect on the ability of other courts or lawyers representing transgender people to continue to rely on the federal government’s interpretations of Title IX or on prior decisions that have reached similar conclusions about the scope of federal sex discrimination laws.

“The court’s misguided decision targets a small, vulnerable group of young people – transgender elementary and high school students – for potential continued harassment, stigma and abuse.”

Although the court failed to consider the interests of the very students the federal laws were intended to protect, the five civil rights organizations who advocated on their behalf avowed, “We will continue to file lawsuits representing transgender students and litigate them to the fullest extent of the law—regardless of what happens with this particular federal guidance.”

Texas v. United States was brought by Texas and 10 other states — subsequently joined by two additional states — against the United States, the Departments of Justice, Education and Labor and numerous federal officials. The plaintiffs include the states of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky (through its governor), Louisiana, Mississippi (through its governor), Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, and the Arizona Department of Education, the Heber-Overgaard Unified School District in Arizona, Harrold Independent School District in Texas, and Maine Governor Paul LePage. Several of these plaintiffs lie in the Fourth, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, which had issued binding appellate decisions consistent with the guidance of the federal agencies.

The lawsuit targets various federal letters, guides, memos, and statements regarding Title IX of the Education Amendments that conclude that federal bans on sex discrimination encompass gender identity discrimination, and that transgender individuals should be allowed to use restrooms consistent with their gender identity. The lawsuit claims that that guidance is in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution. A copycat lawsuit was filed recently by the state of Nebraska, joined by Arkansas, Kansas, Michigan (through its attorney general), Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

The court’s order can be read 这里.

The joint amicus brief filed by the five civil rights organizations can be read 这里.

消息

“We oppose the efforts of state officials to manipulate the federal court system in order to skirt well-established law in their home circuits that affirm and respect the rights of transgender students and employees.”

(FORT WORTH, Texas) – Five leading national civil and LGBT rights organizations urged the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to reject an effort to block the Obama administration’s interpretations of several federal laws pending trial in Texas v. United States, including federal guidance advising public school districts across the country that the federal Departments of Justice and Education believe that transgender students should be allowed to use restrooms that correspond with their gender identity. Texas and 12 other states or governors or agencies of those states argued in court today for a preliminary injunction enjoining these federal agencies’ interpretations from having any effect while the lawsuit proceeds.

The five organizations – Lambda Legal; American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and ACLU of Texas; Transgender Law Center; National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR); and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) – issued the following joint statement in response to the hearing today on a preliminary injunction: “Texas and 12 other states, governors of states and political jurisdictions have filed a meritless lawsuit against multiple federal agencies seeking to preserve the ability to discriminate against a highly vulnerable population – transgender elementary and high school students and transgender employees. We are urging this court to protect transgender students and workers and allow them to enjoy a safe and discrimination-free education and workplace. We filed an amicus brief in this case because we oppose the efforts of state officials to manipulate the federal court system in order to skirt well-established law in their home circuits that affirms and respects the rights of transgender students and employees. We urge the court to deny the states’ request for a preliminary injunction.”

In addition to Texas, the other plaintiffs in Texas v. United States include: Harrold Independent School District in Texas; the Arizona Department of Education; the Heber-Overgaard Unified School District in Arizona; Wisconsin; Maine Governor Paul LePage; Kentucky; Mississippi; Oklahoma; Louisiana; Alabama; Georgia; Tennessee; West Virginia; and Utah. Named defendants include: the United States of America, the Departments of Justice, Education and Labor, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and numerous federal officials. The lawsuit targets various federal letters, guides, memos, and statements regarding Title IX of the Education Amendments, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) that conclude that federal bans on sex discrimination encompass gender identity discrimination and that individuals should be allowed to access single-sex, multi-user facilities consistent with their gender identity. The lawsuit seeks to have those letters, guides, memos and statements declared to be in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution and enjoined nationwide. A copycat lawsuit was filed recently by the state of Nebraska, joined by Arkansas, Kansas, Michigan (through its attorney general), Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

消息

“State officials should not be allowed to manipulate the federal court system in order to skirt rulings in their home circuits with which they disagree, including, as is the case here, rulings affirming and respecting the rights of transgender students.”

(Wichita Falls, TX – July 28, 2016) – Five leading national civil and LGBT rights organizations late yesterday filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief in the multi-state lawsuit challenging the Obama administration’s guidance regarding public school districts’ responsibility to allow transgender students to use the same restrooms as other students. The lawsuit also targets guidance addressing transgender workers. The brief in Texas v. United States argues that many of the states and political jurisdictions joining the lawsuit are doing so improperly in order to avoid transgender-affirming rulings handed down by their federal circuits and that granting a nationwide injunction would be improper for this reason.

The five organizations – Lambda Legal; American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and ACLU of Texas; Transgender Law Center; National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR); and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) – issued the following joint statement after filing the brief with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas – Wichita Falls Division:

“This past May, Texas and 10 other states, governors of states and political jurisdictions (along with school districts in two states) filed a meritless lawsuit — subsequently joined by two additional states, through their governors — against multiple federal agencies seeking to preserve their ability to discriminate against a vulnerable group of young people – transgender elementary and high school students. These state officials want to block implementation of guidance issued by the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice recognizing that schools must be safe, respectful and nurturing environments for all students and that singling out transgender students for separate and unequal treatment is demeaning and harmful to them. ”

“Equally troubling, several parties to this lawsuit – the Arizona Department of Education, the Heber-Overgaard Unified School District in Arizona, and the states of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky (through its governor), Tennessee, and West Virginia – lie in the Fourth, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, which have issued binding appellate decisions consistent with the guidance of the federal agencies. Now these parties seek to have a single federal district court in Texas issue a nationwide injunction contrary to the law in their home circuits. State officials should not be allowed to manipulate the federal court system in order to skirt rulings in their home circuits with which they disagree, including, as is the case here, rulings affirming and respecting the rights of transgender students.”

In addition to Texas and the political jurisdictions named above, the other plaintiffs in Texas v. United States include: Harrold Independent School District in Texas; Wisconsin; Maine Governor Paul LePage; Mississippi (through its governor); Oklahoma; Louisiana; and Utah. Named defendants include: the United States, the Departments of Justice, Education and Labor and numerous federal officials. The lawsuit targets various federal letters, guides, memos, and statements regarding Title IX of the Education Amendments, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) that conclude that federal bans on sex discrimination encompass gender identity discrimination and that transgender individuals should be allowed to use the same restrooms as others, consistent with their gender identity. The lawsuit seeks to have those letters, guides, memos and statements declared to be in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution and enjoined nationwide. A copycat lawsuit was filed recently by the state of Nebraska, joined by Arkansas, Kansas, Michigan (through its attorney general), Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

Texas v. U.S.

On August 22, 2016,  U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor issued a preliminary injunction against the federal government’s guidance to public school districts regarding their legal responsibility to allow transgender students to use the same restrooms as other students.

Read the statement in response to the ruling from the five civil rights organizations, including GLAD, who had submitted a joint amicus (friend-of-the-court) brief in the lawsuit.

GLAD joined with the ACLU, Lambda Legal, National Center for LGBTQ Rights and the Transgender Law Center in filing an amicus (friend of the court) brief in the multi-state lawsuit challenging the Obama administration’s guidance regarding public school districts’ responsibility to allow transgender students to use the same restrooms as other students. The lawsuit also targets guidance addressing transgender workers.

The brief in Texas v. United States argued that many of the states and political jurisdictions joining the lawsuit are doing so improperly in order to avoid transgender-affirming rulings handed down by their federal circuits and that granting a nationwide injunction would be improper for this reason.

消息

New Hampshire Attorney General Joseph Foster has joined a brief with Attorneys General from eleven other states asking a federal district judge not to bar implementation of Obama Administration rules and guidance concerning fair treatment of transgender students and workers.

The friend-of-the-court brief, led by Washington state, was filed today in a multi-state lawsuit challenging the Administration’s policy that transgender people are protected under existing civil rights laws, including guidance issued to schools earlier this year that transgender students should be able to use restrooms and other facilities consistent with their gender identity.

“We applaud Attorney General Foster for standing up for sound policy in New Hampshire,” says Janson Wu, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) Executive Director. “Administrators in school systems across the state are already starting to do the right thing by treating transgender students fairly, and the Obama Administration guidance only strengthens that resolve. By joining this brief, the Attorney General is demonstrating that New Hampshire is heading in the right direction with regard to fair treatment of transgender students.”

“Transgender and gender non-conforming students are a part of our schools across New Hampshire,” says Shana Aisenberg of TG-NH. “Schools like those in Portsmouth have already realized that the best way to create the optimal learning environment for everyone is for schools to respect transgender students for who they are, without exception. As a teacher myself, I see the positive impact that this has on all our students every day.”

On June 30, New Hampshire Governor Maggie Hassan issued an Executive Order prohibiting discrimination in state employment, programs and government contracts based on gender identity and expression. New Hampshire does not yet have explicit statutory non-discrimination protections for transgender people.

消息

GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) applauded today’s 5-3 decision by the United States Supreme Court striking down draconian restrictions that the state of Texas imposed on abortion providers in 2013.

GLAD and a coalition of 13 other LGBT, racial justice, and health equity organization filed an amicus brief in Whole Women’s Health v. Cole. The brief argued that the pseudo-science cited by Texas in its effort to prescribe women’s freedoms is similar to the pseudo-science that has been used throughout American history to exclude individuals and groups from the full protection of the constitution.

“We are thrilled that the fundamental freedoms at stake in this case have been protected,” said Janson Wu, Executive Director of GLAD. “Pseudo-science has too often been the last bastion of those who would discriminate, and the Court has seen through that flimsy pretext.”

Texas argued that the law protects the health of women seeking abortion, but the evidence at trial showed just the opposite. Medical organizations including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association, and the American Public Health Association have explained that the restrictions imposed by the law endanger rather than advance women’s health.

In the not too distant past, pseudo-science was used to justify excluding women from certain professions, permitting the forced sterilization of those deemed “inferior”, criminalizing and discriminating against LGBTQ people, and banning interracial marriages.

消息

GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) expressed disappointment with yesterday’s 4-4 decision by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Texas. The tie means that two Obama administration programs to keep immigrant families together – DAPA and the expansion of DACA – will not be implemented during the current Administration.

“We are frustrated with this decision and its potential impact on families, including LGBTQ families,” said Janson Wu, Executive Director of GLAD. “We join the call to the Department of Justice to seek a rehearing when a ninth Justice joins the court. Immigration advocates are exploring all options to prevent further injury to families.”

GLAD joined a coalition of 326 immigration, civil rights, labor, and social service groups in filing an amicus brief in the case, urging the court to lift the injunction that blocked the executive actions on immigration that President Obama announced in November 2014.

The administration’s expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and the new Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) initiative were stopped by a federal district court in Texas.  That court’s order subsequently was upheld, and the federal government appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

消息

GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) applauded today’s decision by the United States Supreme Court upholding the University of Texas’s admissions policy in which race may be considered as a factor.

GLAD joined Lambda Legal, National Women’s Law Center and other partners to submit an amicus brief in the case, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. The brief argued that racial and ethnic understanding can be expanded, and thus disparities decreased, when stereotypes are confronted by the reality of daily contact with people different from oneself.

“We applaud this decision, which supports equal opportunity and a fair chance for overcoming obstacles to education,” said Mary Bonauto, Civil Rights Project Director at GLAD. “We all benefit when our institutions of higher learning are able to foster and maintain diverse student bodies. LGBT people have experienced the change that we make when we simply come out to the people in our lives, whether in families, at work, in church, in the neighborhood, or on campus.”

Mayer Brown LLP is lead counsel on the amicus brief, 可以在这里阅读.

消息

该声明还提供以下语言版本:

阿拉伯联合酋长国 | 西班牙语

我们,以下签名者,一个由拉丁裔女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋、跨性别者和酷儿 (LGBTQ) 组织及其盟友组成的联盟,本着教育精神,并为了纪念6月12日在奥兰多Pulse夜总会举行的LGBT机构拉丁裔主题之夜中遇害或受伤的100多人,特此发表以下声明。我们呼吁所有人以同情心战胜基于敌意针对LGBTQ人群、有色人种以及生活在我们社区交汇处的人们的仇恨犯罪的祸害。

这一悲惨的事实在“脉动”(Pulse)事件中再次得到证实,49人遇难。近一半的受害者是波多黎各人。许多人来自古巴、多米尼加、厄瓜多尔、墨西哥、萨尔瓦多人、委内瑞拉、非裔拉丁裔以及其他拉丁裔群体。几乎所有受害者都是LGBTQ群体的成员。有些人没有合法证件。超过一半的受害者不到30岁,最年轻的受害者年仅18岁。

拉丁裔 LGBTQ 群体面临着令人不安的现实。随着美国拉丁裔人口的增长,针对拉丁裔的仇恨犯罪发生率也急剧上升,在最近一年内增长了两倍。根据全国反暴力项目联盟上周发布的一项研究,2014 年至 2015 年间,美国 LGBTQ 群体的谋杀案增加了 20%。NCAVP 关于仇恨暴力的研究还表明,LGBTQ 群体不仅遭受陌生人的暴力,还在日常生活中遭受雇主、同事、房东和邻居的暴力。此外,根据联邦调查局的记录,因性取向和性别认同偏见而引发的犯罪是仇恨犯罪的最大类别(2015 年占 20%)。此外,根据联邦调查局今年迄今为止的记录,美国已报告了 14 起跨性别女性被谋杀案件,但由于联邦调查局依赖于准确的报道,因此数据被认为是保守的。

如果我们想要真正获得自由,就必须认识到并应对这一仇恨行为的所有有害成分——恐同、恐跨、种族主义和性别歧视。我们担心当前的反穆斯林叙事会播下恐惧的种子,并最终发展成仇恨。我们担心有人会利用这场悲剧阻止我们的运动在有色人种、LGBTQ群体和其他边缘群体之间建立桥梁、理解和爱。我们坚定地支持同样生活在猜疑和暴力威胁之下的LGBTQ穆斯林及其社群,并理解我们争取解放的前景是相互联系的。

我们重申推进LGBTQ运动的承诺,以及我们作为LGBTQ群体自豪地生活、无惧歧视的决心。我们呼吁采取全面行动,恢复有色人种LGBTQ青年应有的安全和福祉。我们呼吁所有关心和平、正义和爱的个人和组织,在所有反暴力斗争的交汇点上,参与并支持拉丁裔LGBTQ社群,以便我们能够努力消除所有形式的敌意——种族主义、恐同症和跨性别恐惧症——它们每天都在夺走我们宝贵的生命。

*Latinx 是拉丁裔的一种性别包容形式。西班牙语是一种性别语言,它没有考虑到我们社区中存在的众多性别和身份变量。

签名,

按字母顺序排列,截至 2016 年 6 月 20 日

青年倡导者
旧金山的 AGUILAS
阿拉巴马州艾滋病
芝加哥艾滋病基金会 - Salud y Orgullo Mexicano 项目
波多黎各女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋、变性人、变性人与健康联盟 (ACPS-LGBTTA)
尼加拉瓜性多元化替代方案 (ANDISEX)
美国公民自由联盟
Aqua妇女基金会
Ariann@劳德代尔堡中心
亚太裔美国劳工联盟、美国劳工联合会-产业工会联合会
拉丁裔激励行动协会(ALMA)
俄勒冈州基本权利
大声相信
卡萨红宝石
黑人平等中心
华盛顿特区 LGBT 社区中心的拉丁裔中心
CenterLink:LGBT中心社区
波多黎各 LGBTT 社区中心
变革项目
夏洛特拉丁骄傲节
波多黎各LGBTTA公民联盟健康
Colectivo Acción Latina de Ambiente (ALA),加利福尼亚州圣何塞
科利尔县社区故事项目(CCNSP)
科罗拉多州拉丁裔机会和生殖权利组织(COLOR)
社区司法项目
高等教育LGBT资源专业人员联盟
Corral咨询公司
全球平等委员会
多洛雷斯·韦尔塔基金会
阿拉巴马平等
加州平等组织
佛罗里达平等组织
伊利诺伊州平等
新墨西哥平等组织
北卡罗来纳州平等组织
俄亥俄州平等组织
德克萨斯州平等组织
缅因州平等组织
威斯康星州公平
家庭即家庭
Familia:跨性别酷儿解放运动
家庭平等委员会
佛罗里达移民联盟
国家拉丁裔生殖健康研究所佛罗里达州拉丁裔倡导网络
工作自由
拉丁美洲社会行动基金会 (FLAS)
加莱伊
花园州平等
佐治亚平等
格特鲁德·斯泰因俱乐部
获取相等
同性恋反歧视联盟
GLBTQ 法律倡导者和捍卫者 (GLAD)
GLMA:促进LGBT平等的卫生专业人员
格尔森
格兰瓦罗内斯
绿色拉丁裔
GSA 网络 – 性别与性行为联盟网络
西班牙裔健康网络
荣誉 PAC
人权运动
移民平等
国际帝国法院体系
普林斯顿大学《交叉酷儿身份》
La Clinica Del Pueblo-¡Empodérate!中心
拉丁美洲进步劳工委员会(LCLAA)
Lambda 法律
拉丁美洲青年中心
拉丁裔艾滋病委员会
拉丁裔平等联盟
拉丁裔 GLBT 历史项目
拉丁裔 LinQ
美国南部腹地的拉丁裔
民权和经济正义律师委员会
拉丁美洲公民联盟(LULAC)
LULAC 达拉斯彩虹委员会 #4871
LULAC LGBT 委员会 – 俄亥俄州辛辛那提
地图
美国婚姻平等组织
穆斯林倡导者
穆斯林性别多元化联盟
全国黑人正义联盟
全国反暴力项目联盟
全国拉美裔委员会
全国男女同性恋商会
全国 LGBTQ 工作组
NMAC(全国少数民族艾滋病委员会)
全国酷儿亚太岛民联盟(NQAPIA)
一个科罗拉多
圣安东尼奥奥古洛 LGBTQ LULAC 理事会 22198
我们的沃尔玛 - 佛罗里达州
平等工作场所倡导者
明尼苏达州前沿
全国亲友会
工作自豪感
骄傲线
促销
波多黎各 Para Tod@s
宗教学院
俄亥俄州克利夫兰市 LGBTQI 西班牙裔青年安全空间
圣地亚哥 LGBT 社区中心
节省
LGBT 长者服务与倡导 (SAGE)
种族服务
SocialScope 制作公司
我们家
我们的家庭山谷
南德克萨斯平等项目(STEP)
南方人的新天地(歌曲)
争取平等权利的学生
田纳西州平等项目
德克萨斯州同性恋拉丁裔骄傲节
特雷弗计划
拉丁裔跨性别联盟
格鲁吉亚TransLatin@联盟
跨联合基金
真彩基金
联盟 = Fuerza Latino Institute
联合基督教会正义与见证事工
拉丁裔联合骄傲
团结联盟|联合联盟
山谷艾滋病委员会
沃托拉丁裔
记忆墙项目
世界外游戏

zh_CN简体中文
隐私概述

本网站使用 Cookie,以便我们为您提供最佳的用户体验。Cookie 信息存储在您的浏览器中,并执行诸如在您返回我们的网站时识别您的身份,以及帮助我们的团队了解您认为网站中哪些部分最有趣和最实用等功能。