The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on January 31, 2008 unanimously affirmed District Court Judge Mark L. Wolf’s dismissal of a lawsuit brought by two sets of parents against the Lexington school system.
In the suit, parents David and Tonia Parker and Robert and Robin Wirthlin claimed that a Lexington elementary school violated their constitutional rights by exposing their children to books portraying many different kinds of families, including non-judgmental depictions of families headed by same-sex couples.
GLAD authored an amicus in the case.
The plaintiff parents filed a petition seeking review before the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied in October, 2008.
GLAD applied for and won compensation from the federal September 11 Victim Compensation Fund on behalf of Nancy Walsh, a lesbian whose partner of 13 years was one of the passengers on Flight 11 who died on September 11. Nancy came up against barriers that so often face same-sex partners in times of crisis. For example, her partner, Carol Flyzik, did not have a will, thus making Carol’s biological family the presumptive recipients of any compensation. Nor did Nancy have an automatic right to administer Carol’s estate or continue to live in the home that she and Carol shared.
GLAD helped Nancy to secure her partner’s death certificate so that she was able to proceed with matters relating to the probate of the estate, and assisted her in applying for compensation from the federal Fund. Nancy’s hearing was held on January 26. After considering the facts, the Special Master awarded a favorable monetary ruling for Nancy, compensating her for losses she incurred as a result of this tragedy.
Nancy’s case tragically underscores the vulnerability of same-sex relationships, and reminds us of the comprehensive protections that marriage provides for families.
The morning of September 11, 2001, after Nancy Walsh saw the morning news, after she ran to the refrigerator to check the flight itinerary her partner Carol Flyzik had left there, after she confirmed that Carol was scheduled to be on American Airlines Flight 11, she called the airline.
Maybe Carol had missed her flight. Maybe she was okay.
But even though Nancy and Carol had been together for 12 years, the airline wouldn’t talk to Nancy. They would only give information to family members, they said, and since she and Carol weren’t married, Nancy wasn’t family.
At 6 o’clock that night, more than nine hours after Nancy first flipped on the television, Carol’s sister called the airline and confirmed that Carol was on Flight 11.
Nancy and Carol, who were raising their three children in the small New Hampshire town of Plainstow, had designated each other as domestic partners at their jobs and named each other as beneficiaries on insurance policies and retirement accounts. But Carol hadn’t left a will. As far as New Hampshire was concerned, Nancy and Carol were legal strangers.
GLAD applied for and won for Nancy compensation from the federal September 11 Victim Compensation Fund, and also helped Nancy as she sought Carol’s death certificate, and dealt with probate issues. By helping her stand up for her rights and her relationship with Carol, GLAD helped Nancy reaffirm the life they shared together.
In 2001, GLAD filed a friend of the court brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the case of an HIV-positive dental hygienist who was fired after his doctor revealed his HIV status to his employer. A federal appellate court in Atlanta had ruled that the hygienist was a “direct threat” to patients and therefore that his termination was not a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
In contrast to the cases in which courts have ruled against doctors who refused treatment to HIV-positive patients arguing a “direct threat” (see discussion of Bragdon v. Abbott, below), courts have reacted to cases involving discrimination against HIV-positive health care providers with irrational fear and disregard for the scientific evidence. In effect, the courts have required proof of zero threat from the health care worker, a virtually impossible standard. Although the Supreme Court declined to decide this case and clarify what “direct threat” should mean in this context, the willingness of courts around the country to uphold the termination of HIV-positive health care workers who perform invasive procedures remains one of the most pressing legal challenges ahead.
GLAD obtained clarification from the Board of Registration of Cosmetology that an individual completing a cosmetology program does not fail the statutory requirement to be certified as free from infectious diseases simply by virtue of being HIV-positive.
简体中文 
Español de México 
Português 
香港中文 
Français 
Tiếng Việt 
العربية 
Polski 
Русский 
Deutsch 
Kreyòl Ayisyen