訊息

今天，同性戀倡導者與捍衛者組織 (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) 讚揚康乃狄克州保險部門發佈公告，指示所有在該州運營的健康保險公司支付患者性別轉換相關治療的費用。這項宣布是朝著增加康乃狄克州跨性別居民獲得關鍵醫療保健服務邁出的重要一步，長期以來，他們一直被任意拒絕支付與性別轉換相關的醫療費用。

該公告於 12 月 19 日發布，指示獲得保險部許可並製定個人和團體健康保險政策的實體“確保不會歧視患有性別焦慮症的投保人，並確保個人不會因為個人的性別認同或表達而被拒絕獲得必要的醫療護理。”

性別焦慮症被定義為「個體對自己的生理性別感到極度不適，並強烈認同並希望成為異性的一種狀態」。

「我們讚揚康乃狄克州保險部門邁出的這一重要舉措，確保跨性別者能夠獲得救命且必要的醫療護理，」專職律師扎克·帕科寧（Zack Paakkonen）表示。「首先，它使康乃狄克州的健康保險公司與州和聯邦法律保持一致，禁止在醫療保健環境中歧視跨性別者。其次，該公告符合所有主要醫學和心理學協會的立場，即性別焦慮症是一種合法的疾病，需要由個人醫生而非保險公司決定有效的、必要的醫療治療方案。”

康乃狄克州於2011年頒布了一項法律，禁止在就業、公共設施、住房、信貸、公立學校、政府合約等許多領域歧視跨性別者。保險部將該法律的立法意圖解讀為也適用於醫療保險實務。聯邦《平價醫療法案》也禁止保險公司採用歧視跨性別或基於特定健康狀況的福利設計。

加州、科羅拉多州、俄勒岡州、佛蒙特州和哥倫比亞特區的保險監管機構已發布類似公告，指示其各自管轄範圍內的保險公司公平地承保跨性別患者的治療費用。目前正在努力促使新英格蘭地區其他州也發布類似的公告。

閱讀康乃狄克州保險部門的完整公告這裡。

訊息

家 » 康乃狄克州 » Page 11

Today, GLAD praised the Connecticut Insurance Department for issuing a bulletin directing all health insurers operating in the state to pay for treatment related to a patient’s gender transition. The bulletin is a significant step toward increasing access to critical health care for transgender residents of Connecticut, who have long been arbitrarily denied coverage for medical treatments related to gender transition.

Read the full press release here.

訊息

家 » 康乃狄克州 » Page 11

The Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) sent out a “Dear Colleague” letter dated March 4, 2012, reminding school principals, superintendants and PTA and PTO presidents of their responsibilities under federal and Connecticut law to address instances of bullying and harassment, calling special attention to discrimination against transgender students.

The letter states that “Both this agency and the Connecticut Department of Education continue to receive complaints about harassment and discrimination against students including but not limited to students who are transgendered,” and goes on to remind recipients that “Discrimination on the basis of transgender status is illegal, as codified by Public Act 11-55, which added “gender identity or expression” to the protected classes covered under Connecticut law.”

You can read the full “Dear Colleague” letter on the CHRO’s website.

CHRO 和 Dana Peterson 訴哈特福德市

家 » 康乃狄克州 » Page 11

更新 The Connecticut Appeals Court sided with the City of Hartford, ruling on September 18, 2012, that the trial court improperly reversed the original finding of the CHRO referee. Peterson’s petition to have the case reviewed by the Connecticut Supreme Court was denied, leaving her with no further recourse and ending the matter.

GLAD participated in the appeal of a Connecticut Commission on Human Rights (CHRO) finding against a police sergeant, Dana Peterson, who was denied a position as a canine handler – a coveted and publicly visible position within the force – because she is transgender. The Connecticut Superior Court issued an initial ruling that the CHRO referee ignored serious evidence of discrimination. The City of Hartford appealed that decision in the Connecticut Appeals Court. GLAD filed an 法庭之友 簡短的 in the case, and oral argument took place Tuesday, November 29, 2011.

The Hartford Courant: Transgender Police Officer Still Fighting for Equality

Raftopol v. Ramey

家 » 康乃狄克州 » Page 11

In a first-of-its kind decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled on Jan. 5, 2011 that a gay male couple who wanted to have children and used a gestational surrogate are the children’s legal parents, and that the state must permit both men’s names to be placed on the birth certificates.

GLAD filed an 法庭之友 brief to the Connecticut Supreme Court in this case concerning the legal status of non-genetic parents of children born through gestational surrogacy. The brief, filed on behalf of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the American Academy of Assisted Reproductive Technology Attorneys, Connecticut Fertility Associates and New England Fertility Institute, argues that the Superior Court can and should confirm the legal relationships between these children and both of their intended parents by issuing pre-birth orders of parentage and by directing the Department of Public Health to issue birth certificates that reflect the joint parentage of these children.

GLAD was joined in this brief by Ken Bartschi and Karen Dowd of Horton, Shields and Knox, Tom Ude of Lambda Legal, and John Weltman and Scott Buckley of the Weltman Law Group. The Raftopols are represented by Victoria Ferrara of Fairfield, CT.

Patino v. Birken Manufacturing Co.

家 » 康乃狄克州 » Page 11

GLAD and the Connecticut Employment Lawyers Association (CELA) applaud a May 4, 2012 ruling from the Connecticut Supreme Court that employers can be liable if they fail to protect employees from harassment based on sexual orientation. In Patino v. Birken Manufacturing Company (Docket No. 18441), the Court also upheld a jury award of $95,000 in favor of plaintiff Luis Patino.

When Patino was employed as a machinist by the defendant, he was the object of pervasive name-calling for several years, including “faggot go home,” and “faggot get out of here.” He was subjected to slurs in English, Spanish and Italian, such as “pato,” “maricon,” “pira,” and “homo.” By affirming that employees can sue employers for anti-gay harassment in the workplace, the Court rejected the defendant’s argument that workplace harassment claims are limited to sexual harassment.

GLAD and CELA filed an 法庭之友 brief on behalf of seven Connecticut civil rights groups: the African-American Affairs Commission, the Center for Disability Rights, the Connecticut Alliance for Business Opportunities, the Connecticut Hispanic Bar Association, the Connecticut Transadvocacy Coalition, the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women, and Triangle Community Center.

In urging the Court to find coverage under Connecticut law for cases of antigay workplace harassment, the brief highlighted the scientific literature demonstrating that incidents of discrimination, including based on sexual orientation and race, can lead directly to mental and physical harm.

The plaintiff Luis Patino was represented by Attorney Jon L. Schoenhorn of Hartford. The amicus brief was written by Ben Klein of GLAD in Boston, MA and Nina T. Pirrotti of Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Chimes, Richardson & Fitzgerald, P.C. in New Haven.

Pedersen 等人訴人事管理辦公室等人

家 » 康乃狄克州 » Page 11

2013 年 6 月 26 日，美國最高法院裁定《保護婚姻法》第 3 條違憲 溫莎訴美國案

2012 年 7 月 31 日－康乃狄克州聯邦地區法院法官布萊恩特裁定《捍衛婚姻法案》違憲。

2012 年 7 月 4 日，布萊恩特法官發布命令，駁回 BLAG 的中止訴訟動議。

眾議院領導層透過兩黨法律顧問小組 (BLAG) 於 2012 年 6 月 20 日提交了中止訴訟的動議。原告於 2012 年 6 月 22 日提交了反對中止動議的動議。

2011 年 7 月 15 日更新：GLAD 代表原告提交簡易判決動議

2011 年 2 月 23 日更新：司法部宣布不會在 佩德森

2010 年 11 月 9 日，GLAD 提交 佩德森訴 OPM這是第二起重大的多原告訴訟，質疑聯邦婚姻保護法（DOMA）第 3 條的合憲性以及政府拒絕向已婚男女同性戀夫婦提供保護和責任的行為。

佩德森訴 OPM 專門針對康乃狄克州、佛蒙特州和新罕布夏州的已婚夫婦。

克里根和莫克訴康乃狄克州公共衛生部

家 » 康乃狄克州 » Page 11

2008 年 10 月 10 日星期五，康乃狄克州最高法院裁定，男女同性戀伴侶有權享有完全的婚姻平權。

2004年8月25日，同性戀者反歧視聯盟（GLAD）代表康乃狄克州八對在康乃狄克州麥迪遜市被拒領結婚證書的同性戀伴侶提起訴訟，質疑該州歧視性地剝奪同性伴侶的婚姻權利。原告伴侶的婚姻關係持續了10至30年，其中許多人育有子女，他們認為只有婚姻才能為他們提供家庭安全生活所需的保障和福利。被告是負責監督所有婚姻登記的公共衛生部（DPH）和麥迪遜鎮人口統計登記員Dorothy C. Bean。

康乃狄克州家庭研究所和兩名鎮書記曾提出動議介入此案。紐黑文高等法院法官帕蒂詹金斯皮特曼駁回了這些動議。書記官撤回了上訴，但家庭研究所向康乃狄克州最高法院上訴，最高法院於2006年8月15日作出裁決，維持了初審法院的駁回決定。

GLAD 提交了一份簡易判決動議，並就案件本身的實質內容提交了詳盡的辯護狀。此外，我們也提交了一份由 25 位法庭之友簽署的支持我們立場的法庭之友辯護狀。辯方司法部長提交了一份答辯狀，並提交了 4 份反對法庭之友辯護狀。簡易判決動議的辯論於 2006 年 3 月 21 日在紐黑文高等法院進行了審理。

2006年6月12日，皮特曼法官駁回了原告的動議，裁定禁止同性伴侶結婚並不違反康乃狄克州憲法。原告就此判決向康乃狄克州最高法院上訴。

2007 年 5 月 14 日，GLAD 資深律師 Ben Klein 在康乃狄克州最高法院就此案進行口頭辯論。

Brindamour, et al. v. Manchester Board of Education

家 » 康乃狄克州 » Page 11

GLAD used the Connecticut anti-discrimination provisions based on sexual orientation and marital status to help a group of teachers and school administrators in Manchester, CT to obtain insurance benefits for their domestic partners. These educators applied for and were denied these benefits – benefits that constitute a significant portion of an employee’s compensation. GLAD argued the position that withholding these benefits amounted to unequal pay for equal work – something the law does not tolerate. With the discrimination suit pending, the Manchester Board of Education approved new contracts for school administrators and teachers that included health insurance for the partners of its gay and lesbian employees. The Manchester Board of Directors approved the Administrators’ contract on November 18th, 2003 and the Teachers’ contract was agreed upon in arbitration and formally certified by the arbitrator on November 17th.