In re A.M.B.

家 » 緬因州 » Page 16

GLAD filed an 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.

普爾西弗訴波特蘭案

家 » 緬因州 » Page 16

同性戀者聯盟（GLAD）代表緬因州波特蘭市，對抗十位納稅人以及兩大反同性戀組織——婚姻法中心和聯盟防禦基金法律中心——對該市同居伴侶登記制度的攻擊。這些組織聲稱緬因州的反同性婚姻限制及其規範婚姻的一般權力，阻礙了該市向在該市生活和工作的未婚家庭提供市政福利。 2004年4月28日，坎伯蘭縣高等法院法官托馬斯·漢弗萊（Thomas Humphrey）裁定波特蘭市勝訴，承認緬因州立法機構頒布的同性婚姻禁令並未禁止同居伴侶條例，並認定波特蘭市完全有權通過同居伴侶登記制度保護其公民的健康和福祉。

這項決定是在緬因州立法機構採取措施，為所有公民創造平等的公民權利一週後做出的。州長約翰·巴爾達奇簽署了一項法案，允許異性戀或同性戀成年人在長期安排下同居，從而建立同居關係。新法也賦予同居伴侶在已婚伴侶過世且無遺囑的情況下與配偶享有同等的繼承權，並允許在世的同居伴侶自行安排葬禮和安葬事宜。

C.E.W. v. D.E.W.

家 » 緬因州 » Page 16

GLAD, along with Maine co-counsel, won the right to seek full parental rights and responsibilities for a non-biological lesbian mother in Maine whose former partner, the child’s biological mother, was seeking to terminate any legal relationship between our client and the child the women have raised together. Maine’s highest court (the Law Court) ruled unanimously that a de facto parent, one who has a parent-child relationship on the basis of conduct rather than merely on a biological or adoptive relationship, has equal footing to seek parental rights and responsibilities.

Guardianship of I.H.

家 » 緬因州 » 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 » 緬因州 » 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.

關於 DG

家 » 緬因州 » Page 16

A case in which a southern Maine school sought to “solve” the two-year harassment of a student by graduating him a year early; GLAD successfully turned the focus back to a proper education and an end to the harassment.

Crandall v. Boston Concession Group

家 » 緬因州 » 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 » 緬因州 » 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.

布拉格登訴阿博特案

家 » 緬因州 » Page 16

在首例涉及愛滋病毒的案件中，美國最高法院以 5 比 4 的判決裁定 布拉格登訴阿博特案 聯邦《美國殘疾人法案》（ADA）禁止歧視愛滋病毒感染者，無論他們是否出現任何明顯症狀或被診斷出患有愛滋病。法院1998年的裁決對愛滋病毒感染者來說是一個至關重要的勝利，因為《美國殘疾人法案》和類似的州殘疾歧視法規是打擊就業、住房和醫療保健領域與愛滋病毒相關的歧視的唯一法律依據。

本案中，緬因州班戈居民西德尼·阿博特（Sidney Abbott）前往蘭登·布拉格登（Randon Bragdon）牙醫診所進行補牙。布拉格登醫師以擔心病人會傳播愛滋病毒（HIV）為由，拒絕在其診所為她補牙，僅僅因為阿博特女士在一份醫療問卷中披露了自己感染了愛滋病毒。布拉格登醫師聲稱，尚未出現明顯症狀的愛滋病毒感染者不符合《美國殘疾人法案》（ADA）對「殘疾」的定義。《美國殘疾人法案》將殘疾定義為「嚴重限制一項或多項主要生活活動」的健康狀況。

在其具有里程碑意義的裁決中，最高法院同意了同性戀者聯盟（GLAD）的觀點，即可見症狀或疾病並非《美國殘疾人法案》（ADA）承保的必要條件。安東尼·肯尼迪大法官代表法院撰寫了裁決，對「主要生活活動」的定義進行了寬泛的解釋，並特別指出，由於存在感染伴侶和孩子的風險，西德尼·阿博特在生殖這一主要生活活動方面受到了嚴重限制。

然而，法院的措辭和推理遠遠超出了西德尼·阿博特案的事實範圍，並確保所有愛滋病毒感染者都將受到《美國殘疾人法案》的保護。在一份冗長的分析中，法院認可了美國司法部和平等就業機會委員會長期以來對《美國殘疾人法案》的解釋，這些解釋認為，《美國殘疾人法案》保護有症狀和無症狀的愛滋病毒感染者免受歧視，部分原因是愛滋病毒限制了生育和性關係。最高法院指示全國下級法院遵循這些機構的解釋。最高法院對「殘疾」的廣泛定義及其對《美國殘疾人法案》這些行政解釋的認可意味著 布拉格登訴阿博特案 這是一場巨大的勝利，不僅對西德尼·阿博特來說如此，對於所有殘疾人來說也是如此。