National/Federal Know Your Rights - Page 48 of 59 - GLAD Law
跳過標題到內容
GLAD Logo 跳過主導航到內容

V.L. v. E.L.

March 7, 2016: Victory! The U.S. Supreme Court today reversed the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision in which it refused to recognize a lesbian mother’s Georgia adoption of her three children. GLAD congratulates the adoptive mother, V.L. and her children, as well our friends at NCLR on this important victory for all families. Many thanks to Foley Hoag LLP who joined GLAD in submitting an amicus brief to the Court on behalf of Equality Alabama Foundation, Equality Federation, Georgia Equality, the Human Rights Campaign, Immigration Equality, the National Black Justice Coalition, the National Center for Transgender Equality, the National LGBTQ Task Force, PFLAG, the Stonewall Bar of Georgia, and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Background:

GLAD and Foley Hoag LLP have filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging the Court to grant review in the Alabama second-parent adoption case, V.L. v. E.L., No. 15-648.

V.L. and E.L. are former lesbian partners who agreed to have and raise three children together but are now separated. Before their separation, the two had obtained an adoption judgment in Georgia making V.L. a legal parent. After their separation, the birth mother, E.L., took the position that the Alabama courts could disregard Georgia’s judgment of adoption. The Alabama Supreme Court agreed, holding that E.L. was the children’s only legal parent.

The brief urges the Supreme Court to hear the case, arguing that Alabama cannot disregard the Georgia adoption judgment simply because Alabama believes the Georgia court’s adoption order should not have issued in the first place. If states disregard each other’s adoptions, it will severely undermine the security, stability, and predictability of parent-child relations secured by adoption and parentage judgments across the nation.

The amicus brief was filed on behalf of GLAD, Equality Alabama Foundation, Equality Federation, Georgia Equality, the Human Rights Campaign, Immigration Equality, the National Black Justice Coalition, the National Center for Transgender Equality, the National LGBTQ Task Force, PFLAG, the Stonewall Bar of Georgia, and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The Foley Hoag team on the brief included Marco J. Quina, Claire Laporte, Catherine Deneke, Jenevieve Maerker, and Kevin J. Conroy, with assistance from paralegal Margaret McKane.

訊息

The federal district court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania heard argument yesterday in Blatt v. Cabela’s Retail, a case that challenges the transgender exclusion written into the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).The hearing marked the first opportunity for the constitutional arguments for striking the exclusion to be fully laid out in court.

Sidney Gold, Neelima Vanguri and Brian Farrell of Sidney Gold Associate LP; Kevin Barry, Professor of Law at Quinnipiac University; Jennifer Levi, GLAD Transgender Rights Project Director; and Christine Duffy, Senior Staff Attorney at Pro Bono Partnership and author of Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace: A Practical Guide

U.S. District Judge Joseph Leeson presided over argument for close to an hour on the retail chain’s motion to dismiss claims brought by transgender former employee Kate Lynn Blatt under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, on the grounds that Cabela’s discriminated against her based on her sex; and the ADA, on the grounds that Cabela’s refused to reasonably accommodate Ms. Blatt when the store denied her use of an appropriate restroom and the ability to wear a nametag with her correct name.

“Blatt’s case presents a critical issue of first impression on the question of the constitutionality of the exclusion of transgender people from the ADA,” said Jennifer Levi, Transgender Rights Project Director at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), who is providing ongoing consultation in the case. “I’m gratified that the judge gave thoughtful attention to the arguments for striking the exclusion, and hopeful that we’ll see the right outcome.”

Law Professor at Quinnipiac University and co-counsel for 朋友, Kevin Barry, spoke on behalf of several advocacy organizations, including GLAD, who argue the discriminatory exclusion violates constitutionally protected equality guarantees, and that by maintaining it the ADA perpetrates the very thing it seeks to dismantle: “the prejudiced attitudes and ignorance of others” and the ‘inferior status’ that people with disabilities – or those “regarded-as” by others as having a disability – occupy in society.”

The United States has also weighed in on the exclusion for the first time in the case, urging the court in a statement filed November 16 not to interpret the ADA to exclude transgender people.

Attorney Brian Farrell argued on behalf of Plaintiff Blatt who is also represented by Sidney L. Gold and Neelima Vanguri of Sidney L. Gold & Associates.

Read more about the case

訊息

An exciting announcement was made today by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding equal access in accordance with an individual’s gender identity in community planning and development programs. This proposed rule is an update to HUD’s 2012 final rule (Equal Access to Housing in HUD Programs Regardless of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity) also known as the Equal Access Rule, which required that HUD-assisted and HUD-insured housing be made available without regard to actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status.

This proposed rule would amend the definition of “gender identity” included in HUD’s Equal Access Rule so the definition more clearly reflects the difference between actual and perceived gender identity. The proposed rule would eliminate the Equal Access Rule’s current prohibition on inquiries related to sexual orientation or gender identity, while maintaining the prohibition against discrimination on those bases.

If you believe you have experienced (or are about to experience) housing discrimination, contact HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity for help at (800) 669-9777. HUD will thoroughly review their allegation to determine if the claims you raise are jurisdictional under the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Access Rule. Also, contact GLAD 答案 at 1-800-455-4523(GLAD) for information on your rights in housing.

Shelter for All Genders

GLAD also has been working on improving the experience of transgender individuals specifically accessing shelter services through the release of Best Practices and Model Policy for shelters, as well as Know Your Rights Access Cards distributed to shelters throughout Massachusetts. For more on GLAD’s work, visit our website.

訊息

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) joined Lambda Legal, National Women’s Law Center and other partners in filing an amicus brief yesterday in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. The brief supports UT-Austin’s use of race as a factor in undergraduate admissions.

The brief argues that racial and ethnic disparities can be diminished when stereotypes are confronted by reality – the daily contacts and differing perspectives offered by students of varying backgrounds.  The brief focuses on women and LGBT persons of color, asserting that the cause of eradicating discrimination on the basis of sex, gender, sexual orientation and gender identity “is closely aligned with the interest in eliminating race discrimination” and that “successfully breaking down one form of discrimination tends to reduce others as well.”

“We are part of one justice movement, and we don’t accept inequalities deriving from race, gender, or sexual orientation as inevitable and unchangeable,” said Mary L. Bonauto, Civil Rights Project Director for GLAD. “By coming out to our neighbors, co-workers, friends and families, LGBT people have experienced how powerfully our humanity can be understood by others when they are in daily contact with us.  That is as true at work and in our neighborhoods as well as on college campuses.”

In the case, Abigail Fisher, a white student denied admission, is challenging the UT’s admissions policy, in which 10-20% of an incoming class is chosen through a complex formula of “holistic review” in which race may be considered as one of a number of factors. The case is being heard a second time before the Court after being remanded to a lower court in 2013.

Mayer Brown LLP is lead counsel on the brief, which can be read on GLAD’s website.

訊息

Being able to use the same bathroom as other students at school is critical for the healthy development of transgender adolescents, says an amicus brief filed on behalf of medical and mental health associations by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), and Goodwin Procter LLP in G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board.  The case, filed in federal district court in Virginia by the American Civil Liberties Union, involves Gavin Grimm, a 16-year-old transgender Virginia boy whose use of the boys’ room prompted the school board to enact a policy excluding transgender students from using the same restrooms as their peers.

Written on behalf of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, the nation’s leading clinics specializing in serving transgender youth, Dr. Norman Spack of Boston Children’s Hospital, and a number of other prominent doctors and medical and policy organizations with expertise in adolescent and transgender health issues, the brief takes a close look at research on child development of identity, and the role of schools in supporting – or thwarting – healthy development.  GLAD represented Maine student Nicole Maines, who was similarly excluded from using a restroom with her peers, in a groundbreaking case establishing rights for transgender students.

“When a school separates a transgender boy from his peer group it does terrible damage,” said Jennifer Levi, Transgender Rights Project Director for GLAD. “The school’s actions stigmatize and isolate the boy, telling him and his peers that he is different from all other boys thereby disrupting social relationships. All of this compromises his educational opportunities, in violation of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act and constitutional guarantees of equal protection.”

“Schools must take a proactive role in supporting transgender students,” said NCLR Transgender Youth Project Attorney Asaf Orr. “Unfortunately, in this case, the school board allowed their own misconceptions and fears about transgender youth, as well as those of the community, to drive policy. As a result, the school board’s policy perpetuates negative stereotypes, isolates, and harms transgender students instead of creating welcoming school environment for all students. This is not only contrary to the professional obligation of educators and administrators, but ignores the medical and mental health research on child development and the standards of care for transgender youth. Stigmatizing transgender students is not only wrong, but illegal.”

In 2014, Gavin had been using the boys’ room at school, consistent with established standards of care that emphasize the importance of living in the proper gender identity in every respect, and in accordance with his individualized treatment plan.  His use of the boys’ room caused no disruption.

Yet on December 9, 2014, the Gloucester County School Board held a school board meeting to discuss Gavin’s bathroom use and adopted a new policy restricting use of school restrooms and locker rooms requiring transgender students to use “an alternative private space.”

The brief cites peer-reviewed research to show that: 1) schools play a crucial role in child development; 2) identity development is the task of every child, particularly in adolescence; 3) external factors such as stigma, social segregation, and discrimination can harm the development of identity in transgender youth; 4) external factors such as social integration, school support, and the leadership of adults can support the healthy development of transgender adolescents.

Download the amicus brief.

訊息

New York, NY —  Today, over 100 national and local LGBTQ, immigrant, and civil rights organizations urged President Obama to stop Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from considering the Adelanto Detention Facility as a center to detain transgender immigrants.

The Adelanto Detention Facility in Southern California is geographically remote and poorly suited for transgender immigrants. The facility is in the Mojave Desert of Southern California, which is a four-hour round trip from Los Angeles. Placing transgender immigrants in the facility would effectively prevent any independent oversight by advocates and would severely limit transgender immigrants’ access to attorneys.

On August 13, 2014, LGBTQ advocates toured the Adelanto Detention Facility and spoke to individuals detained there. “We met a woman from Guatemala who had been placed in the men’s housing unit. The government did not even seem to know she was there,” said Aaron C. Morris, Legal Director of Immigration Equality.

Like pregnant women and minor children, LGBTQ individuals are some of the most vulnerable populations in detention. ICE should not place such at-risk groups in isolated facilities. The risk that they will be mistreated is too great. If the government cannot detain LGBTQ immigrants safely, it should not detain them at all. Instead, it should utilize alternative to detention programs, which are a more humane, inexpensive, and effective solution.

“Stop the abuse and criminalization of our communities and our bodies! #Not1More trans detention and killing! #StopTransMurders,” stated Edna Monroy, Southern California organizer at the California Immigrant Youth Justice Alliance.

“ICE must take responsibility for the safety, well-being, and fundamental due process rights of the people caught up in its national detention system. Transferring transgender women to Adelanto would make a mockery of this responsibility,” said Kathy Doan, Executive Director of the Capital Area Immigrants Rights’ (CAIR) Coalition.

“No one should fear for their life or personal safety in our corrections system,” said Ellie Perez, member of the Equality Arizona Board of Directors. “LGBTQ people in detention are disproportionately at risk of violence and mistreatment. Equality Arizona is proud to stand by a wide range of diverse organizations from all over our country calling on President Obama to ensure ICE cannot place transgender women in isolated facilities where they are at great risk.”

“Transferring transgender women to the Adelanto Detention Facility, where countless violations and failures to protect vulnerable populations have been documented and reported, is not only dangerous but inhumane. Rather than finding safety in the US, Transgender people continue to be misgendered during detention placements, denied transition-related care, and humiliated for being trans. Detention is not safe for LGBTQ Immigrants,” stated Myra Llerenas, Southern New Mexico Field Organizer for Equality New Mexico.

“Act justly, love mercy, walk humbly. We ask those things of our government,” stated Frances Browne, chair of the Immigrant Justice Network of Grant and Luna Counties, New Mexico.

“It’s time for the federal government to update its detention practices in terms of practicality, safety and assuring basic human dignity. Respect for human rights is a given, we don’t need a Congressional vote to do what’s humane and right for those in the immigration detention system especially in regard to Trans individuals whom likely qualify for asylum,” stated Ari Gutierrez, co-founder and Advisory Board Chair of the Latino Equality Alliance, an LGBT advocacy group based in Los Angeles.

“GEO Group, the infamous for-profit prison company that runs Adelanto, has a long history of abusing transgender women, asylum seekers, and people with disabilities. For example, Barbra Perez is a trans woman detained by GEO who was tortured in solitary confinement and denied necessary medical care while ICE tried to use the mistreatment to coerce her to accept deportation rather than fight her immigration case. Meanwhile, at Adelanto, Gerardo Corrales developed a life-threatening infection because GEO forced him to reuse dirty catheters. The President should shut down Adelanto instead of detaining trans women there,” said Olga Tomchin, Deportation Defense Coordinator and Staff Attorney of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network.

“Transgender women who have fled persecution and have come to the US to seek a safe haven should not be retraumatized by being imprisoned in inhumane conditions,” said Azadeh Shahshahani, President of the National Lawyers Guild. “Rather, they should have the right to seek asylum while being afforded respect for their human dignity.”

“Everyone, regardless of who they are or the person they love, deserves a fighting chance to provide for themselves and their families. Unfortunately, undocumented immigrants are still denied access to the promise of America. Far worse is the treatment of undocumented immigrant pregnant women, children, persons living with HIV, and LGBTQ people in detention centers. At these profit-driven detention facilities, LGBTQ people are fifteen times more likely than others to experience physical assault and rape. It is crystal clear that the most vulnerable cannot be kept safe at the Adelanto detention center and similar facilities. We urge the Administration to halt the transfer of people to the Adelanto Detention Facility and instead release all undocumented LGBTQ immigrants once and for all,” said Rea Carey, National LGBTQ Task Force Executive Director.

“It is imperative that we end the abusive treatment and blatant disregard for the safety of transgender women in detention centers, women who are often refugees fleeing violence and the threat of death in their home countries. Due to its remote location, just sending trans women to the Adelanto facility constitutes abuse because it sets barriers to legal representation and all but removes support of family and friends,” said Nell Gaither, president of Trans Pride Initiative. “Additionally, the record of the for-profit GEO group — and ICE in general — for ensuring the safety of trans women is abysmal. Please stop these abuses. Please end the policy of detaining vulnerable persons in such dehumanizing facilities and conditions under such proven incompetent management.”

Read the full letter here.

訊息

GLAD 與全國各地的組織一起致函參議院多數黨領袖米奇·麥康奈爾和眾議院議長約翰·博納:

作為一個致力於確保全國各地社區都能負擔得起優質醫療服務的組織,我們寫信強烈敦促您放棄以意識形態為主導的、旨在破壞婦女獲得計劃生育健康中心機會的努力。

計劃生育協會是美國最值得信賴的女性醫療保健機構,已有近百年的歷史。每年,全美有270萬名女性、男性和年輕人依靠計劃生育協會獲得基本的預防性醫療保健服務,包括常規體檢、癌症篩檢、避孕服務以及愛滋病毒和性傳染感染的檢測和治療。美國五分之一的女性一生中都會依賴計劃生育協會提供醫療保健服務。對許多美國人來說,計劃生育協會是她們主要的醫療保健機構。

這只是針對女性健康的最新政治攻擊——而且是一次明顯玩世不恭且有組織有預謀的行動,旨在削弱這一至關重要的醫療保健機構。在過去八年裡,這個騙局背後的組織已經發動了十次類似的攻擊活動。他們真正的目的日益清晰——他們想要禁止墮胎,並停止資助計劃生育協會。

政治組織和國會議員都將停止資助計劃生育協會和其他女性醫療保健機構列為立法的首要任務。這些虛假指控被用來推進一項政治議程,將使270萬人無法獲得避孕、挽救生命的癌症篩檢、性病檢測和治療以及其他預防性醫療保健服務。

我們代表著各種各樣的組織,但我們共同致力於確保所有人都能獲得所需的醫療服務,過著健康而富有成效的生活。我們強烈敦促您關注美國民眾最關心的問題,並拒絕那些旨在剝奪數百萬人醫療保健的意識形態攻擊。

真摯地,

  1. 獲得婦女健康正義
  2. 青年倡議者
  3. 美國州和縣市政僱員聯合會
  4. 公民聯盟
  5. 美國投票
  6. 美國公民自由聯盟
  7. 美國教師聯合會
  8. 美國政教分離聯合會
  9. 阿斯特萊亞女同性戀正義基金會
  10. 投票倡議戰略中心
  11. BiNet 美國
  12. 雙性戀資源中心
  13. 藍圖
  14. 德州達拉斯市的 Bonanza 石油公司
  15. 打破沉默
  16. CAEAR聯盟
  17. 卡薩希望之家
  18. 天主教選擇組織
  19. CCC
  20. 大眾民主中心
  21. 生殖權利中心
  22. CenterLink:LGBT中心社區
  23. 美國通信工人
  24. 高等教育LGBT資源專業人員聯盟
  25. 信條
  26. 直流碳匯
  27. 民主聯盟
  28. 示範
  29. 艾蜜莉的清單
  30. 結婚自由
  31. 男女同性戀倡議者和捍衛者
  32. 同性戀反歧視聯盟
  33. GLMA:促進LGBT平等的衛生專業人員
  34. 人權運動
  35. 用我們自己的聲音:全國黑人婦女生殖正義議程
  36. 科學與人類價值研究所
  37. 國際男女同性戀人權委員會
  38. 私人健康諮詢
  39. 猶太婦女國際組織
  40. Lambda 法律
  41. 拉丁裔愛滋病委員會
  42. 拉丁裔正義 PRLDEF
  43. 長距離交通管制
  44. 讓它發揮作用運動
  45. 馬爾地夫
  46. 美國婚姻平權組織
  47. 運動推進項目
  48. MoveOn.org
  49. 美國支持選擇權組織
  50. 全國墮胎聯合會
  51. 國家行動網絡
  52. 全國亞太裔美國婦女論壇(NAPAWF)
  53. 全國黑人男同志倡議聯盟
  54. 全國黑人正義聯盟
  55. 全國女同性戀權利中心
  56. 全國家事工人聯盟
  57. 國家拉丁裔生殖健康研究所
  58. 全國LGBTQ工作小組行動基金
  59. 全國婦女與家庭夥伴關係
  60. 全國婦女法律中心
  61. 國家醫學委員會
  62. 現在
  63. 美國方式的人們
  64. 生殖健康醫生
  65. 人口聯繫行動基金
  66. 人口研究所
  67. 工作自豪感
  68. 生殖健康科技項目
  69. 羅斯福學院 | 校園網絡
  70. 服務業僱員國際工會
  71. 美國性資訊與教育委員會(SIECUS)
  72. 獅子山俱樂部
  73. 阿特拉斯項目
  74. 公民自由與公共政策計劃
  75. 有色人種跨性別聯盟
  76. 跨性別法律辯護與教育基金
  77. 一神普救派協會
  78. 美國行動
  79. 進步之聲
  80. 沃托拉丁裔
  81. 我們屬於彼此
  82. 女性為女性
  83. 女性的聲音。女性投票行動基金
  84. 工作家庭黨
  85. 獲得婦女健康正義
  86. 馬薩諸塞州愛滋病行動委員會
  87. 阿拉巴馬州愛滋病
  88. 德州達拉斯市的 Bonanza 石油公司
  89. 級聯愛滋病項目
  90. 兒童與家庭資源公司
  91. 康乃狄克州婦女教育與法律基金
  92. 復活節海豹布萊克基金會
  93. 風信子愛滋基金會
  94. 印地女權主義者
  95. 北卡羅來納州莉蓮名單
  96. 大眾平等
  97. 明尼蘇達州愛滋病項目
  98. 蒙大拿州 NARAL 支持選擇權組織
  99. 維吉尼亞州 NARAL 支持選擇權組織
  100. 紐約公民自由聯盟
  101. 北卡羅來納女子聯合會
  102. 一個科羅拉多
  103. 亞利桑那州支持選擇權
  104. 密蘇裡進步
  105. 內華達州進步領導聯盟
  106. 亞利桑那州 ProgressNow
  107. 新墨西哥州 ProgressNow
  108. 進步VA
  109. 西南婦女法律中心
  110. 州眾議員莎拉羅伯茨
  111. 健康倡議
  112. 女性為女性
  113. 巴爾的摩愛滋病行動
  114. 亞利桑那州婦女保健
  115. 藍山診所
  116. 卡倫-洛德社區健康中心
  117. 社區解決方案中心
  118. 政策倡議中心
  119. 社區推廣計劃公司
  120. 華盛頓特區墮胎基金
  121. 員工權利中心
  122. 哈德遜驕傲聯誼中心
  123. 風信子愛滋基金會
  124. 傑傑福托格
  125. 卡拉馬祖同志資源中心
  126. 卡拉·庫沙尼
  127. LGBT網絡
  128. 長島同性戀青年
  129. 孟菲斯同性戀社區中心
  130. 紐約市同性戀反暴力項目
  131. 新冠/愛滋病專案小組(CrescentCare 商號)
  132. 北卡羅來納州政治報
  133. 北卡羅來納州政治報
  134. PPPSW
  135. PPSNJ
  136. 史丹頓島驕傲中心
  137. 驕傲青年服務
  138. 普通公民
  139. 彩虹中心
  140. 舊金山愛滋病基金會
  141. LOFT:LGBT社群服務
  142. 三角社區中心有限公司

訊息

In class action lawsuit, GLAD and Justice in Aging say it should be SSA 

Anti-LGBT discrimination hurts everyone in our community. But the impact on those who are economically vulnerable can be devastating.

The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program exists to assist those with extremely limited resources due to age and/or disability. Over the past year, GLAD and our partner organizations began hearing from SSI recipients married to a same-sex spouse that they were suddenly receiving demands from the Social Security Administration (SSA) to repay thousands of dollars in so-called overpayments.

The fact is that after the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was ruled unconstitutional, SSA continued to discriminate against same-sex couples by failing to recognize their marriages, even in cases where SSI recipients informed SSA that they were married. SSI has a marriage penalty, so benefits for unmarried individuals are higher than for married individuals and SSA continued to issue benefits as if the married individuals were single.

Then suddenly, more than a year later, the agency began demanding that recipients refund the benefits they were paid as a result of SSA’s own discrimination against them.

In March, GLAD, Justice in Aging and Foley Hoag LLP filed a class action lawsuit against the SSA on behalf of Kelley Richardson-Wright of Athol, Massachusetts, who is married to Kena Richardson-Wright; Hugh Held of Los Angeles, who is married to Orion Masters, and other SSI recipients married to someone of the same sex in or before June 2013.

Kelley and Hugh, like others receiving SSI, are working hard to get by on extremely limited means. Not only do they not have the ability to repay what SSA demanded, the agency’s attempts to withhold money from their current benefits as a result of its own discrimination created significant hardship and stress. [Read more about Kelly and Hugh’s stories here]

“Basically Social Security kept making SSI payments after the fall of DOMA without considering the marriages of same sex couples, even when a recipient notified SSI of the marriage,” says Vickie Henry, Senior Staff Attorney for GLAD. “More than a year later, SSA, to remedy its own unconstitutional conduct, started going after people who are both poor and aged or disabled and demanding thousands of dollars from them. That’s not fair, and it’s not right.”

As a result of our action, SSA has granted a waiver to Kelly and Hugh and has issued an emergency order effective May 6, 2015, putting a hold – at least temporarily – on issuing new overpayment notices to SSI recipients resulting from a change in recognition of a beneficiary’s pre-existing same-sex marital status. The hold is effective until October 30, 2015, while SSA considers our lawsuit.

While this is great news that will provide at least temporary protection for our clients and some other SSI recipients, it does not yet help others who have already received a notice of overpayment, and it does not address all the harms experienced by our clients and others in this situation.

SSA has filed a motion to dismiss our lawsuit, claiming that because our clients applied for and received a waiver (after our suit), its process worked. Essentially, SSA’s position is that it is acceptable to unconstitutionally put someone in peril and then say that is ok because SSA gives them an appeal process.

But that appeal process should never have been necessary in the first place. SSA has continued to behave unconstitutionally since 溫莎 and someone has to bear the cost of that wrongful behavior – we believe it should be SSA and not our clients who suffered the discriminatory treatment.

“It’s like someone setting fire to your house and then wanting to be thanked for extinguishing the fire,” says Henry of SSA’s argument.

Case documents and details are available at www.gladlaw.org/ssi

If you or someone you know has received a notice of SSI overpayment due to a change in recognition of your marriage, please contact GLAD Senior Staff Attorney Vickie Henry vhenry@glad.org 或者 www.GLADAnswers.org as we continue to work on this issue. 

訊息

Yesterday in a Statement of Interest filed in the case Blatt v. Cabela’s Retail, the Department of Justice (DOJ) declined to weigh in on the constitutionality of an explicit transgender exclusion written into the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Today is the 25 anniversary of the passage of the ADA.

When the landmark law passed in 1990, it explicitly excluded from its protections people with Gender Identity Disorder (GID).

Jennifer Levi, director of the Transgender Rights Project at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders said, “It is surprising and disappointing that DOJ avoided the important question around the constitutionality of the transgender exclusion within the ADA.  Given the rank animus behind it, the exclusion serves to marginalize and stigmatize a minority group that the DOJ has recognized needs and deserves legal protections.”

Kate Lynn Blatt, a transgender employee of Cabela’s brought a discrimination claim against the store under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, on the grounds that Cabela’s discriminated against her based on her sex; and the ADA, on the grounds that Cabela’s refused to reasonably accommodate Ms. Blatt when the store denied her use of an appropriate restroom and the ability to wear a nametag with her correct name.

The Statement of Interest read in part: “The United States respectfully requests that the Court defer ruling upon Plaintiff’s constitutional challenge to the GID Exclusion until after the Title VII claims are resolved, as disposition of Plaintiff’s Title VII claims could resolve this case without the need to reach the constitutionality of the GID Exclusion. Should the Court later determine that the constitutional issue cannot be avoided, the United States respectfully reserves the right to intervene or file a supplemental statement of interest at that time.”

Levi said,  “There are two silver linings here: DOJ’s continued clear statement that transgender people are protected by Title VII; and DOJ specifically reserving its right to weigh in should the Court take on directly the issue of the constitutionality of the ADA exclusion.  While we acknowledge these bright spots, the problem created by the ADA exclusion remains.  Congress excluded transgender people from the protections of the ADA because of the stigma associated with gender dysphoria.  As long as the transgender exclusion remains within the law, the ADA fails in its promise to create a level playing field in employment for all people capable of doing the job.”

Blatt is represented by Sidney L. Gold, Neelima Vanguri and Brian Farrell of Sidney L. Gold & Associates. GLAD is providing ongoing consultation and, along with Law Professor Kevin Barry of Quinnipiac University, also filed an amicus brief, arguing that by maintaining the discriminatory exclusion, the ADA perpetrates the very thing it seeks to dismantle: “the prejudiced attitudes and ignorance of others” and the ‘inferior status’ that people with disabilities – or those “regarded-as” by others as having a disability – occupy in society.”

訊息

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued a critical ruling that discrimination based on an employee’s sexual orientation violates the prohibition on sex discrimination in Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act.

landmark July 16 ruling recognizes that federal employees who experience discrimination because of their sexual orientation have a claim under Title VII and signals to courts throughout the country that discrimination based on sexual orientation by definition constitutes sex discrimination.

“GLAD has long argued that LGBT employees are covered under Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination,” said Executive Director Janson Wu. “This ruling joins 2012’s landmark Macy decision – in which the EEOC ruled that the federal prohibition against sex discrimination includes gender identity and expression – in strengthening the case that LGBT people can seek relief for employment discrimination under federal law.”

Last week, GLAD filed a class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court under Title VII against retail giant Walmart for discriminating against employees who were married to same-sex spouses by denying their spouses health insurance benefits.The class representative, Jackie Cote, was denied spousal health insurance for her wife, Dee, who has battled ovarian cancer since 2012.  Due to Walmart’s sex discrimination, Dee lacked health insurance to pay for her treatment and has racked up a minimum of $150,000 in uninsured medical expenses.

“A positive outcome in this case will not only help Jackie and other past and present Walmart employees who experienced the same discrimination,” added Wu, “it will provide further clarification from a federal court that sexual orientation discrimination cannot be tolerated. Through both litigation and advocating for strong state and federal legislation, GLAD is committed to ensuring comprehensive protections for all LGBT people in employment and every other area of life.”

zh_HK香港中文
隱私概述

本網站使用 Cookie,以便我們為您提供最佳的使用者體驗。 Cookie 資訊儲存在您的瀏覽器中,並執行諸如在您返回我們的網站時識別您的身份,以及幫助我們的團隊了解您認為網站中哪些部分最有趣和最實用等功能。