訊息

(Washington, DC, October 6, 2014)—The United States Supreme Court today declined to review the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down Utah’s marriage ban for same-sex couples, thereby permitting that decision to stand, as well as a similar decision from Oklahoma. The Court also denied review of decisions by the Fourth and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeals, which had struck down marriage bans in Virginia, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

By denying review of the Kitchen v. Herbert case, the Court let stand the June 2014 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that found Utah’s ban on marriages by same-sex couples unconstitutional. Today’s decision means that same-sex couples in Utah, Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas and Wyoming—all in the Tenth Circuit—have a constitutionally protected right to marry and to have their marriages treated equally.

The plaintiff couples in the Utah case are Kody Partridge and Laurie Wood, Derek Kitchen and Moudi Sbeity, and Kate Call and Karen Archer. The couples are represented by Peggy Tomsic of the Salt Lake City law firm Magleby & Greenwood, P.C., Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), Mary Bonauto of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), and former acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal of the law firm Hogan Lovells.

“We are thrilled by today’s decision, which means that same-sex couples are now equal citizens of this state,” said Derek Kitchen. “We are honored to be part of this historic moment and to know that as a result of today’s decision by the Supreme Court, never again will same-sex couples and their families be subjected to the discrimination and indignity that has caused so much harm to so many children and families over the years in Utah. This is a great day, and we are grateful to everyone who worked so hard to make it possible.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision today is a long-awaited victory not only for the courageous couples who brought this case, but for the entire state,” said Tomsic. “By allowing the Tenth Circuit’s ruling to stand, the Supreme Court has ensured that same-sex couples and their families in Utah will be treated equally and can have the same protection and stability that other families enjoy.”

Minter, who serves as NCLR legal director, said: “This is a huge step forward for Utah and the entire country. We are hopeful that the other cases pending across the country will also vindicate the freedom to marry so that all couples, no matter where they travel or live, will be treated as equal citizens and have the same basic security and protections for their families that other Americans enjoy.”

Added Bonauto: “This is fantastic news for the citizens of Utah and the 10 other states who are no longer denied the ability to marry or respect for their marriages. It is also a powerful signal to the many other courts considering the issue that there is no reason to delay and perpetuate the harms to same-sex couples around the nation.”

Kitchen was the first federal district court victory in a marriage equality case after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor, and the first such victory in a federal court of appeals. Since then, three other federal appeals courts also ruled in favor of the freedom to marry for same-sex couples.

訊息

家 » 國家/聯邦 » Page 51

There exist both state and federal employment anti-discrimination laws that protect employees if they are discriminated against because they possess certain characteristics. All the state employment anti-discrimination laws in New England have sexual orientation as an explicit protected characteristic and, with the exception of New Hampshire, also have gender identity as a protected characteristic. The federal employment anti-discrimination law is called Title VII, and it does not contain explicit protections for either sexual orientation or gender identity. The federal agency that receives employment discrimination complaints is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

In 2012, the EEOC announced that it would accept discrimination complaints from transgender employees as a form of sex discrimination. Recently EEOC Commissioner Chai R. Feldblum issued a memorandum that further clarifies protections for LGBT employees. The Commissioner states: “Any LGBT person who has experienced workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity may file a charge . . . claiming sex discrimination. A charge must be filed within 300 days (or sometimes 180 days) from the date of the discriminatory act.”

The EEOC considers gender identity discrimination a form of sex discrimination and will accept all charges of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and investigate them to determine if they state a claim of sex discrimination. For example, one type of sex discrimination involving sexual orientation is when it is assumed that men and women should only be sexually attracted to and marry individuals of a different gender.

In this memorandum, the EEOC also advocates for changing Title VII to include both sexual orientation and gender identity as specific protected characteristics because “. . . civil rights laws that explicitlyprotect LGBT people will raise visibility regarding such protection, will be a deterrent to discrimination, and will provide certainty that courts across the country will enforce the protections of these laws for LGBT people.”

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would add sexual orientation and gender identity protections to Title VII, has been introduced in Congress repeatedly, but has never passed.

You can see Commissioner Feldblum’s memorandum 這裡.

If you have questions or want further information, please contact GLAD Answers by email or live chat at www.GLADAnswers.org 或撥打800-455-GLAD (4523)。

特維亞訴科爾文

家 » 國家/聯邦 » Page 51

更新： 經過三年的抗爭，黛博拉·特維亞終於收到了自 2011 年妻子帕特里夏·貝克去世以來她應得的社會安全遺屬福利金。 2014 年 12 月 1 日星期一，社會安全局向黛博拉支付了超過 $30,000 美元的拖欠福利金。

點擊此處閱讀 GLAD 聲明.

案件背景

GLAD 在美國羅德島地區法院對社會安全局 (SSA) 提起訴訟，指控 SSA 在 56 歲的 Deborah Tevyaw 的妻子 Patricia Baker 去世後錯誤地拒絕向其發放遺屬撫卹金。

閱讀抱怨和附件.

2005年，黛佈在麻薩諸塞州與羅德島州職業懲教官帕特結婚。帕特被診斷出患有肺癌四期，並於2011年8月去世。在生命的最後幾個月裡，她一直在羅德島州積極遊說爭取婚姻平權，並努力確保黛布的經濟安全。但社會安全局（SSA）一再拒絕向黛布發放遺屬撫卹金，導致她三年多來幾乎沒有收入。

儘管黛布與帕特的婚姻合法，但社會安全局最初在2012年援引《婚姻保護法》（DOMA）拒絕向黛布發放殘疾寡婦撫卹金和一筆一次性死亡撫卹金。黛布對此拒絕提出上訴期間，每月僅靠$723的殘障收入過活。她被迫賣掉了居住了38年的房子，從此一貧如洗，只能靠親朋好友過活。

2013 年 6 月，在《捍衛婚姻法案》被美國最高法院推翻後，社會安全法協會繼續駁回黛布的上訴，聲稱羅德島州在帕特去世時不會承認黛布和帕特的婚姻。

代表黛布提起的訴訟聲稱，2011 年帕特去世時，羅德島州將承認帕特和黛布的婚姻有效。

「我們毫不懷疑，羅德島州在2011年帕特去世時會承認帕特和黛布的婚姻關係有效，而社會安全局對法律的解讀完全是錯誤的。」——高級律師詹森·吳

有關 Deb 和 Pat 的故事的更多資訊：

派翠西亞·貝克和黛博拉·特維亞在羅德島州參議院委員會作證支持婚姻平權 (德撒律新聞)

科特訴沃爾瑪

家 » 國家/聯邦 » Page 51

2017 年 5 月 15 日，一名聯邦法官批准了沃爾瑪和前沃爾瑪員工 Jacqueline Cote 之間 $ 750 萬美元的集體訴訟和解，該和解質疑沃爾瑪在 2014 年之前沒有為沃爾瑪員工的同性配偶提供健康保險福利。 閱讀更多.

同性戀者反歧視聯盟 (GLAD) 和華盛頓律師委員會聯合律師、Outten & Golden LLP 律師事務所的 Peter Romer-Friedman 對沃爾瑪提起集體訴訟，指控該零售商歧視與同性配偶結婚的員工，拒絕為其配偶提供健康保險福利。

2016 年 12 月 22 日，審理集體訴訟的地區法院初步批准了和解協議，並指示各方向和解集體成員發出通知，以便他們了解和解協議並有機會提交索賠以獲得賠付。

已於 2017 年 1 月 23 日向班級成員發出通知。閱讀更多

為了根據和解協議獲得付款，和解集體成員必須不遲於 2017 年 3 月 20 日向和解管理員提出索賠。

這起集體訴訟源自於GLAD於2014年9月代表Jackie向平等就業機會委員會（EEOC）提交的一份申訴。 2014年1月29日，EEOC發布最終裁定，認定沃爾瑪對Jackie的待遇構成非法性別歧視。 2015年5月29日，EEOC發出了一封訴權信。

除了 GLAD、Outten & Golden LLP 和華盛頓律師委員會之外，Jacqueline Cote 的律師代理機構還有 Arnold and Porter LLP。

黛安娜·史密森和傑奎琳·科特。圖片：777 Portraits 默特爾比奇，南卡羅來納州下載照片

訊息

家 » 國家/聯邦 » Page 51

約翰「Longjones」阿卜杜拉·瓦姆貝雷 (John “Longjones” Abdallah Wambere) 是一位著名的烏幹達同性戀活動家，從業已超過 17 年，他已獲準前往美國尋求庇護。在 2014 年 9 月 11 日的一封信中，美國公民及移民服務局通知 Wambere，他的申請建議批准，但需進行例行安全檢查。

「我不知所措，」瓦姆貝雷說。「我必須說我很幸運，但還有很多故事可以分享。我呼籲所有幫助過我的人繼續支持世界各地的LGBTI群體以及所有在美國尋求庇護的人們。我的心與烏幹達同在；我夜不能寐，因為我擔心著那裡的社區。”

近年來，烏幹達的LGBTI群體遭受日益升級的公眾、政治和人身攻擊，最終導致《反同性戀法案》的通過，並於2014年2月24日由總統約韋裡·穆塞韋尼簽署生效。身為「光譜烏幹達倡議」的共同創辦人，瓦姆貝雷自2月起一直居住在美國，並於2014年5月6日申請庇護。

同性戀者反歧視聯盟律師艾莉森·賴特表示：“我們很高興約翰能夠在美國繼續代表烏幹達 LGBTI 群體開展重要工作，他將不再因其性取向和大膽的行動主義而遭到逮捕和監禁。”

「美國必須繼續向來自世界各地的LGBTI人士提供庇護，他們在原籍國無法享受最基本的自由，他們的生命僅僅因為他們的身份而受到威脅，」同性戀者反歧視聯盟高級律師Janson Wu表示。「庇護是一個拯救生命的製度，它保護著那些被迫逃離烏幹達、俄羅斯和牙買加等地的LGBTI群體中的弱勢群體，因為在這些地方，外出根本不安全。”

John “Long Jones” Abdallah Wambere 與 GLAD 律師 Janson Wu 和 Allison Wright，
和律師 Hema Sarang-Sieminksi

反同性戀法將一系列罪行定為犯罪，並處以從7年監禁到終身監禁不等的嚴厲懲罰。該法後來因技術原因被烏幹達憲法法院駁回，但立法者誓言將重新引入並通過該法。無論立法者是否履行承諾，根據《刑法典》第145條，同性戀在烏幹達仍然是非法的。《刑法典》第145條將「非自然犯罪」定為犯罪，自1950年代起就已存在，至今仍在烏幹達嚴格執行。

在烏幹達，瓦姆貝雷被報社揭露是同性戀，遭到陌生人騷擾，收到匿名電話的死亡威脅，被逮捕，被趕出家門，還遭到毆打。根據《反同性戀法》，他將面臨終身監禁，如果他返回烏幹達，根據《刑法》第145條，他仍然面臨被捕的威脅。

Wambere 申請庇護時提交的國家狀況報告可在以下網址閱讀： www.gladlaw.org/work/cases/in-re-wambere，以及他的刪節版宣誓書。

烏幹達的反同性戀情緒受到了斯科特·萊弗利等美國福音派人士的推波助瀾。萊弗利曾前往烏幹達宣講並推廣當時被稱為「殺死同性戀」的法案，因為該法案中包含了死刑，但後來死刑被廢除。 2014年8月15日，一名聯邦法官就此案作出了裁決。 烏幹達性少數群體訴萊夫利案 萊弗利必須因反人類罪接受審判。

LGBTI 人士在美國尋求庇護的資源可以透過聯繫以下機構取得： www.GLADAnswers.org.

除了 GLAD 之外，John Wambere 的代理律師還包括 Hema Sarang-Sieminski 律師事務所的 Hema Sarang-Sieminski。

GLAD’s National Marriage Work

家 » 國家/聯邦 » Page 51

Taking Marriage Over the Finish Line

GLAD Civil Rights Project Director Mary L. Bonauto argued before the U.S. Supreme Court April 28, 2015 on behalf of same-sex couples challenging their states’ marriage bans. She stood on behalf of petitioners April DeBoer 和 Jayne Rowse 在密西根州的案件中 德波爾訴斯奈德案 and Timothy Love, Lawrence Ysunza, Maurice Blanchard and Dominique James in the Kentucky case 洛夫訴貝希爾案 （加入 伯克訴貝希爾案) and same-sex couples across the country.

2015年6月26日：勝利！ In a blockbuster legal and cultural moment for the country, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples in the United States, no matter where they live, have the same legal right to marry as different-sex couples. 閱讀更多

Background: GLAD’s work for marriage in New England and beyond

GLAD won the first marriage state in Massachusetts in 2003 with our 古德里奇 case, and took part in winning every New England state by every conceivable method – ballot, legislation，和 litigation. We laid the groundwork for the defeat of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in our cases 鰓和 佩德森.

We developed unparalleled expertise in winning marriage, and helped our colleagues across the nation do the same. Since the Supreme Court struck down DOMA in June 2013 (溫莎), GLAD has remained steadfast in its commitment to ending marriage discrimination nationwide.

AMICUS WORK

GLAD also helped movement colleagues and private attorneys with their amicus strategies:

GLAD wrote an 法庭之友 brief at the request of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights and the ACLU on behalf of New Mexico civil rights groups in the case Griego v. Oliver in the New Mexico Supreme Court in September 2013.
GLAD led coordination of the 法庭之友 內褲第十巡迴上訴法院 after trial court wins in Utah and Oklahoma. GLAD’s work in the 10th Circuit, the first federal appeals court to hear marriage cases post-溫莎, has streamlined the process for 法庭之友 filings in all of the other cases pending at a U.S. Court of Appeals.
GLAD has also played an extensive role in coordinating 朋友 filings in the 4th (Virginia, Bostic v. Shaefer), 5th (Texas, DeLeon v. Perry), 6th (Michigan, DeBoer v. Snyder; Ohio, Obergefell v. Himes, Henry v. Himes; Tennessee, Tanco訴Haslam; Kentucky, 伯克訴貝希爾案) and 11th (Florida, Grimsley v. Scott 和 Brenner v. Armstrong) circuits.

GLAD’s Own Amici 內褲

In virtually every federal appeal, GLAD filed its own 法庭之友 brief discussing “rational basis review.”

These briefs reinforce the government’s guarantee of equal protection and its promise of even-handedness when the rights of persons are at stake. We set forth the two elements of rational basis review:

the government’s actions in classifying who can and cannot marry must be for “legitimate” reasons rather than because of stereotypes, prejudice or favoritism; and
the classification system – who is in and who is out – must have a relationship to the government’s claimed objectives.

Under these standards, GLAD’s briefs demolish each rationale advanced by the states defending their marriage bans and the 法庭之友 briefs supporting the state’s positions.

GLAD’s briefs were authored with Wilmer Hale attorneys Paul Wolfson, Mark Fleming, Alan Schoenfeld, Felicia Ellsworth and Dina Mishra.

See our briefs in the 10th Circuit (基欽訴赫伯特案); the 4th Circuit (Bostic v. Shaefer); the 6th Circuit ) Obergefell v. Himes, Henry v. Himes, 德波爾訴斯奈德案, 伯克訴貝希爾案, Tanco訴Haslam); the 7th Circuit (Baskin v. Bogan); and the 5th Circuit (DeLeon v. Perry).
CONSULTING

GLAD consulted with attorneys around the nation about legal arguments and strategy in marriage and marriage recognition cases in both state and federal courts.

For example, we were on the ground when the Michigan case 德波爾訴斯奈德案 went to trial, identifying and prepping expert witnesses and providing trial support to the legal team of private attorneys (Carole Stanyar, Kenneth Mogill, Dana Nessel and Robert Sedler).

這 judge found in favor of the couple, and the case was then heard on appeal (on August 6, 2014) at the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently issued a decision upholding bans on marriage for same-sex couples in Michigan as well as Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. The Supreme Court has now agreed to review all four cases this Term.

訊息

家 » 國家/聯邦 » Page 51

In a letter to Congress on September 4, 2013, Attorney General Eric Holder 宣告 that President Obama has directed the Executive Branc to take steps allowing for same-sex spouses of military veterans to collect federal benefits.

The Attorney General’s letter to Congress can be found 這裡.

訊息

家 » 國家/聯邦 » Page 51

猶他州婚姻平權原告請求美國最高法院複審此案

2014年9月4日更新： 三種不同的聲音——企業、國家、家庭和平等團體的聲音—— 已提交 法庭之友 內褲 基欽訴赫伯特案 案件。辯護狀稱，最高法院應該受理一個或多個案件，以解決婚姻禁令造成的傷害和歧視。

本事：

今天，三對挑戰猶他州禁止同性婚姻禁令的夫婦請求美國最高法院接受猶他州官員的複審此案的請求。在今天提交的簡報中原告認為，最高法院審查是必要的，因為猶他州乃至全美各地的同性伴侶迫切需要婚姻的保障，無論他們在哪裡工作或旅行，都能充分保護自己和家人。該案的辯護狀指出，只有最高法院的裁決確認同性伴侶的結婚權利，並使其婚姻在全國範圍內得到尊重，才能解決這一根本性的不平等。

原告夫婦——科迪·帕特里奇和勞裡·伍德、德里克·基欽和穆迪·斯貝蒂以及凱特·卡爾和凱倫·阿徹——認為，禁止婚姻平等的州法律違反了美國憲法所保障的平等保護和正當程序。這些夫婦在下級聯邦法院贏得了有利判決，並請求最高法院複審此案，因為同性婚姻只有在全國範圍內得到尊重才能真正實現平等。

這對夫婦在請求中表示：「本案事關全體美國人的自由，他們迫切需要本法院作出裁決，允許他們結婚，並使其婚姻獲得與其他公民同等的承認。過去一年，全國各地的下級法院正確地認識到，禁止同性伴侶結婚的州法律違反了憲法。

案件中的夫婦——基欽訴赫伯特案——其代表律師包括鹽湖城 Magleby & Greenwood, PC 律師事務所的首席律師 Peggy Tomsic、全國女同性戀權利中心 (NCLR) 的 Shannon Minter、男女同性戀倡導與捍衛者 (GLAD) 的 Mary Bonauto 以及 Hogan Lovells 律師事務所的前代理總檢察長 Neal Katyal。

訊息

家 » 國家/聯邦 » Page 51

GLAD Civil Rights Project Director Mary Bonauto and Legal Director Gary Buseck have joined colleagues at the 全國女同性戀權利中心（NCLR） and Utah attorney Peggy Tomsic as counsel in their historic federal case representing same-sex couples seeking the freedom to marry in Utah.

Thanks to the 基欽訴赫伯特案 legal team’s adept strategy and tireless advocacy, the Utah case was the first federal district court victory striking down a state marriage ban since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down DOMA. It was also the first victory in a federal court of appeals.

And, it is now the first post-DOMA freedom to marry case that the U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to review.

“We are thrilled to work with our friends and colleagues at NCLR on this important case,” says Buseck. “GLAD has a long history of collaborating with NCLR, and we have enormous respect for their legal acumen and determination.”

Among countless other legal victories on behalf of the LGBT community, NCLR played a leading role in making California the second state in the country to win the freedom to marry, in 2008. Legal Director Shannon Minter argued the case in the California Supreme Court, which ruled that the California Constitution guarantees equal dignity to same-sex couples and their families, including the freedom to marry.

“We are also thrilled to be working shoulder to shoulder with lead counsel Peggy Tomsic of the Salt Lake City law firm of Magleby & Greenwood, P.C. who first filed and has so strategically handled this case,” Buseck adds.” Likewise, we are excited about working with the committed Supreme Court experts at the D.C. firm of 霍金路偉律師事務所.”

“The Kitchen team offers unparalleled experience and knowledge as the case heads to the Supreme Court for consideration. We hope to use what we’ve learned in our work for the freedom to marry across New England, and as part of the decades-long team effort to develop a national marriage strategy, to bring value to the Utah case and help bring marriage equality to every American.”

Want to Support This Work?

Your gift today will support GLAD’s work on this historic marriage case, and all our work for equal justice under law for the LGBT community and people living with HIV. Thank you!

訊息

家 » 國家/聯邦 » Page 51

Every day we hear about LGBT people who are not treated equally on the job. We agree with the President that workers should be judged only by their ability to get the job done, but know that is not always the reality.

We applaud today’s executive order, which demonstrates a concrete commitment to nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It’s a step that will make the workplace better and fairer for LGBT employees, including the tens of thousands of federal employees in the New England states.

We are proud that New England has been a leader in establishing protections on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation and that, in the absence of broad federal protections, this executive order extends important protections for LGBT employees who work for federal contractors.

LGBT employees of the federal government or of federal contractors can contact GLADAnswers for information about their rights in the workplace, and to access information and resources: www.GLADAnswers.org.