TN schools allow LGBT sites

After an ACLU lawsuit, TN schools fix a “glitch” that blocked LGBT websites but not homophobic ones.

Wisconsin Trial Court Dismisses ACLU Lawsuit Seeking Domestic Partner Benefits For Lesbian and Gay State Employees

But Issues Lengthy Decision Reasoning That It Is Unconstitutional For the State To Deny The Benefits

MADISON, WI – On Friday, a Wisconsin trial court dismissed a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of lesbian state employees and their partners seeking domestic partner health insurance and family leave protections. In a 46 page opinion, the court notes that although it believes it is unconstitutional for the state to continue to deny the employees equal health insurance coverage and family leave protection, it is bound by a prior decision from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals from 1992.
The Court’s opinion states: “The plaintiffs have offered a strong showing that the employment benefits in issue have been provided on a discriminatory basis. The defendants’ explanations offered for the continuing discrimination against these plaintiffs are unpersuasive and inadequate.”
“Losing doesn’t get any better than this,” said Larry Dupuis, Litigation Director of the ACLU. “We knew we had an uphill battle in the trial court because of the earlier case. But the court agreed with us that discrimination based on sexual orientation should be subject to strict judicial review and that it is unconstitutional for the state to deny equal benefits.”
The Court also found that providing the benefits would not be barred by the anti-gay marriage amendment that passed in 2006. After the amendment passed, the state had argued that the amendment barred the state from providing the benefits.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit in April 2005 on behalf of six lesbian state employees and their partners. The lawsuit charges that it is a violation of the state’s equal protection guarantees to deny lesbian and gay state employees access to the same health insurance and family leave protections that it provides to straight employees who are able to cover their spouses. The lawsuit was stalled for years because a number of Wisconsin municipalities tried to inject themselves into the lawsuit. The issue ultimately went up to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which ruled that they were not entitled to become a party to the litigation.

Governor Jim Doyle has repeatedly stated that he would like to provide lesbian and gay state employees with equal health insurance coverage and included in his budget proposal a provision for domestic partner coverage.

“While we are heartened by the court’s decision, we urge the legislature to pass the domestic partner bill so there will be no need to appeal,” added Chris Ahmuty, Executive Director of the ACLU of Wisconsin. “Our clients are forced to pay expensive prices for inferior health coverage and sometimes even to forego necessary care. They suffer every day this issue goes unresolved.”

Wisconsin Department of Corrections employee Jayne Dunnum and her partner, Robin Timm, pay nearly $450 a month for private insurance for Timm who works on the couple’s organic farm and food store in Platteville. “We don’t care if it happens through the courts or the legislature. We just really need the health insurance coverage,” said Dunnum. “It’s a matter of basic fairness. I work just as hard has my straight colleagues and shouldn’t be denied the equal employment benefits.”

The case is Dunnum v. Department of Employee Trust Funds. The couples are represented by John Knight and Rose Saxe of the ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project, Larry Dupuis of the ACLU of Wisconsin, and cooperating attorneys Linda Roberson and Christopher Krimmer of the Madison law firm Balisle & Roberson.
Biographical information for all of the couples, today’s decision, the complaint, and additional information are available at http://www.aclu.org/getequal/caseprofiles.htm.

Published by

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/wisconsin-tri…

California School Bans Sixth I Presentation on Harvey Milk

California School Bans Sixth
Grader’s Presentation on Harvey MilkFaces Possible
ACLU Lawsuit For Violation Of State Education Code

RAMONA, CA – Wrongly citing a school policy on sex education, a
California
school illegally censored a sixth grader’s classroom presentation about Harvey
Milk earlier this month. According
to a demand letter sent by the American Civil Liberties Union to the
Ramona Unified School
District today, the school violated Natalie Jones’s
free speech rights when it refused to allow her to give the presentation in
class. Instead, the school
improperly required classmates to get parental permission to see the
presentation during a lunch recess.

“This whole thing is unbelievable –
first my daughter got called into the principal’s office as if she were in some
kind of trouble, and then they treated her presentation like it was something
icky,” said Bonnie Jones, mother of the Mt. Woodson Elementary School
student. “Harvey Milk was an
elected official in this state and an important person in history. To
say my daughter’s presentation is
‘sex education’ because Harvey Milk happened to be gay is completely
wrong.”

The assignment, part of an
independent research project class, was originally to prepare a written report
on any topic. Natalie Jones, who
was inspired to write about Harvey Milk after watching Sean Penn win an Academy
Award for portraying him, got a score of 49 out of a possible 50 points on the
written report. Students were then
told to make PowerPoint presentations about their reports, which they
would show
to other students in the class. The
day before Natalie was to give her 12-page presentation she was called into the
principal’s office and told she couldn’t do so.

When Bonnie Jones spoke with the
superintendent about the presentation, he said Natalie couldn’t give her
presentation because of a district board policy on “Family Life/Sex
Education.” A few days later, the
school sent letters to parents of students in the class, explaining that her
presentation would be held during a lunch recess on May 8, and that students
could only attend if they had parental permission.

“The principal and superintendent
grossly misinterpreted school policy.
They illegally censored student speech protected by the First Amendment
and the California Education Code,” said David
Blair-Loy, Legal Director of the ACLU of San Diego and
Imperial
Counties. “Writing or talking about a gay
historical figure who advocated for equal rights for LGBT Californians is in no
way the same thing as talking about sex, and school officials should
not pretend
otherwise.”

The Ramona Unified School
District policy on “Family Life/Sex
Education” reads in part:

“(P)arents/guardians shall be
notified in writing about any instruction in which human reproductive
organs and
their functions, processes, or sexually transmitted diseases are described,
illustrated, or discussed. In
addition, before any instruction on family life, human sexuality, AIDS or
sexually transmitted diseases is given, the parent/guardian shall be provided
with written notice explaining that the instruction will be
given…”

“Schools that act as if any mention
of the existence of gay people is something too controversial or ‘sensitive’ to
discuss are doing a disservice to their students,” said Elizabeth
Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s
national LGBT Project. “This school
completely overstepped its bounds in trying to silence Natalie Jones
by shunting
her presentation off to a lunch recess time and misusing a school policy to
justify requiring parental permission to see it.”

In today’s letter, the ACLU is
demanding that the school:

·
Apologize in writing to Natalie
Jones and send a letter about that apology to all the parents who were sent the
principal’s letter about the presentation
·
Give
Natalie Jones an opportunity to give her presentation to all the other members
of her independent research project class
·
Clarify
in writing that the parental notification and permission portion of the “Family
Life/Sex Education” policy only applies to the curricula identified as “course
content” for “Family Life/Sex Education instruction”

The ACLU is giving the district
five days to respond or it may file a lawsuit on Bonnie and Natalie Jones’s
behalf.

Harvey Milk, one of Time Magazine’s “Time 100 Heroes and
Icons of the 20th Century” in 1999, has been the subject of several books, an
opera, a documentary film that won the 1984 Academy Award for Documentary
Feature, and a feature film released last year that won two Academy Awards for
Best Original Screenplay and Best Actor.
Milk’s birthday, the subject of a bill pending in the California legislature
that would make it a state holiday, is this Friday.

For additional information,
including copies of Natalie Jones’s presentation on Harvey Milk, the school’s
letter to parents, and the Ramona U.S.D. “Family Life/Sex Education” policy,
visit http://www.aclu.org/Milk.

Published by

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/california-sc…

ACLU Lawsuit Charges U.S. Department of State Discriminated Against Former Veteran Because He Has HIV

WASHINGTON – The U.S. State Department and its contractor Triple Canopy, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, are denying responsibility for refusing a job to a decorated Special Forces veteran because he has HIV. The veteran, who is represented in a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union, was denied a security job with Triple Canopy under its contract to protect the U.S. Embassy in Haiti for the State Department. A motion filed by Triple Canopy late Friday confirms that the State Department contract required a negative HIV test for all employees. The ACLU charges that this requirement violates the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans for Disabilities Act.

“After putting my life on the line for my country for more than 20 years, I can’t believe my government is saying that I’m unworthy to work because I have HIV,” said John Doe (who is going by a pseudonym to protect himself and his family from further discrimination). “I need this job to support my family. I’m in good health, well qualified and eager to serve.”

In October 2005, Doe applied, and was accepted, to work for Triple Canopy to provide personal security for the U.S. embassy in Haiti. On November 9, 2005, the day before graduating from the training program, a director for the company told him he was being let go because the State Department would not allow workers with HIV to be deployed oversees.

According to the motion filed by Triple Canopy on Friday, the “Worldwide Personal Protective Services Contract,” which the State Department used to hire contractors to fulfill U.S. security needs around the globe, required that all personnel working under the contract produce a “[v]alid negative HIV result within six (6) months of report date to FDC [Forward Deployment Center].” The contract also lists “suggested physical standards,” which include a requirement that all contractor personnel be “free from communicable disease.” Yet, in its own answer to the lawsuit, the State Department claims that its contract with Triple Canopy doesn’t bar people with HIV from employment.

“It is bad enough that people with HIV continue to face discrimination because of fear and lack of understanding about how HIV is transmitted,” said Rose Saxe of the ACLU AIDS Project. “But it is especially troublesome when a government contract is at the root of that discrimination. We need the courts to make it clear to the government and its contractors that they cannot discriminate against qualified people because they have HIV.”

Triple Canopy is also claiming that it was justified in denying Doe the job because he posed a risk to others because he has HIV. “As we have known for years, people with HIV can safely work in jobs like law enforcement and security,” said Saxe. “There was no reason Doe could not have done the job.”

Doe, who was diagnosed with HIV in 2000, served his country for 20 years until his retirement from the Army in September 2001. From 2004 to 2005, he worked for Defense Department contractors in Iraq, where he led security teams on military bases. In each of these jobs, the government was aware that Doe had HIV, and had no problem with him performing the jobs in war zones in Iraq.

Like many people with HIV, Doe remains healthy with an undetectable viral load. Doe is currently working in construction, earning much less than his promised salary with Triple Canopy, and making it difficult for his family to make ends meet.

After being terminated by Triple Canopy, Doe filed a charge with the E.E.O.C. against the company. After conducting an investigation into the firing, the E.E.O.C. issued a Right to Sue letter, finding there was “reasonable cause” to believe that Triple Canopy had illegally fired Doe in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

This case is the latest in a string of challenges against the U.S. government for discrimination against people with HIV in the workplace. In July 2008, the ACLU, advocating on behalf of a volunteer, persuaded the Peace Corps to eliminate its policy of automatically barring volunteers with HIV. In February 2008, the State Department settled a lawsuit brought by Lambda Legal on behalf of a Foreign Service Worker for HIV discrimination and agreed to eliminate its policy of automatically excluding workers with HIV.