Uganda gays win suit against paper
A paper that published names, photos, and addresses of gays will have to pay damages.
Culhane: Pawlenty throws gays under the bus
OK, maybe it’s just because I’ve taught Torts for so long, but an apparently minor development out of Minnesota really has me irked.
First, consider these two stories:
(1) A California woman is mauled to death by vicious dogs, under circumstances so horrific that the owner is convicted of second-degree murder. Her surviving same-sex partner sues under the state’s wrongful death law. Under a strict reading of the statute, she would lose because she doesn’t have “standing” to sue – unlike the deceased woman’s mother, who does have such standing, even though her actual financial and emotional losses are much less. Yet the court allows the claim to proceed anyway, and she collects a large settlement.
(2) A New York couple enters into a civil union in Vermont. Later, one of the men dies because of alleged medical malpractice. Instead of contesting the merits of the suit, the hospital moves to dismiss the claim because the surviving “spouse” isn’t a spouse at all – the civil union doesn’t count. A trial judge allows the case to proceed, but the appellate court holds that the case should have been dismissed.
Since those cases were decided, the laws in both New York and California have been changed to allow “registered” same-sex couples to bring their claims – not necessarily to recover, simply to have the right to try to establish their losses.
These developments had no effect on Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, who has just vetoed a bill that would have given surviving members of same-sex couples the right to make decisions about the remains of their partners and the right to sue in wrongful death for negligent acts that resulted in their partners’ demise.
When Pawlenty gave as the reason for his veto that the law was unnecessary because same-sex couples can protect themselves by executing living wills, he was flat wrong – at least as to the wrongful death part of the law.
Some quick background on wrongful death law (more than you’d probably ever want to know): These state laws are designed to provide the survivor with what he or she would have been expected to receive from the deceased: In most states, including Minnesota, damages can include some of the income that the deceased would have been expected to earn (whatever the survivor could have been expected to receive), as well as the loss of emotional support and companionship.
So what’s the problem for same-sex couples? Unlike most of tort law, suits for wrongful death are based not on judge-made (common) law, but on statutes that clearly define who’s eligible to recover. And most of the statutes continue to restrict recovery to certain named classes of survivors: In Minnesota, which is fairly typical in this regard, that’s limited to spouses and “next of kin.”
So why and how did judges in California and New York hold to the contrary? By looking to the purpose of the law, which is to compensate based on real loss, and to make sure that bad conduct is deterred. Since the strict categorical requirements of wrongful death laws frustrate those purposes, judges are tempted to “get creative.”
Given the purposes of the law and what the California judge called the “insurmountable obstacle” that gay and lesbian couples face in these cases – you can’t contract around a statute – why the veto?
Here’s a thought: Pawlenty wants to be President, and has to burnish his social conservative credentials first. So everything becomes a threat, suddenly, to “traditional marriage” – however tangential the message on marriage, and however real the costs to actual people.
Here are a few questions I’d like to ask Gov. Pawlenty.. I’m going to send them to his office (unless a reader living in Minnesota would like to!), but I don’t expect an answer.
“Governor, under the law as it now stands, a murderer would owe nothing to the surviving member of a same-sex couple, even if the deceased provided most of the support for that survivor. Can you explain and justify the policy that permits this result?”
“The result of these statutes is so unfair that judges in other states have ignored their language and looked to the purpose of the law in allowing these claims. Why not simply amend the law to better reflect the compensatory and deterrent purposes of wrongful death law?
“What advice would you give to same-sex couples to protect themselves against this result?
“If the same-sex couple had adopted a child, that child’s future prospects could be negatively and even dramatically affected by her surviving parent’s inability to recover for wrongful death. Why should that child be differently affected than the child of an otherwise identical opposite-sex couple?
“You described the law as “divisive.” Can you explain why this law is any more divisive than the one you signed last year, that prevented jointly owned homes from being sold to pay medical bills when one partner dies?”
Politicians in the Pawlenty mode continue to throw us under both the express and the local bus: Marriage and the puny but necessary baby steps that are necessitated by intransigence on full equality. We must hold him accountable, now and if he seeks the Presidency.
John Culhane is Professor of Law and Director of the Health Law Institute at Widener University School of Law in Wilmington, Delaware. He blogs about the role of law in everyday life, and about a bunch of other things (LGBT rights, public health, sports, pop culture, music philosophy and lots of personal stuff) at: http://wordinedgewise.org. A fuller bio can be found here. He can be reached via email at: johnculhane@comcast.net.
Palestinian files $110M libel suit over ‘Bruno’
(Washington) A Palestinian shopkeeper and father portrayed as a terrorist in the movie “Bruno” is suing film star Sacha Baron Cohen, David Letterman and others for libel and slander.
The lawsuit filed last week by Ayman Abu Aita in District of Columbia federal court seeks $110 million in damages.
In the movie, …
DOJ Will Not Appeal Veteran’s VictoryIn Transgender Discrimination Case
Signals Commitment By Obama Administration To Protect Transgender Workers From Discrimination
WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Department of Justice decided not to appeal a federal court ruling awarding transgender veteran Diane Schroer the maximum compensation for the discrimination she suffered after being refused a job with the Library of Congress. The deadline for seeking an appeal was June 30. The American Civil Liberties Union has represented Schroer in her case.
The Obama administration’s decision whether to appeal the final ruling in the case has been closely watched in part because the Bush administration defended the case so vigorously, arguing that transgender Americans are not protected by any existing federal laws. The decision not to appeal the verdict is consistent with the Obama administration’s campaign promises to protect transgender workers against discrimination and his administration’s recent order taking steps to bar gender identity discrimination in federal employment.
“I am grateful that the court took the time to examine the case in detail and come to a fair and unbiased decision. In that same light, I am gratified that the current administration saw this for what it was, a case of sex discrimination focused against transgender people, and recognized that it must end in this country,” said Schroer, an Army Special Forces veteran with 25 years service. “The important signal that the administration’s decision sends to all LGBT individuals gives me renewed hope and restores some of my shaken faith in what our country stands for.”
On April 29, 2009, a federal court awarded Schroer maximum damages of $491,190 for back pay, other financial losses and emotional pain and suffering after finding the Library illegally discriminated against Schroer because of her sex. At trial, Schroer testified that she had applied for a position with the Library of Congress as the senior terrorism research analyst and was offered the job. Prior to starting work, she took her future boss to lunch to explain that she was in the process of transitioning and wished to start work presenting as female. The following day, Schroer received a call from her future boss rescinding the offer, telling her that she wasn’t a “good fit” for the Library of Congress.
“We are pleased and relieved that the Obama administration has decided to bring an end not only to years of hard-fought litigation but also to a painful chapter of Ms. Schroer’s extraordinary life,” said Sharon McGowan, a staff attorney with the ACLU LGBT Project. “The administration’s decision not to challenge this important civil rights ruling is a welcome sign that it intends to live up to its commitment to help end transgender discrimination in the workplace.”
The ACLU filed the lawsuit against the Library of Congress on June 2, 2005, charging that the library unlawfully refused to hire Schroer in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace. In an earlier ruling in this case, the court issued a groundbreaking opinion that discriminating against someone who transitions from living as one gender to another is sex discrimination under federal law. In reaching this decision, the court compared the discrimination faced by Schroer to religious-based discrimination, saying, “Imagine that an employee is fired because she converts from Christianity to Judaism. Imagine too that her employer testified that he harbors no bias toward either Christians or Jews but only ‘converts.’ That would be a clear case of discrimination ‘because of religion.’ No court would take seriously the notion that ‘converts’ are not covered by the statute.” The court also ruled that the library was guilty of sex stereotyping against Schroer because of its view that she failed to live up to traditional notions of what is male or female.
“This case put employers on notice that discrimination against transgender individuals is like any other form of discrimination – counterproductive and against our principles as a nation,” added Schroer. “But this case alone won’t end the rampant discrimination that transgender people face throughout the country. That’s why we need Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that was introduced last week.”
In addition to McGowan, the legal team consisted of Ken Choe, Senior Staff Attorney for the ACLU LGBT Project, James Esseks, Litigation Director for the ACLU LGBT Project and Arthur Spitzer, Legal Director of the ACLU of the Nation’s Capital.
A copy of the decision, the complaint, a video, a bio and photographs of Diane Schroer are available at: http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/transgender/24969res20050602.html
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/doj-will-not-…
Christian group sues for right to burn gay teen novel
n a scene which appears to have been lifted straight out of Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, a group of Christians in Wisconsin has launched a legal claim demanding the right to publicly burn a copy of a book for teenagers which they deem to be “explicitly vulgar, racial [sic], and anti-Christian”.
The offending book is Francesca Lia Block’s Baby Be-Bop, a young adult novel in which a boy, struggling with his homosexuality, is beaten up by a homophobic gang. The complaint, which according to the American Library Association also demands $120,000 (£72,000) in compensatory damages for being exposed to the book in a display at West Bend Community Memorial Library, was lodged by four men from the Christian Civil Liberties Union.
Their suit says that “the plaintiffs, all of whom are elderly, claim their mental and emotional well-being was damaged by this book at the library,” and that it contains derogatory language that could “put one’s life in possible jeopardy, adults and children alike.”
“The word ‘faggot’ is very derogatory and slanderous to all males,” the suit continues. “Using the word ‘Nigger’ is dangerously offensive, disrespectful to all people. These words can permeate violence.” The suit also claims that the book “constitutes a hate crime, and that it degrades the community”.
“They’ve filed a claim against the city of West Bend and the city has to decide if it is valid,” said Deborah Caldwell-Stone, acting director of the ALA’s office for intellectual freedom. “Their insurance company is evaluating the claim, but I would be very surprised if they found any merit in it … Should they find any merit in this claim, we would certainly support the library in fighting it.”
The legal challenge follows a lengthy campaign by some West Bend residents to restrict access to teenage books they deemed sexually explicit from library shelves, which was eventually thrown out at the start of June.
“Obviously we were really pleased with the outcome to that – there was a unanimous vote to keep the books in the library and we thought the matter should be over,” said Larry Siems, director of the Freedom to Write programme at PEN America.
Siems said there was clearly “a bit of theatre” in the lawsuit which followed. “They’ve filed a lawsuit which has little possibility of going forward legally, and they’re asking for damages which include the right to burn a book. It does seem more to gain publicity than a real serious challenge.” But, he said, PEN remained very concerned about the impulse behind the claim. “This is a group of people trying aggressively to rid the library of these books and that’s very serious – it needs to be fought.”
The claimants, he said, “have a right to continue to express their views, and this in a way is a creative attempt to express those views”. But it’s “also a dangerous game when you’re talking about something like book burning, calling on the law to burn books. It’s certainly completely un-American, and if they paused, I think they would agree.”
It was not possible to reach the Christian Civil Liberties Union for comment.
See Christian group sues for right to burn gay teen novel guardian.co.uk
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/christian-gro…
Unanimous California Supreme Court Rejects Attempt to Limit Discrimination Claims by People with Disabilities
‘The Court’s decision furthers the Unruh Act’s purpose to eradicate arbitrary and invidious discrimination from California’s business establishments.’
(San Francisco, June 11, 2009) — Today the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act does not impose extra legal hurdles for people with disabilities, including people living with HIV who seek damages for discrimination.
Statement from Tara Borelli, Staff Attorney at Lambda Legal and a principal author of the friend-of-the court brief Lambda Legal submitted urging today’s legal result in Munson v. Del Taco:
“The Court rightly rejected efforts to misread the Unruh Civil Rights Act to impose extra legal hurdles which would have harmed all disabled Californians who face discrimination in public accommodations, including those living with HIV.
“Real, reliable change for people with disabilities has been painfully slow in coming but the high court’s decision today promises greater fairness in California. The Court’s decision furthers the Unruh Act’s purpose to eradicate arbitrary and invidious discrimination from California’s business establishments.
“Though this case does not directly involve people living with HIV, the application of this decision will be helpful to all people living with disabilities who encounter discrimination, which includes many Californians living with HIV.”
Background on Munson v. Del Taco:
Kenneth Munson, a wheelchair user, filed suit against Del Taco, Inc. alleging violations of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Act. Munson’s suit is based on claims arising from visits he made to one Del Taco restaurant, where he encountered architectural barriers to his use of the parking lot and restroom.
Background on Unruh Civil Rights Act:
California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act requires that public accommodations — businesses such as restaurants, rental housing, and doctors’ offices — are open to everyone, without arbitrary discrimination based on disability (including HIV), sex (including gender identity), sexual orientation, marital status, race or several other personal characteristics. Similarly, the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) forbids denying disabled people equal access to public places. In 1992, California revised the Unruh Act to better protect disabled Californians from discrimination by saying that a plaintiff who proves an ADA violation has also proven a state law violation.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/unanimous-cal…
Lambda Legal Files Federal Lawsuit Against Assisted Living Facility Following Eviction of HIV-Positive Retired Minister
‘They shunned and rejected him, making him feel like a complete outcast.’
(Little Rock, Ark.) — Lambda Legal announced today that it has filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas against Fox Ridge of North Little Rock, an assisted living facility.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of 75-year-old Reverend Dr. Robert Franke, a retired university provost and Unitarian-Universalist minister, and his daughter, Sara Franke Bowling.
Dr. Franke, who relocated to Little Rock to be closer to his daughter, moved in to Fox Ridge after fulfilling all of its residency requirements — including submission of medical evaluation forms from a local physician. The next day, however — after realizing Dr. Franke is HIV-positive —Fox Ridge officials abruptly ejected Dr. Franke from the facility. A Fox Ridge staffer told Bowling her father’s personal belongings could remain, but that the “body” had to be out by the end of the day.
“I was stunned that my dad was thrown out of his new home,” said Bowling. “The people at Fox Ridge were supposed to make sure that he was comfortable and cared for, and instead they shunned and rejected him, making him feel like a complete outcast.”
Dr. Franke requires no special medical attention beyond daily medication and regular check-ups with a physician, and Fox Ridge is licensed by the state to provide Dr. Franke with the kind of care he and his daughter were seeking for him.
“Federal and state laws exist to protect people from just this sort of unjust treatment,” said Scott Schoettes, HIV Project staff attorney for Lambda Legal. “Unfortunately, this is something we are seeing far too frequently, all across the country. Those tasked with caring for our elderly loved ones need to know that it is illegal to discriminate against someone with HIV based on outdated and misguided beliefs about its transmission.”
Franke and Bowling are seeking damages under the Fair Housing Act, the Arkansas Civil Rights Act and the Arkansas Fair Housing Act, as well as an injunction, under those laws and the Americans with Disabilities Act, preventing Fox Ridge from continuing to engage in this kind of conduct.
“This is about doing the right thing,” said Franke. “I want to make sure it doesn’t happen to anyone else — because no one should ever be made to feel the way I did.”
Scott Schoettes, HIV Project Staff Attorney, and Kenneth Upton, Supervising Senior Staff Attorney, are handling the case for Lambda Legal. They are joined by co-counsel Gary L. Sullivan of the Tripcony Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas. The case is Robert G. Franke and Sara Franke Bowling v. Parkstone Living Center, Inc., dba Fox Ridge at North Little Rock.
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/lambda-legal-…
Transsexual wins $500,000 lawsuit
A federal judge has awarded a former Army Special Forces commander nearly $500,000 because she was rejected from a job at the Library of Congress while undergoing a gender change from man to woman. Diane Schroer of Alexandria, Va., applied for the terrorism analyst job while still a man named David Schroer. He was offered the job, but the offer was pulled after he told a library official that he was having surgery to change his gender. U.S. District Judge James Robinson ruled Tuesday that Schroer was entitled to $491,190 in back pay and damages because of sex discrimination. Schroer said she was happy with the judgment but more importantly that the judge recognized her treatment as job discrimination. She said it’s a problem many transgendered people face. “They are hugely underemployed, at best,” Schroer said. “If they are fortunate enough to get something, it’s well below their capabilities. It’s not just about money, it’s about knowing you are a valuable person.” Schroer said she feels more fortunate than many transsexuals who face job discrimination because her friends have helped her get work as a national security and counterterrorism consultant.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/transsexual-w…
San Diego appeals firefighter Gay Pride ruling
(San Diego, California) The city of San Diego will appeal a jury verdict that found four San Diego firefighters were sexually harassed for being ordered to participate in a gay pride parade and awarded them combined damages of $34,300.
City Council voted 7-0 in a closed session to file the appeal.
The …
Gay employee files discrimination lawsuit against Easton Hospital
A Lower Saucon Township woman has filed a civil lawsuit against Easton Hospital claiming she was targeted by her superiors because of her sexual orientation and subsequently fired, court records said.
Suzanne Cornish, who worked at the hospital in Wilson Borough as the director of the cardiology pulmonary unit, filed the suit in federal court last week seeking lost salary, damages and attorney fees and to have her position reinstated, according to court records.
Cornish claims because she is gay she was harassed at work and hospital officials attempted to coerce her resignation through a “campaign of harassment,” records indicate.
Cornish alleges hospital officials found out about her sexuality at the end of May 2008 and she was fired Oct. 31.
Cornish also claims she was given inaccurate performance reviews that led to her firing, according to court records.
At one time, Cornish was suspended while the hospital investigated claims that she acted inappropriately at work, records said. The claims were not elaborated on in the court records.
“Easton Hospital’s policy is not to comment on matters in litigation,” hospital spokesman Alan Levy said. See Gay employee files discrimination lawsuit against Easton Hospital
The Express Times – LehighValleyLive.com * Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/gay-employee-…
