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-…
California School Apologizes For Illegally Banning Sixth Grader’s Presentation On Harvey Milk
RAMONA, CA – A California school has apologized to a sixth grader for illegally censoring her classroom presentation about Harvey Milk last month, and school officials promise they won’t engage in unconstitutional restriction of similar free speech in the future. The apology comes after the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter on May 30 to the Ramona Unified School District about its violation of the student’s free speech rights when it refused to allow her to give the presentation in class. Wrongly citing a school policy on sex education, the school had improperly required classmates to get parental permission to see the presentation during a lunch recess. The student was allowed to give her presentation in class this morning.
“Harvey Milk always stood up for his beliefs and what was right, so I felt like I should do the same thing when my school told me they wouldn’t let me do my presentation,” said Natalie Jones, a sixth grader at Mt. Woodson Elementary School. “I worked really hard on my presentation and I’m glad I’m finally going to get to share it with all of my classmates like everyone else got to.”
The assignment, part of an independent research project class, was to prepare a written report on any topic. Natalie, 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 her mother spoke with the superintendent about the presentation, she was told 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 due to the allegedly “sensitive” nature of the topic.
“Instead of quaking at the mere mention of an LGBT person’s existence, schools must understand that talking about someone who happens to be gay is no more sexual in nature than talking about a person who happens to be heterosexual,” said David Blair-Loy, Legal Director of the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties. “Censoring Natalie’s presentation violated the First Amendment and the California Education Code, and we’re pleased she will finally get to give her presentation on a historical figure who was such a fierce advocate for the rights of not just LGBT Californians but of all people.”
* The school has apologized in writing to Natalie and sent a letter about that apology to all the parents who were sent the school’s letter about the presentation.
* The school allowed Natalie to give her presentation to all the other members of her independent research project class.
* The school has agreed to bring its “Family Life/Sex Education” policy into compliance with state law, and acknowledged that the mention or acknowledgement of a person’s sexual orientation is not sufficient to invoke the statutes and policies on sex education.
“If the school had taken a moment to consider its legal obligation to respect and uphold its students’ free speech rights instead of jumping to erroneous conclusions and trying to justify its actions by wrongly conflating Natalie’s historical presentation with sex education, this would never have happened,” said Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU national LGBT Project. “There’s a tremendous difference between sex education and writing or talking about someone who happens to be gay, and we’re glad we were able to help the school finally understand that.”
“I’m always proud of my daughter, of course, but I’m even more proud of her for the way she stood up for her rights,” said Bonnie Jones, Natalie’s mother. “We’ve also heard from many people in town and other parents at Natalie’s school who have been amazingly supportive. I think if Harvey Milk were still here today, he’d be happy about how this all worked out.”
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 is the subject of a bill pending in the California legislature that would make it a state holiday.
For additional information, including a video featuring an interview with Natalie, copies of the school’s apology to Natalie and its letter to parents of students in her class, Natalie’s presentation on Harvey Milk, the school’s letter to parents, and the Ramona U.S.D. “Family Life/Sex Education” policy, can be found online at www.aclu.org/milk
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/california-sc…
Panel backs transgender woman in restroom case in Maine
AUGUSTA, Maine — The Maine Human Rights Commission decided Monday that a transgender woman was discriminated against at a Denny’s restaurant in Auburn when management would not let her use the ladies room until she had sex reassignment surgery.
While the lawyer representing the Denny’s owners said that the 3-2 decision could have far-reaching, negative consequences for all Maine businesses with shared restroom facilities, it was hailed as a civil rights victory by the Maine Civil Liberties Union and advocacy organization Equality Maine.
“It’s important to know that people have rights, including transgender [people], and that businesses are not free to discriminate,” said Zachary Heiden, the legal director of the MCLU.
See Panel backs transgender woman in restroom case Bangor Daily News
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/panel-backs-t…
ACLU: School censored student report on Harvey Milk
(San Francisco, California) The American Civil Liberties Union is threatening to sue a San Diego County school that refused to let a student present a report on slain gay rights leader Harvey Milk until her classmates got their parents’ permission to hear it.
David Blair-Loy, legal director of the ACLU of …
Tags: Aclu, American Civil Liberties, American Civil Liberties Union, Civil Liberties Union, Classmates, David Blair, gay rights, harvey milk, Legal Director, Loy, Parents, San Diego County, San Francisco CaliforniaCalifornia 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…
Bill Making Identification Change More Accessible for Transgender Persons Passes Key Assembly Committee, Moves One Step Closer to Becoming State Law
Sacramento – The Equal ID Act took one step closer to becoming law today when it passed the State Assembly Judiciary Committee by a 7-3 vote. The bill, sponsored by Equality California (EQCA) and introduced by Assemblymember Ted Lieu (D – Torrance), increases the legal rights and recognition enjoyed by transgender people by clarifying that qualified transgender people born in California can return to the county of their birth to obtain a court order reflecting their correct gender and accompanying name change. The court order is then used to obtain a corrected California birth certificate.
“All Californians deserve legal documentation that accurately reflects who they are,” EQCA Executive Director Geoff Kors said. “Once passed, this law will make it easier for transgender people both in California and beyond to obtain accurate identification, apply for jobs, and live their lives as full and equal members of society.”
Until recently, California law only allowed transgender persons to petition the court for an order recognizing a change of gender in the county in which they presently reside. Last month, the Transgender Law Center successfully challenged the residency requirement in the California Court of Appeals. In Somers v. Superior Court, the court held that the residency requirement violated the equal protection rights of California-born transgender people residing out of state. The Equal ID Act is the next step in ensuring that all Californians are able to obtain accurate birth certificates.
“The Equal ID Act would bring the Health and Safety Code up to date with case law,” said Kristina Wertz, Legal Director of the Transgender Law Center. “It would alleviate any confusion and ensure that California-born people residing in other states know that they, too, can be afforded the dignity of a birth certificate that reflects who they truly are.”
The new bill ensures that transgender people born in California know that they can return to the county of their birth to obtain a corrected birth certificate. It also provides greater access to transgender persons living in the state, allowing them for first time to petition the court in their home counties.
“The Equal ID Act would make it clear to others in my situation that they can go back to the counties in which they were born to get a court order changing their gender. It would save people all the trouble I went through finding attorneys and spending nearly four years in the courts,” said Gigi Marie Somers, who testified at this morning’s committee hearing. Ms. Somers, a transgender woman born in California, was unable to obtain a new birth certificate in the state of Kansas, where she now resides. Ms. Somers was the plaintiff in the legal action brought by the Transgender Law Center.
“The rights of Californians should not end at our state’s borders,” Assemblymember Leiu said. “The Equal ID Act makes certain every Californian has the freedom and liberty to be true to his or herself.”
Birth certificates are used as primary source of identification and are often necessary to secure other forms of identification, including social security cards and passports.
-30-
Equality California (EQCA) is the largest statewide lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender-rights advocacy organization in California. In the past decade, EQCA has strategically moved California from a state with extremely limited legal protections for LGBT individuals to a state with some of the most comprehensive civil-rights protections in the nation. EQCA has passed over 50 pieces of legislation and continues to advance equality through legislative advocacy, public education and community empowerment. www.eqca.org
The Transgender Law Center (TLC) is a civil rights organization advocating for transgender communities. TLC uses direct legal services, education, community organizing, and advocacy to transform California into a state that recognizes and supports the needs of transgender people and their families. www.transgenderlawcenter.org
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/bill-making-i…
Another possible first: An OPenly LGBT Supreme Court Justice?
Among the people whose names are being floated for the Supreme Court is Stanford Law Dean Kathleen Sullivan, a top constitutional scholar who has been active in gay rights battles in the Supreme Court, and who as the blog of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund writes, would be the first openly gay person on the court.
The group Lambda Legal wrote Obama in January pressing the appointement of “‘out’ LGBT judges.”
Human Rights Campaign emails over a statement from its legal director, Lara Schwartz, that the group “looks forward to seeing more openly-LGBT people appointed to the federal courts and other positions” but that “what’s most important is a nominee must have a track record that demonstrates her or his ability to consider and decide cases fairly.”
Politico -
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/another-possi…
California Court of Appeal Affirms Right of Transgender Individuals Living Out-of-State to Change California Birth Certificates
-30-
Equality California (EQCA) is the largest statewide lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender-rights advocacy organization in California. In the past decade, EQCA has strategically moved California from a state with extremely limited legal protections for LGBT individuals to a state with some of the most comprehensive civil-rights protections in the nation. EQCA has passed over 50 pieces of legislation and continues to advance equality through legislative advocacy, public education and community empowerment. www.eqca.org
The Transgender Law Center (TLC) is a civil rights organization advocating for transgender communities. TLC uses direct legal services, education, community organizing, and advocacy to transform California into a state that recognizes and supports the needs of transgender people and their families. www.transgenderlawcenter.org
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/california-co…
Existing gay marriages now on a great divide
With the California Supreme Court likely to uphold Proposition 8 but still recognize those already married, the couples are feeling both elated and isolated.
Jeanne Rizzo, 62, who married her partner of 20 years in September, was “somewhat heartened” Friday that her marriage is poised to survive Proposition 8 — but she was not celebrating.
“We don’t want to be on a marriage island,” said the Marin County resident, who runs a health advocacy group.
The California Supreme Court’s signal Thursday that it would uphold Proposition 8 but still recognize 18,000 existing same-sex marriages raised questions and concerns about the prospect of being a minority within a minority — part of an exclusive club whose doors have been closed to others.
While some gay married couples fretted Friday about being isolated culturally and legally, others expressed relief and joy that their marriages would remain valid. Some said they would feel pressure to be a symbol for same-sex marriage and to always present a positive image.
“If I’m on an island, at least I’m on an island with someone I love,” said Howard Bragman, a Hollywood publicist who married his partner before the November election in which voters passed the gay-marriage ban.
Jon Davidson, legal director for the gay-rights advocacy group Lambda Legal, called the couples “pioneers” put into “an unprecedented situation.”
“It will be challenging for those 18,000 couples,” Davidson said. “They are likely to be frequently asked to prove that they are married. . . . They will be going forward where no couple has gone before.”
At the same time, the gay married couples may help educate Americans about same-sex marriage, Davidson said.
“They will be kind of living examples of the fact that no one else is harmed by the existence of married same-sex couples,” he said.
See Existing gay marriages now on a great divide
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/existing-gay-…
Attorneys Urge California Supreme Court To Invalidate Prop 8
(San Francisco, CA, March 5, 2009) Attorneys for same-sex couples, civil rights organizations and the state Attorney General’s office appeared before the California Supreme Court today to urge the court to strike down Proposition 8, which took away the right of same-sex couples the right to marry. At issue in the case is whether the ballot initiative process can be used to take away a fundamental right only for one group of Californians based on a trait – in this case sexual orientation – that has no relevance to the group’s ability to participate in or contribute to society. Because the case has serious implications for the constitutional rights of all Californians, it has generated unprecedented support from many national and state civil rights groups as well as California legislators, local governments, bar associations, business interests, labor unions, and religious groups. The California Supreme Court, which has struck down several other initiatives in the past, is expected to issue a decision within 90 days.
“Proposition 8 jeopardizes not just the right of same-sex couples to marry, but the rights of all Californians to be treated as free and equal citizens of this state,” said Shannon P. Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), who argued the case before the Court. “Our Constitution is based on the principle that majorities must respect minority rights. But if a majority can change the Constitution to take away a fundamental right from one group, then it can take away fundamental rights from any group. Our government will have changed from one that respects minority rights to one in which the power of the majority is unlimited.”
NCLR, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU filed the legal challenge on November 5, after Proposition 8 was approved by just 52 percent of the voters on Election Day. In court today, the groups argued that it was improper for the proponents of Proposition 8 to use the ballot initiative process to strip same-sex couples of the fundamental right to marry. The groups contend that changes to the Constitution that alter its core requirement of equal protection by selectively depriving minorities of fundamental constitutional rights cannot be accomplished through a simple majority vote. Such major changes of core structural principles are revisions to the Constitution that can only be put on the ballot by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature.
“It is simply wrong—legally and socially—to short-circuit the California Constitution and its equal protection guarantees,” said Jennifer C. Pizer, Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal and co-counsel in the legal challenge to Proposition 8. “Proposition 8 is no ‘garden variety’ amendment that changes a tax or zoning or safety rule in a way that affects everyone equally. This is a radical attempt to strip a cherished constitutional right from just one targeted minority group and then to stop the courts from doing their most basic job of upholding the constitutional promise of ‘liberty and justice for all’.”
The case before the court is unprecedented because no other initiative-amendment has successfully taken away a fundamental right only for a particular minority. Because Proposition 8 would, for the first time, change the Constitution in a way that strips a minority group of its constitutional right to equal treatment under the law, California Attorney General Jerry Brown agrees that Proposition 8 should be struck down. The Attorney General’s office argued that the right to marry is an “inalienable right” that can not be selectively eliminated from one group without compelling reasons.
“The Court has a solemn responsibility to enforce our state constitution and to protect the rights of all people, regardless of popular opinion,” said Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. “This case isn’t just about marriage, and it’s certainly not just about gay and lesbian couples. If the Court strikes down Proposition 8, it will be protecting the civil rights of all Californians.”
An unprecedented 43 friend-of-the-court briefs, representing hundreds of religious organizations, civil rights groups, and labor unions, and numerous California municipal governments, bar associations, and leading legal scholars, were filed in the case, urging the court to strike down the initiative. Because the issues at stake have such important implications for other minority groups, Raymond Marshall of Bingham McCutchen, who represents the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, the California State Conference of the NAACP, the Equal Justice Society, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, asked and was given permission to appear in court today. He argued that allowing Proposition 8 to stand could be detrimental to other minority groups who could easily become the targets of initiative campaigns seeking to take away their rights.
“Our state Constitution was created to ensure equal treatment under the law for every Californian,” said Geoff Kors, Executive Director of Equality California. “Prop 8 changes that fact by taking away a fundamental freedom from one particular group and mandating government discrimination against a minority. We hope the court upholds the Constitution’s promise of equality.”
The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU are representing Equality California, whose members include many same-sex couples who married between June 16 and November 4, 2008, and six same-sex couples who want to marry in California. The arguments today also included two other challenges filed on the same day: one filed by the City and County of San Francisco (joined by Santa Clara County and the City of Los Angeles, and subsequently by Los Angeles County and other local governments); and another filed by a private attorney.
Serving as co-counsel on the case with NCLR, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU are the Law Office of David C. Codell, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.
The case is Strauss et al. v. Horton et al. (#S168047). For more information, go to: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm
The California Supreme Court must issue its decisions within 90 days of oral argument.
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/attorneys-urg…
