GLAD Cases

Boy Scouts

Boy Scouts of America v. Wyman (Connecticut, 2004)

VICTORY!!

GLAD worked to stop the special access of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to the Connecticut state employees’ charitable campaign in light of their discrimination based on sexual orientation.  Our participation in this matter dated to early 2000, when GLAD submitted a brief to the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Responsibilities (CHRO), explaining that although BSA may use public facilities on terms equal to those offered any other group, they may not enjoy any special privileges.  Therefore, GLAD argued, unless BSA endorsed a policy of non-discrimination, as every other group must do in order to participate in the state charitable campaign, they were ineligible.  In large part based on GLAD’s analysis, the CHRO ruled that BSA’s inclusion in the campaign would violate state law.  After being advised that they could not participate in the campaign, BSA filed suit in federal court against the state comptroller.  Denied the right to appear as a party, GLAD filed an amicus brief on behalf of ourselves, the Connecticut Women’s Education and Legal Fund (CWEALF), and the Connecticut Coalition for LGBT Civil Rights arguing that the exclusion of BSA from the campaign is proper.  The U.S. District Court for Connecticut agreed, ruling that the state in no way violated the BSA’s constitutional rights when it excluded them from the campaign because of their anti-gay policy. 

The BSA filed an appeal to the federal Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.  GLAD again filed an amicus brief on behalf of ourselves, CWEALF, and the CT Coalition, arguing to the appeals court that well-established Connecticut law precludes discriminatory groups from access to state facilities.  The Court turned down the BSA's appeal, confirming GLAD's position that BSA may not receive special privileges from the state as long as they retain their anti-gay policy.   The U.S. Supreme Court denied review of this case, letting stand the lower court's ruling.

Criminal / Law Enforcement

GLAD et al. v. Attorney General Thomas Reilly et al. (Massachusetts, 2002)

VICTORY!!

GLAD won a declaration from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that neither of the state’s sodomy laws applies to private, adult, consensual conduct.  GLAD filed suit on behalf of itself and several individual gay and non-gay plaintiffs, challenging the constitutionality of the Massachusetts sodomy laws. The complaint alleged that the sodomy laws (including a 20-year felony for anal sex and 5-year felony for oral and anal sex) violate Massachusetts constitutional guarantees of privacy, equal protection, free speech, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Following a hearing in December, 2001, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in February 2002 that the laws may not be enforced against persons who are engaged in the prohibited forms of intimacy as long as the individuals did not intend public exposure.  The court technically dismissed the case because none of the plaintiffs were currently subject to prosecution, but its ruling makes clear that these laws can never again be used against consenting adults sharing intimacy in private.

Read GLAD's brief in this case...
 

In Re: R. C. (Massachusetts, 2001)

VICTORY!!

GLAD ensured that an incarcerated gay man who was violently attacked and raped by another inmate was able to press charges, despite attempts to obstruct justice by homophobic prison officials.  Prison officials initially dismissed R.C.’s complaint because of the fact that he was known to be gay and, according to prison guards, could not, therefore, be raped.  With GLAD’s assistance, R.C. persevered in getting the Norfolk District Attorney’s office to press charges against the perpetrator.  GLAD worked with the District Attorney’s office to ensure that all of the available evidence would be presented to the grand jury.  In August, 2001, an indictment was issued against the man who raped R.C.
 

Ayer v. Sommi & Keller (Massachusetts, 2001)

VICTORY!!

GLAD was instrumental in obtaining a favorable ruling from the Massachusetts Appeals Court that domestic violence laws protect gay, lesbian, and bisexual people as well as heterosexuals.  The first same-sex domestic violence case to reach appellate courts in Massachusetts involved a man who appeared to be the victim of domestic violence but was subject to a mutual restraining order.  The Appeals Court ruled that mutual restraining orders could only be issued where the judge makes written findings that the orders are warranted against both parties.  This ruling ensures that judges discharge their duty to discover and protect the real victim of domestic abuse, and cannot simply fall back on prejudiced assumptions that because parties are of the same sex, they have the same power.

GLAD submitted an amicus brief in the case, analyzing the factors that make same-sex domestic violence different from opposite-sex domestic violence.  Joining on the brief as amici were The Network of Battered Lesbians and Bisexual Women; Gay Men’s Domestic Violence Project; Fenway Violence Recovery Program; The Domestic Violence Council; Jane Doe, Inc; Massachusetts Law Reform Institute; and the Mass. Lesbian and Gay Bar Association.  Vickie Henry and Anthony Mirenda of the Boston law firm Foley Hoag represented the plaintiff, Mr. Ayer.
 

Doe v. Kelley (State Police) (Massachusetts, 2001)

VICTORY!!

As a result of the settlement of a GLAD case against the Massachusetts State Police, a General Order was issued that “officers should not order someone to leave a public area in the absence of unlawful conduct.”  This Order clarifies the law on police-public interaction and sexual activity in public places, and reaffirms that individuals have the right to use public facilities without interference regardless of their sexual orientation.  GLAD filed a complaint against the Massachusetts State Police for preventing our client, a gay man, from using public rest areas. Our client, known in court papers as “John Doe,” alleged that a particular State Trooper, with support from his superiors, harassed him based on a stereotyped view that Doe, because he is a gay man, was likely to engage in public sexual behavior. In this matter, GLAD argued that our client, like every other citizen, has the right to use public facilities whenever he wants to, without state interference regardless of his sexual orientation.
We filed our complaint in state court requesting only that the State Police comply with the law, i.e., that they not roust our client from public areas. After a preliminary injunction hearing, the judge ruled in our favor, issuing an order against the State Police prohibiting the police from continuing to harass our client.  A settlement of this court action was announced by GLAD and the Massachusetts State Police in March, 2001. A key feature of the settlement involved the issuance of a General Order from the then head of the State Police, Colonel John DiFava, to all uniformed members of the department clarifying the law on police-public interaction and sexual activity in public places. Among other things, the General Order provides, "Officers should not order someone to leave a public area in the absence of unlawful conduct." Although the State Police admitted no wrongdoing, they trained all new recruits on the issues in the General Order, and are ensuring that in-service training for existing officers also addresses the issues.

Read the State Police General Order…

Employment

D’Amico v. Cranston School Department  (Rhode Island)

CASE PENDING

In a victory for GLAD, the Rhode Island Human Rights Commission found probable cause to believe that sexual orientation discrimination had occurred when a Rhode Island teacher was denied family leave benefits to care for her partner, despite a collective bargaining agreement that extends leave to immediate family or "additional persons in the immediate household."  The teacher had filed the discrimination complaint with the RI Human Rights Commission in June 2005.  The defendant School Department has now exercised its right to remove the matter to the Rhode Island trial court, and we will continue to bring our discrimination claim in this forum.

Blanchette v. Saint Anselm College (New Hampshire, 2006)

Click here...

Bedford and Breen v. New Hampshire Technical College System (New Hampshire)

VICTORY!!    

The state of New Hampshire dropped its appeal in this case on May 7, 2007, providing a definitive victory for GLAD and the plaintiffs. The New Hampshire Superior Court ruled on May 3, 2006, that the denial of insurance and leave benefits to the families of two New Hampshire state employees constituted both disparate treatment and disparate impact violations of the New Hampshire law against sexual orientation discrimination in employment.  GLAD had appealed the ruling of the Commission for Human Rights that the complainants were being treated the same as unmarried heterosexual employees and that state law prevented the Commission from considering the employees' claim that the use of a marriage requirement for benefits is discriminatory.

Read GLAD's press release
Read the decision
Read the Case Documents

Tiverton School Committee v. McCullough & Boivin (Rhode Island, 2005)

CASE SETTLED

GLAD worked with the ACLU of Rhode Island and the Rhode Island NEA on behalf of a retired teacher, a resident of Massachusetts, who sought spousal health insurance coverage for her new spouse under the governing collective bargaining agreement.  Although the school committee initially denied the request and filed suit to determine its obligations, the committee ultimately settled and agreed to pay the benefits.

Brindamour, et al. v. Manchester Board of Education (Connecticut, 2003)

VICTORY!!

GLAD used the Connecticut anti-discrimination provisions based on sexual orientation and marital status to help a group of teachers and school administrators in Manchester, CT to obtain insurance benefits for their domestic partners.  These educators applied for and were denied these benefits – benefits that constitute a significant portion of an employee’s compensation.  GLAD argued the position that withholding these benefits amounted to unequal pay for equal work – something the law does not tolerate.  With the discrimination suit pending, the Manchester Board of Education approved new contracts for school administrators and teachers that included health insurance for the partners of its gay and lesbian employees.  The Manchester Board of Directors approved the Administrators’ contract on November 18th, 2003 and the Teachers’ contract was agreed upon in arbitration and formally certified by the arbitrator on November 17th. 
 

Barreto-Neto v. Town of Hardwick Police Department (Vermont, 2004)

VICTORY!!

GLAD worked with a police officer in the Town of Hardwick, Vermont, in Northern Vermont who was terminated from the police department when the Town Manager learned that he is transgender.  Anthony Barreto-Neto, an experienced and skilled police officer, began working at the Hardwick Municipal Police Department in April 2002. Shortly after he began employment, town officials doing an internet search on Mr. Barreto-Neto found a website that described him as “transsexual.”  Based on the information, town officials presumed his inability to do the job.  Following the search and dissemination of the information to senior police department personnel, Barreto-Neto was subjected to a continuous pattern of harassment and inferior work conditions that became so severe he had to leave his job.  In issuing its probable cause ruling, the Attorney General credited testimony of a former police chief, Gregory Rambo, that a town official directed him to make Barreto-Neto so uncomfortable that he would leave the force.  The Town of Hardwick settled the claim.  The settlement included a monetary payment to Barreto-Neto and a requirement that the town adopt a formal policy of nondiscrimination against transgender persons and train its employees on transgender issues.   Importantly, the Attorney General's ruling established for the first time in Vermont that transgender persons are protected under the State's anti-discrimination laws.

See Transgender...

Muzzy v. Cahillane Motors, Inc. (Massachusetts, 2001)

VICTORY!!

GLAD was instrumental in winning a decision from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that personal information about a plaintiff, such as sexual orientation, may not be introduced in court for the purpose of perpetuating negative stereotypes or inflaming the prejudice of the jury.  GLAD filed an amicus brief in a case involving a sex harassment claim brought by a lesbian plaintiff against her lesbian supervisor.  The case went to trial in order to determine whether the supervisor sexually harassed the plaintiff, and the plaintiff lost.  The case was appealed in part on the grounds that the instruction to the jury to consider whether the allegedly harassing conduct would be offensive to a “reasonable lesbian” was prejudicial.  GLAD filed a brief articulating a test that would allow trial courts to provide personal information about a plaintiff, such as sexual orientation, but only if it is for the purpose of ensuring that juries consider the experience of harassment of minorities.  GLAD argued that such information may not be used for the purpose of perpetuating negative stereotypes or inflaming the prejudice of the jury. Therefore, such information ordinarily should not be admitted over the objection of plaintiffs.  The Supreme Judicial Court articulated a test that incorporated the analysis set forth in GLAD’s brief.
 

Crandall v. Boston Concession Group (Massachusetts/Maine, 1999)

VICTORY!!

GLAD won a ruling that Massachusetts non-discrimination law applies equally to every employee of Massachusetts companies, even if the employee works out-of-state.  GLAD represented two women from Maine who worked in Maine and were essentially terminated after their employers learned they were lesbians.  Our clients filed a complaint at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) under the Massachusetts non-discrimination law because their former employer was a Massachusetts-based company.  After the MCAD dismissed our clients’ claim for lack of jurisdiction because the events occurred in Maine, GLAD appealed to Suffolk Superior Court. The Superior Court denied motions to dismiss by the MCAD and the employer, and the MCAD then agreed to reverse its position and announced that it would hear claims brought by out-of-state employees against in-state employers.  The employer also negotiated a settlement with our clients.
 

Connors v. City of Boston (Massachusetts, 1999)

LOSS

In a disappointing decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down an Executive Order issued by Boston Mayor, Thomas Menino, granting health insurance benefits to registered domestic partners of city employees, thus constraining the City of Boston’s ability to set the terms of employee benefits, including domestic partner benefits.  The Order came under legal attack from the Catholic Action League and Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law & Justice. In their suit, the plaintiffs claimed that the Mayor did not have the power to issue the Executive Order on this topic, and that the Executive Order was equivalent to marriage (common law marriage, a marital status, or “homosexual marriage”).  GLAD intervened in the suit to defend the Executive Order, on behalf of itself and a City employee, Kay Schmidt and Schmidt’s domestic partner, Diane Pullen, and their two children, all of whom received health insurance through the Executive Order.  While noting the importance of health insurance for all families and urging the legislature to address the issue, the Court rules that the extension of group health insurance to domestic partners of municipal employees conflicted with an existing statewide law and, therefore, was beyond the “home rule” powers of cities and towns.  The unfortunate ruling has undermined similar municipal domestic partner benefits programs around the state.

Family

Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins (Vermont)

CASE PENDING

Since 2005, GLAD has been representing Vermont resident Janet Jenkins for all appellate matters in an ongoing dispute with her former civil union spouse, Lisa Miller, over the shared parenting of their daughter, Isabella. The couple separated in 2003, and Lisa and moved to Virginia with Isabella. Lisa also began an action in Vermont Family Court to dissolve the couple’s civil union and adjudicate custody and visitation.

The Vermont Family Court ruled in 2004 that Janet is a legal parent of Isabella and is entitled to visitation rights. Faced with those rulings, Lisa refused to comply and commenced a separate action in Virginia where she obtained an order that she was the sole parent of Isabella. Janet also filed an action in Virginia taking the first steps toward enforcement of the Vermont visitation order in the Virginia courts. (Janet is represented in the Virginia proceeding by Attorney Joseph Price and Lambda Legal.) The first of the Virginia actions has been completed with an appellate ruling that Virginia had no jurisdiction to rule on Janet’s parentage and that Virginia had to honor the Vermont visitation order. The second of those actions has advanced to the Virginia Supreme Court where oral argument is currently scheduled for the week of April 14, 2008.

Meanwhile, in Vermont, in September 2006, the Vermont Supreme Court upheld the Vermont Family Court’s rulings that Janet is a legal parent of Isabella; that Vermont was not required to honor the contrary Virginia ruling; and that Lisa was properly held in contempt of court for failing to obey the Vermont Court’s visitation order. Lisa sought review in the United States Supreme Court, which refused to hear her case in April, 2007.

On June 15, 2007, after trial on the merits, the Vermont Family Court Judge William Cohen entered findings of fact and rulings of law dissolving Janet and Lisa's civil union; dividing their property; and ordering regular parent-child contact between Janet and her daughter. Once again, Lisa appealed these final orders to the Vermont Supreme Court, which held oral argument in the case on March 13, 2008 and summarily affirmed the Family Court’s final orders the next day, March 14, 2008.

T.F. v. B.L.  (Massachusetts, 2004)

GLAD represented T.F., a biological mother seeking child support from her former partner, B.F. The two had decided together to have a child, with both agreeing to be parents and raise the child together. The couple broke up before the child was born. GLAD argued that when an individual agrees to bring a child into the world, and the child would not have been born without that agreement, that individual has an obligation to support the child who is born as a result. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled on August 25, 2004 that the non-biological partner does not have an obligation to support the child, even though the court acknowledge that she intentionally and purposefully acted to bring the child into the world.

Read GLAD's press release

Pulsifer v. Portland (Maine, 2004)

VICTORY!!

GLAD represented the City of Portland, Maine against an attack on the city's domestic partnership registry by ten-taxpayers, along with two anti-gay organizations, the Center for Marriage Law and the Alliance Defense Fund Law Center, claiming that Maine’s anti-gay marriage restriction and its general authority to regulate marriage prevented the City from providing municipal benefits to committed, unmarried families living and working in the City.  On April 28, 2004, Cumberland County Superior Court Justice Thomas Humphrey ruled in favor of The City of Portland, recognizing that the Maine Legislature’s enactment of a ban on the marriage of same-sex couples did not bar the domestic partnership ordinance, and concluding that the city was well within its authority to protect the health and welfare of its citizens through the registry.

This decision came one week after the Maine legislature took steps to create equal civil rights for all its citizens.  Governor John Baldacci signed into law a bill creating domestic partnerships for heterosexual or gay and lesbian adults who live together under long-term arrangements.  The new law also gives domestic partners the same inheritance rights as a spouse when a married partner dies without a will and allows a surviving domestic partner to make funeral and burial arrangements.

Read the decision in this case...

C.E.W. v. D.E.W. (Maine, 2004)

VICTORY!!

GLAD, along with Maine co-counsel, won the right to seek full parental rights and responsibilities for a non-biological lesbian mother in Maine whose former partner, the child's biological mother,  was seeking to terminate any legal relationship between our client and the child the women have raised together.  Maine's highest court (the Law Court) ruled unanimously that a de facto parent, one who has a parent-child relationship on the basis of conduct  rather than merely on a biological or adoptive relationship, has equal footing to seek parental rights and responsibilities.
 

In re Nancy Walsh (New Hampshire, 2004)

VICTORY!!

GLAD applied for and won compensation from the federal September 11 Victim Compensation Fund on behalf of Nancy Walsh, a lesbian whose partner of 13 years was one of the passengers on Flight 11 who died on September 11.  Nancy came up against barriers that so often face same-sex partners in times of crisis.  For example, her partner, Carol Flyzik, did not have a will, thus making Carol’s biological family the presumptive recipients of any compensation.  Nor did Nancy have an automatic right to administer Carol’s estate or continue to live in the home that she and Carol shared.  GLAD helped Nancy to secure her partner’s death certificate so that she was able to proceed with matters relating to the probate of the estate, and assisted her in applying for compensation from the federal Fund.  Nancy's hearing was held on January 26.  After considering the facts, the Special Master awarded a favorable monetary ruling for Nancy, compensating her for losses she incurred as a result of this tragedy.

Nancy’s case tragically underscores the vulnerability of same-sex relationships, and reminds us of the comprehensive protections that marriage provides for families. 

More about this case...  

Guardianship of I.H. (Maine, 2003)

GLAD represented a committed lesbian couple from Kennebec County who jointly decided to have children together.  They took all legal steps available to them to protect their relationship with each other and their son, executing parenting agreements, wills, and other financial and medical documents.  They also petitioned the Probate Court in Kennebec County for a full co-guardianship of their son so that either could act legally on his behalf. 

The Probate Court Judge reported the case to the state's highest court, the Maine Law Court, and asked whether two unmarried people may be co-guardians of a child if one is the natural parent and the other is not.  On November 4, 2003, the Maine Law Court affirmed that the Probate Courts have the power to grant full co-guardianships in these cases, enabling gays and lesbians to create a legal relationship to their children.  Co-guardianships are in place until the child is 18, unless it is terminated earlier to serve the child's best interests.  Unlike the "delegation of parental authority" that some parents complete, the co-guardianship does not have to be renewed every six months.

Read the decision on the case...
Read GLAD's press release about the case...

Blanchflower v. Blanchflower and Mayer (New Hampshire, 2003)

VICTORY!!

GLAD filed an amicus curiae brief in a divorce case addressing the question of whether the New Hampshire adultery provision as a fault-based ground for divorce includes same-sex extra-marital relationships. GLAD’ s brief argued that same-sex relationships are comparable to different-sex ones with regard to what matters to a marriage and, therefore, as a matter of policy, the adultery statute should include same-sex relationships. The purpose of submitting this brief was to ensure that the court was respectful of gay and lesbian relationships and, in the best of worlds, makes a positive statement about their value and worth.  The Court issued its opinion on November 7, 2003, ruling that the strict definition of adultery under the fault-based divorce statute is “coitus,” and that therefore any extra-marital intimacy other than that particular act -- whether with a person of the same sex or different sex -- is not adultery.  Both the majority opinion and the dissent made clear that this case was not about the status of same-sex relationships in society or any formal recognition same-sex relationships receive, and the opinions were both, on the whole, respectful of same-sex intimacy.

In re. Baby Z & An Act Concerning The Best Interest Of Children In Adoption Matters (Connecticut, 2000)

VICTORY!!

GLAD helped win second-parent adoption in Connecticut, through work in the courts and assistance to activists drafting legislation.  In April 1998, GLAD filed an amicus brief in the Connecticut Supreme Court in a case known as Baby Z, which raised the question of the availability of second-parent adoption in Connecticut.  The Supreme Court ruled that the Connecticut adoption statute could not allow such a procedure, making it necessary to look to the legislature to solve this serious problem.  Continuing our advocacy, GLAD worked with Connecticut activists on legislation to redress the problem identified in Baby Z.  The Connecticut legislature passed a second-parent adoption bill in 2000.
 

Rubano v. DiCenzo (Rhode Island, 2000)

VICTORY!!

The Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled that a lesbian co-parent could bring a claim in Family Court to resolve issues of visitation rights with the child she had raised with her former partner, the biological parent of their son.  This ruling establishes the right of a de facto parent to pursue custody and visitation claims in Rhode Island.  M.R. and her partner C.D. lived together for 8 years and had a son in 1991.  When the couple split up, C.D. limited, and then ended, all visitation between the son and M.R.  In a 3-2 decision, the Court ruled that the Family Courts of Rhode Island have the power to hear claims raised by de facto parents, and to determine the interests of children born to unmarried couples.  GLAD's amici curiae brief, authored along with Boston attorney David Hobbie, and Providence attorney Donna Nesselbush, was joined by the Rhode Island Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, Jewish Family Services, Children's Friend and Service, Rhode Island State Council of Churches, Rhode Island Alliance for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights, Ocean State Action, Rhode Island Affiliate of the ACLU, Youth Pride, Inc., Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and YWCA of Northern Rhode Island.

Read the decision in this case...
 

E.N.O. v. L.M.M. (Massachusetts, 1999)

VICTORY!!

In a landmark decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a non-biological lesbian mother, who helped raise her son from his birth, is a de facto parent with the right to seek visitation.  GLAD represented E.N.O., the non-biological mother, in this case involving a lesbian couple that had shared a committed, monogamous relationship for thirteen years.  From the beginning of the relationship, the couple planned to become parents, and did so following donor insemination.  The couple’s relationship subsequently deteriorated and although they had agreed to jointly adopt their son, the couple separated before they could complete the legal process to do so.  After the relationship terminated, L.M.M. denied E.N.O. any opportunity to visit with the son they had jointly raised.

This is a critical decision because it established that visitation and custody need not only follow a relationship created by biology, marriage or adoption.  The SJC recognized the reality that an increasing number of same-sex couples are deciding to have children, and that children of nontraditional families, like other children, form close bonds with both parents.

As a result of the decision in E.N.O., Massachusetts became only the second state whose highest court affirmed the critical relationship between children and their “de facto” parents.  Other states have since followed suit.

Health Care

T.T. v. J.R. (New Hampshire, 2002)

VICTORY!!

In the first case to test the sexual orientation protections in the New Hampshire public accommodations anti-discrimination laws, GLAD successfully resolved a claim by a patient who was denied treatment by her dentist because she was a lesbian.  The dentist had treated T.T. for nearly three years.  When she was asked to update a standard office form, she wrote the name of her female partner above the line marked “spouse.”  When she arrived for her next appointment, the dentist confronted her in the lobby of the office, outraged that T.T. listed a woman as her spouse, claiming that treating her would be against his philosophy, and telling her that had he known, he would never have treated her in the first place.  GLAD filed a complaint on T.T.’s behalf with the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights, which, after an investigation, issued a probable cause decision crediting her allegations of discrimination.  The defendant removed the case to Belknap County Superior Court, and after lengthy discussions, the case has been resolved to the satisfaction of the parties.
 

Beger v. Division of Medical Assistance (Massachusetts, 2000)

VICTORY!!

In this case, a Superior Court in Suffolk County ordered the state of Massachusetts to pay for a surgical procedure it had denied to a transsexual woman, but would have provided to a non-transsexual woman.  Germaine Beger is a 50-year-old Medicaid recipient who completed sex-reassignment surgery over 25 years ago, including receiving breast implants.  In 1999, she sought treatment for a possible cyst in her right breast and learned that she needed the implants removed and follow-up breast reconstruction surgery.  The state approved the implant removal but denied the breast reconstruction, relying on a state regulation that excludes Medicaid coverage for any procedure related to sex-reassignment surgery.  GLAD successfully argued that breast reconstruction in this case was not related to sex-reassignment, since Germaine had been legally and medically a woman for half a lifetime.  The Court ruled that the state could not refuse a medically necessary procedure simply on the basis that Germaine is a transsexual.
 

Gagne v. Holyoke Health Center and Dr. George Abraham (Massachusetts, 1999)

VICTORY!!

GLAD won a favorable settlement on behalf of Erica Gagne, who was denied treatment by Dr. Abraham of the Holyoke Health Center after she identified herself as a lesbian.  Ms. Gagne, who went to the health center seeking a second opinion about the cause of abdominal pain she experienced, was berated by Dr. Abraham, and was told, “when we engage in unnatural acts, we are punished by God.” She claimed she was then refused treatment.

Marriage and Civil Unions

Schulman v. Reilly (Massachusetts)

LOSS

GLAD filed this lawsuit to challenge the Attorney General’s decision that a proposed ballot question that would once again exclude same-sex couples from marriage satisfies the Massachusetts constitution.  The suit was filed on January 3, 2006 and oral arguments took place in Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on May 4, 2006. The SJC ruled on July 10, 2006 that the citizen-initiated ballot question challenging marriage equality for same-sex couples can go forward. The Constitutional Convention is scheduled to consider the matter on Thursday, November 9, 2006.

Read the Case Documents

Kerrigan & Mock v. Connecticut Dept. of Public Health (Connecticut)

CASE PENDING  

On August 25, 2004, GLAD filed suit on behalf of seven gay and lesbian Connecticut couples who were denied marriage licenses in Madison, CT, challenging the State's discriminatory denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples. The plaintiff couples, who have been in committed relationships for between 10 and 30 years, many of them raising children, contend that only marriage will provide them with the protections and benefits they need to live securely as a family. The defendants are the Department of Public Health (DPH), which supervises the registration of all marriages, and Dorothy C. Bean, the Madison town registrar of vital statistics.

There have been motions to intervene in the case by the Connecticut Family Institute and two town clerks. The motions were denied by Judge Patty Jenkins Pittman of New Haven Superior Court.  The clerks dropped their appeal, but the Family Institute appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which heard arguments on February 9, 2006. We are waiting for the Supreme Court's ruling on the intervention issue.

GLAD filed a motion for summary judgment and extensive briefs ont he merits of the case itself.  In addition, an amicus brief signed by 25 amici supporting our position was also submitted..  The Attorney General, defending the case, filed a reply brief and 4 opposing amici briefs were filed.   Arguments in the motion for summary judgment were heard on March 21, 2006 in New Haven Superior Court.

On June 12, 2006, Judge Pittman denied the plaintiff's motion, ruling that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage did not violate the Connecticut Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Connecticut Supreme Court.

On May 14, 2007, GLAD Senior Attorney Ben Klein presented oral argument in the case before the Connecticut Supreme Court.

Read GLAD's press release on the Connecticut Supreme Court hearing
Meet the plaintiff couples...
Read the plaintiffs' complaint...
Questions & Answers about the case
GLAD's press release, August 25, 2004
Read the Case Documents

Cote-Whitacre et al. v. Dept. Public Health (Massachusetts)

VICTORY!

On March 30, 2006, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court determined in the absence of a home state’s "express prohibition" against marriage by same-sex couples – through a constitutional amendment, statute, or controlling appellate decision, Massachusetts must allow same-sex couples from that state to marry.   This decision had a substantial impact on three states:

New York State
Judge Connolly also ruled that because the New Court of Appeals ruled on July 6, 2006, against marriage equality in the state’s own marriage case, couples from New York cannot marry in Massachusetts. GLAD subsequently  returned to court on behalf of the New York couple in the case, Tanya Wexler and Amy Zimmerman, who married in Massachusetts in May, 2004.  In a judgment on May 10, 2007, Judge Connolly ruled that Massachusetts marriages licenses issued to New York same-sex couples before July 6, 2006 are completely valid and never should have been put into question by the 1913 law.

New Mexico
Finally, noting that New Mexico law is also silent on the question of marriage between same-sex couples, GLAD worked with the Commonwealth to correct the erroneous denial of marriage licenses to New Mexico same-sex couples.  On July 18, 2007, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and Registry of Vital Statistics issued an official corrective notice providing clerks with the authority to grant such licenses. 

Read the Assented-to Motion for Amended Final Judgment and the Amended Final Judgment

Read the September, 2006 decision

Cote-Whitacre Case Documents...

Read Q&A about the decision...

Meet the plaintiff couples...

Read GLAD's publications Marrying in Massachusetts: A Guide for Rhode Island Couples,Legal Issues for New York Same-Sex Couples Who Married in Massachusetts, and Legal Issues for Non-Massachusetts Same-Sex Couples Who Married in Massachusetts

C. J. Doyle v. Goodridge (Massachusetts, 2005)

VICTORY!!

One of a barrage of actions filed early in 2004 to prevent the implementation of Goodridge on May 17, 2004, this action sought a further stay of Goodridge until the constitutional amendment process could be completed.  Oral argument was heard on May 2, 2005.  In June 2005 the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the dismissal of the case.

Goodridge et al. v. Dept. Public Health (Massachusetts, 2003)

VICTORY!!

In a historic opinion on November 18, 2003, GLAD won a ruling from the Massachsuetts SJC that gay and lesbian couples can no longer be excluded from civil marriage rights in Massachusetts.  GLAD filed the case in April 2001.  The 4-3 opinion was the first of its kind in this country by a final appellate court.

Read the SJC Decision...
Find out more about this case…
Check out GLAD’s publications about equal marriage…

On February 4, 2004 the Supreme Judicial Court issued its Opinions of the Justices to the Senate confirming that a proposed civil union bill does not meet the mandates of liberty and equality of the state constitution. The Court reconfirmed that its ruling in Goodridge v. Dep't. of Public Health required the end of the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. This opinion was issued in response to the Massachusetts Senate's request for an advisory opinion as to whether a "civil unions" bill would satisfy the state constitution. The Court recognized that civil unions create a separate and unequal status.

Read more...
Find out more about GLAD's defense of the Goodridge decision...
 

Burns v. Burns (Georgia, 2002)

LOSS

GLAD submitted an amicus brief in this Georgia case, the first addressing whether a Vermont civil union has the force of marriage in another jurisdiction.  The case concerns a divorced mother, Susan Burns, who was found in contempt of a visitation order that prohibited her from visiting with her children if she was residing with a non-marital partner.  Susan is a lesbian who divorced the father of her children in December 1995.  At that time, the court issued an order prohibiting either parent from visitation or residence with their children during any time when the parent cohabited, or had overnight stays, with any adult to whom they were not legally married or related.  Susan entered into a Vermont Civil Union with her same-sex partner in July 2000.  Shortly thereafter, Susan’s ex-husband sought to have her declared in contempt of the visitation restriction when the children stayed overnight in the home of Susan and her Civil Union spouse.  The Georgia Court of Appeals, in a narrow decision, ruled that the couple’s civil union was not equivalent to marriage, and that Susan Burns was therefore in violation of the decree.

GLAD prepared and filed its brief jointly with the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
 

Proposed “Protection of Marriage” Constitutional Amendment (Massachusetts, 2002)

Albano v. Reilly et al
In Albano et al v. Reilly et al, GLAD challenged the propriety of the Attorney General’s certification of the ballot initiative.  GLAD’s claim was based on the sweeping nature of the amendment.  GLAD claimed that the petitions violated rules in the Constitution about the subject matter of initiative petitions.  Unfortunately, the SJC did not share GLAD’s view that they related to the power of the courts and affected individual access to the courts, both of which are excluded matters under the state constitution.  Instead, the Court ruled that the petitions were correctly certified and the initiative process could proceed.

Though the court rejected GLAD’s claim, the decision was rendered moot by the Massachusetts legislature, ultimately defeated the amendment by voting to adjourn the Constitutional Convention in July, 2002 without taking the vote necessary to put the question before the voters in November 2004.

Supreme Judicial Court Advisory Opinion
In a last ditch attempt to revive the measure before it was to die on December 31, 2002 at midnight, Edward Pawlick, the founder of MCM and the primary funder of its activities, threatened to sue Governor Jane Swift if she did not order the legislature back into session to consider the measure again.  As a result of this pressure, Governor Swift requested an eleventh hour advisory opinion from the Supreme Judicial Court as to whether she had an obligation to call the legislature back into session.  Senate President Thomas Birmingham submitted a similar request for an opinion from the Court as to his responsibility and that of the legislature regarding continued action on the measure.  GLAD submitted a brief arguing that both the Governor and the legislature had already discharged their duties relative to the proposed amendment.

On December 20th, the SJC answered the questions presented to it by Acting Governor Jane Swift and Senate President Thomas Birmingham concerning the adjournment of the Constitutional Convention, the status of the DOMA initiative, and the continuing responsibilities of the Acting Governor and the Legislature for the rest of the legislative session, if any.  Despite GLAD’s arguments to the contrary, the SJC ruled that adjournment did not constitute final action on the initiative.  As such, the Governor could order the legislature back into session, but was not required to do so.  The Court declined to answer Swift's question about calling the legislature back into session, as well as Birmingham's questions about the implications of potential actions if the legislature were convened in another Constitutional Convention by or before December 31.  Without an affirmative mandate to pursue further action, neither the Governor nor the legislature chose to reopen the amendment initiative, and the matter died at the end of the legislative session on December 31, 2002.

Read GLAD’s brief to the SJC…
Read the Court’s advisory opinion to the Governor…
Read the Court’s advisory opinion to the Senate…

Read about GLAD's legislative advocacy work to help defeat the initiative.
 

Baker et al. v. State of Vermont (Vermont, 1999)

VICTORY!!

GLAD won a ruling from the Vermont Supreme Court that recognized the right for same-sex couples to have their relationships afforded the same legal benefits, protections, and obligations as marriage under Vermont law, and ordered the Vermont legislature to remedy existing inequalities, leading to Vermont’s landmark Civil Union law.  A civil union is a comprehensive legal status parallel to civil marriage for all purposes under Vermont state law.  Spouses in a civil union will enjoy the same state law protections and responsibilities in Vermont as are available to spouses in a Vermont marriage.

Find out comprehensive information about civil unions in Vermont…

Public Accommodations

Brett, et al., v. Town of West Hartford  (Connecticut, 2002)

VICTORY!!

GLAD successfully challenged the discriminatory policy of the Town of West Hartford municipal pool, which sought to exclude same-sex couples and their children from a discounted family membership rate.  In November 2002, the West Hartford Town Council approved in a 5 to 4 vote a settlement of the long-standing discrimination complaint by five unmarried couples who claimed the town treated their families unfairly by withholding the preferential "family" membership rate at the facility, known as the Cornerstone Aquatics Center.  The newly approved policy ensures that all families and households enjoy an identical rate and allows all children to use the pool for free.  In addition, the Town paid a portion of the couples' attorneys' fees.  The family membership rate had previously been offered only to married couples or to parents.  The definition of parents included step-, legal and adoptive parents, but excluded same-sex co-parents or anyone who parents a child with a non-marital partner.  For most families, the difference in cost was several hundred dollars.
The case had been pending since November 1998, when it was first filed in the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO).  Together with attorney Maureen Murphy, GLAD won a ruling from the CHRO that the state's anti-discrimination laws required the Town to provide equal access and pricing for its pool facility.  The case was later removed to the Superior Court where cross-motions for summary judgment were pending.
 

Rose v. YMCA of Nashua (New Hampshire, 2002)

VICTORY!!

GLAD intervened on behalf of a lesbian couple and their family in New Hampshire who were denied a family membership rate at the YMCA in Nashua, winning an agreement from the YMCA to revisit their policy and to extend a family membership to our clients.   When our clients applied for a family membership at the YMCA for themselves and their children, they were told that because they are not married, they were not eligible for such a rate.   The YMCA said that one of the women and the children could receive the family rate, but the other woman would have to buy a separate adult membership at a cost of several hundred dollars.   After some initial negotiations with the YMCA, the YMCA agreed to revisit their policy and to extend a family membership to our clients.

Transgender

In re Rhiannon O'Donnabhain

GLAD has commenced litigation in the U.S. Tax Court to assert the medical necessity of sex reassignment surgery for Rhiannon O'Donnabhain, who deducted costs for her sex reassignment surgery when submitting her federal tax forms in April 2002.  Ms. O'Donnabhain received her tax refund in June 2002, but six months later she was audited. Ms. O'Donnabhain contacted GLAD, whose attorneys assisted her in appealing the tax examiner's decision.  After an initial indication by an Appeals Officer to allow the deduction, the local IRS office decided to seek a decision from Washington. The IRS Chief Counsel issued an Advice Letter on October 14, 2005, once again denying the deduction and the matter progressed to US Tax Court, where trial took place July 24 – August 23, 2007. After the trial, both sides filed their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Both sides are now working on responses to those submissions. GLAD will be filing those responses on February 11, 2008. After these are submitted, the court will issue a decision.

Read the Petition to Tax Court
Read GLAD's Press Release on the July, 2007 trial
Fact Sheet on Gender Identity Disorder (GID)
Rhiannon O'Donnabhain Bio
AP Story on the upcoming trial
Read more on this story

Blanchette v. Saint Anselm College (New Hampshire, 2006)

CASE SETTLED

In  June 2005, GLAD filed a  lawsuit in U. S. District Court in New Hampshire on behalf of a transgender woman in New Hampshire who was fired from her job at St. Anselm’s College when she told her employer that she would be transitioning from male to female. Some weeks after informing her employer of her plans, she was handed a letter that read in part, "As you know, you recently disclosed to us your transgender status. Upon consideration, you are immediately relieved of your duties."   Mediation took place in December 2005 and in January 2006 GLAD settled the lawsuit on mutually satisfactory terms. 

Read GLAD's press release
Read the original complaint

Beger v. Division of Medical Assistance (Massachusetts, 2000)

Barreto-Neto v. Town of Hardwick Police Department (Vermont, 2004)

Jette v. Honey Farms and Millett v. Lutco (Massachusetts, 2001)

VICTORY!!

In these two landmark rulings issued in October 2001, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination drew from GLAD legal analysis to rule that transgender people are covered by state non-discrimination laws prohibiting sex and disability discrimination.
 

In re John/Jane Doe (declaratory ruling) (Connecticut, 2000)

VICTORY!!

In November 2000, the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) issued a landmark ruling stating that all transgender people are protected by Connecticut’s sex discrimination prohibitions.  Citing recent cases protective of transgender people, including two brought by GLAD, the CHRO adopted a reading of Connecticut law to include a broad range of people, writing that  “…our intent is to see that justice is done for each individual – transsexual or non-transsexual, male or female, straight or gay, black or white, rich or poor – so as to recognize each person as a unique and valued member of our great human family.”  GLAD filed briefs in this case on behalf of itself, The Connecticut Coalition for LGBT Civil Rights, the Connecticut Women’s Educational and Legal Fund, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, FTM International and Gender PAC.
 

Pat Doe v. Yunits (Massachusetts, 2000)

VICTORY!!

GLAD obtained a landmark ruling, in the first reported decision ever in a case brought by a transgender student, that a middle school may not prohibit a transgender student from expressing her female gender identity.  Disciplining a biologically male student for wearing girls’ clothing violates her First Amendment rights of free expression and constitutes sex discrimination.  The Superior Court decision confirms that a school may not exert its authority over a student simply to enforce stereotyped ideas of how boys and girls should look, a ruling that has significant impact for all gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students.  GLAD brought the case against the Brockton School Department when the school prohibited our client, known in court documents only as Pat Doe, from attending school wearing what the principal considered to be girls’ clothing after nearly two years of disciplinary action against Pat for her choice of clothes.

A single justice of the appeals court affirmed the Superior Court injunction.  Also, the trial court denied the school's motions to dismiss Pat Doe's disability and due process claims. In a first of its kind ruling, the court held that Massachusetts disability law, unlike federal law, does not exclude transgender people from its protections.
 

Rosa v. Park West Bank (United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 2000)

VICTORY!!

In a precedent-setting decision with major implications for the business community, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit confirmed that sex discrimination laws reach situations where individuals are discriminated against because of their failure to conform to stereotypes of how men and women are supposed to look and act.  In June 2000, the federal court decided that a federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in lending protects our client, Lucas Rosa -- a transgender person who appears female but was assigned the sex designation of male at birth -- who was told when applying for a bank loan to go home and change to appear more traditionally masculine.  GLAD brought suit on behalf of our client under the federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act as well as under Massachusetts laws prohibiting discrimination because of sex and perceived sexual orientation in lending and public accommodations.  In a decision that took just three weeks to issue, the Federal Appeals Court overturned the ruling of a federal district judge, and ruled that our client may be able to prove a case of sex discrimination and remanded the case for trial.

This case has tremendous significance for both GLB people and those who are transgender because the root of much of our shared oppression is the enforcement of stereotypical notions of how “real men” and “real women” should look and act.  This case creates a key legal building block for arguing that discrimination because of a person’s failure to meet widely shared normative beliefs about gender -- whether that person is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender -- is prohibited sex discrimination.

Youth / Students

In the Matter of Jane Doe  (Massachusetts, 2000)

VICTORY!!

In response to an assault against a lesbian student by a number of her peers at a Western Massachusetts high school, GLAD secured the school’s agreement to do mandatory teacher and student trainings to ensure the safety of all GLBT students.  GLAD intervened in discussions on behalf of the student after the attack, which was the culmination of months of anti-gay harassment since the student came out to friends, family and other students.

See also Pat Doe v. Yunits (under Transgender).
 

West High GSA v. Manchester School District (New Hampshire, 1999)

VICTORY!!

Faced with a lawsuit by GLAD and its NH co-counsel, the Manchester School District directed West High’s principal to recognize a student initiated Gay/Straight Alliance.  The students had sought recognition from the school for a noncurriculum-related club that would focus on creating support and safe spaces for GLBT and questioning youth, but were told that they had to obtain approval from the School Board, a requirement not imposed on any other students wishing to form a club.  The result ensures that the GSA will be afforded the exact same treatment as all other clubs at the high school.

Read GLAD's press release...

Jason H. v. Boston Public Schools (Massachusetts, 1999)

VICTORY!!

Representing a Boston student subjected to peer harassment, GLAD negotiated a settlement that includes system-wide training and information regarding sexual orientation and the appointment of a support person in every school.

Read Jason's story.

M.G. v. Providence School Department (Rhode Island, 1999)

VICTORY!!

Representing a Providence student arrested and expelled from school after false accusations by tormenting peers, GLAD won an agreement completely vindicating the student.
 

In re. D.G. (Maine, 1999)

VICTORY!!

Where a southern Maine school sought to "solve" the two-year harassment of a student by graduating him a year early, GLAD successfully turned the focus back to a proper education and an end to the harassment.
 

In re. South Kingstown High School (Rhode Island, 1998)

VICTORY!!

GLAD intervened successfully on behalf of a high school gay/straight alliance that had been denied the equivalent privileges of other student organizations.  The principal was persuaded to honor the school’s obligations under the Federal Equal Access Act.