Skip Header to Content
GLAD Logo Skip Primary Navigation to Content

News

60+ Rhode Island Organizations Urge General Assembly to Reject Harmful Legislation Targeting LGBTQ+ People

Organizations are joined by 400+ individual signers from across the state including medical providers, behavioral health providers, teachers, parents, and other concerned Rhode Islanders

A coalition of local organizations, advocates, and community members have sent an open letter to Rhode Island legislators urging them to reject a series of proposed bills that would undermine the well-being of LGBTQ+ people in the state.

The letter was signed by over 60 organizations, including the National Education Association Rhode Island, Rhode Island Medical Society, Rhode Island Academy of Family Physicians, Rhode Island Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Rhode Island Council of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Rhode Island Psychological Association, Rhode Island Section of American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rhode Island Coalition for Children and Families, Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Rhode Island Black Business Association, and Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights.

“The majority of Rhode Islanders support equality, and we’ve proven that from one legislative session to the next,” the letter reads. It describes a series of proposed bills that target LGBTQ+ people and “run counter to our commitment to protect our families, friends, and neighbors,” including: 

  • A dangerous bill that would ban standard-of-care medical care for transgender youth – care that is supported as safe and effective by every major U.S. professional medical association, taking away parents’ ability to get their children the healthcare they need, as well as removing established protections in healthcare insurance coverage (H7884, S2703)
  • Bills targeting transgender students for exclusion by prohibiting them from playing on school sports teams with their friends and potentially subjecting any female student athlete to invasive medical exams (H7727, S2660)
  • Proposals which would threaten schools and teachers with penalties for not complying with vague requirements to allow virtually any individual parent to dictate school lesson plans, remove teachers’ and school staffs’ ability to support LGBTQ+ students in school, and mandate the forced outing of LGBTQ youth without regard to students’ safety (H7781, S2424, H7873, S2041)
  • A bill that could be used to classify any material with LGBTQ+ content as obscene and levy criminal charges (S2104)
  • A dangerous bill that would threaten the health of every Rhode Islander by allowing any medical provider, healthcare facility, or insurance plan to refuse to provide care based on the vague assertion that it violates their conscience (S2423)

The letter, which was also signed by over 400+ individual Rhode Islanders – including medical providers, behavioral health providers, teachers, parents, and other concerned residents – from towns across the state, goes on to read:

“Rhode Island protected transgender people under the law more than 20 years ago, recognizing that as the necessary first step to end the mistreatment too often experienced by the community. Nearly a decade has passed since our schools implemented policies to support transgender, nonbinary, and gender diverse students. We should be well beyond debates about transgender Rhode Islanders’ basic dignity and humanity and respect for their ability to live, work, go to school and participate in public life on the same terms as everyone else.”

“Rhode Islanders want our elected senators and representatives to work on policies that will actually improve the lives of everyone in the Ocean State, not stir up baseless fear about a small group of people.”

The organizations signing the letter are:
Thundermist Health Center
TGI Network of Rhode Island Inc.
Youth Pride, Inc.
Sojourner House
Project Weber/RENEW
Haus of Codec
Pride in Aging RI
Newport Pride
PFLAG Greater Providence
The Womxn Project
Young Voices
Rhode Island ACLU
Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights
National Education Association Rhode Island
Rhode Island KIDS COUNT
Economic Progress Institute
Women’s Fund of Rhode Island
SHIP
COYOTE RI
Amnesty International USA 1016
GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders
The Trevor Project
Planned Parenthood of Southern New England
Rhode Island Public Health Institute
Open Door Health
Family Service of Rhode Island
Thrive Behavioral Health
Rhode Island Medical Society
Rhode Island Academy of Family Physicians
Rhode Island Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics
Rhode Island Council of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Rhode Island Psychological Association
Rhode Island Section of American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Washington County Health Equity Zone
One Cranston Health Equity Zone
Protect Our Healthcare Coalition RI
Rhode Island Coalition for Children and Families
Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence
SafeBAE
Haven Box
Women’s Health & Education Fund
Rhode Island State Council of Churches
Hope and Change Partnership
Rhode Island Democratic Party LGBTQ+ Caucus
RI Working Families Power
Rhode Island Black Business Association
East Greenwich Pediatrics
Trident Psychological Services
East Side Psychotherapy, Inc.
Ann Adler, Ph.D., LLC
Providence Wellness, LLC
Radically Thrive Therapy, LLC
Wilder Therapy & Wellness
Bellwether Doulas
OkaySo
Secular Student Alliance
Rhode Island Atheists
Humanists of Rhode Island
Barrington United With Pride
Towards an Anti-Racist North Kingstown (TANK)
People Respecting Others With Dignity! (PROWD!)
Ryder | Talbutt Group
FabNewport
Carberry Development Group
CJG Notary of RI, LLC
Public Shop & Gallery
Sharper Harper LLC

And an additional 400+ individual signatures from across the state including medical providers, behavioral health providers, teachers, parents, and other concerned Rhode Islanders

Read the full letter is available

Read a fact sheet on the proposed bills

20240409_LGBTQ Letter to RI GA

2023-07-28 Legal Groups FAQ on 303 Creative_final

2023-07-28 Legal Groups FAQ on 303 Creative_final

GLAD-Summer-2023-Briefs

GLAD-Summer-2023-Briefs

Blog

At the Supreme Court: 303 Creative v. Elenis Puts Critical Anti-discrimination Protections at Risk

The Supreme Court building. Photo by Joe Ravi
Photo by Joe Ravi

This June, the U.S. Supreme Court will issue a ruling in 303 Creative v. Elenis, in which a business seeks to use the owner’s disapproval of same-sex marriage to justify side-stepping anti-discrimination laws.

The plaintiff, a Colorado website design business, is asking the Court to create a “free speech” exemption from state anti-discrimination laws. For the Court to do so would dramatically reverse decades of both case law and public norms, undercutting the bedrock of assurances we all depend on to access goods and services in the general marketplace every day.

Specifically, 303 Creative, which is subject to Colorado’s LGBTQ- inclusive anti-discrimination law, wants the right to refuse to sell wedding-related websites to same-sex couples. The business says it is entitled to an exemption allowing it to turn away LGBTQ+ people it does not want to serve so that it and other companies are not “compelled to speak” a message of support for same-sex couples by the act of selling its service.

“To be clear, the serious danger in this case is not whether this one business will sell wedding websites to same-sex couples — no couple has asked them to, and in fact, they don’t even sell wedding websites at this time,” says Mary Bonauto, GLAD’s Senior Director of Civil Rights and Litigation Strategies. “The danger is that this business owner seeks sweeping changes to current law ensuring that goods and services are available to all of us regardless of whether people operating the business might approve of their customers or not. For the Court to find a free speech right for stores, shops, and services to discriminate would be a radical departure from iconic precedents that will fuel the escalating efforts to chip away at vital protections for LGBTQ+ people and other groups facing discrimination.”

The Court framed the question in the case as whether an “artist” would be “compelled to speak or stay silent” by virtue of the anti-discrimination law. But the “artist” here is a business open to the general public, and for many decades there has been no question that states are free to regulate businesses — including businesses that use creativity — when they sell their services in the general marketplace, as 303 Creative plans to do. The Supreme Court and lower courts have repeatedly rejected First Amendment claims to the contrary. That’s because denying service to someone because of who they are is discriminatory conduct, not artistry or self-expression.

The impact of a ruling for the business in this case could be staggering. A loss here could take many forms, such as allowing refusals specifically for wedding-related services, creating a specific right to refuse service to LGBTQ+ people, or permitting any business that is open to the public to evade anti-discrimination laws if they can argue their business is “artistic” or “expressive.”

For the Court to grant any constitutional exemption to anti-discrimination laws allowing people to be turned away because of who they are would be a remarkable turning point and incredibly harmful. While this case targets LGBTQ+ people and same-sex couples who seek to marry, a new free speech defense to businesses providing service without discrimination could be invoked against people from all walks of life. Any ruling for 303 Creative also risks being seen by some as a green light to assert a free speech defense in other areas of law.

We remain determined to fight and forge our path forward in these precarious times for our LGBTQ+ community and all Americans’ individual and civil rights. We certainly hope the Court will come to the right conclusion in this case, affirm decades of precedent, and issue a ruling upholding our anti-discrimination laws. But no matter how the Court rules, it is crucial for us all to reaffirm that every individual, regardless of who we are or whom we love, deserves the fundamental freedom to go about our daily lives and access the goods and services we need without discrimination.

Read GLAD’s brief in 303 Creative, developed with Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and also joined by HRC and the Task Force.

UPDATE: On June 30, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled on 303 Creative. Read our statement here.


This story was originally published in the Summer 2023 GLAD Briefs newsletter. Read more.

Maine Youth: Your Questions Answered!

Maine Youth: Your Questions Answered!

Doe v Ladapo – Expert Declaration of Dr. Kenneth Goodman

Doe v Ladapo - Expert Declaration of Dr. Kenneth Goodman

legal-planning-couples

legal-planning-couples

Overview of Legal Issues for LGBTQ+ People in Rhode Island

Overview of Legal Issues for LGBTQ+ People in Rhode Island

Public Accommodations | Discrimination | Rhode Island

What is a “place of public accommodation”?

Places of public accommodation are places that are open to the public and include, but are not limited to, stores, restaurants, bars, public transportation, garages, hotels, hospitals, clinics, rest rooms, barber shops, salons, amusement parks, gyms, golf courses, swimming pools, theaters, fairs, libraries, public housing projects, and so on (R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-24-3).

Does Rhode Island have an anti-discrimination law protecting LGBTQ+ individuals from discrimination in places of public accommodation?

Yes. Since 1995, Rhode Island has had a comprehensive anti-discrimination law concerning sexual orientation in employment, housing, credit and public accommodations and has included sexual orientation under its equal opportunity and affirmative action law.  In 2001, Rhode Island added gender identity or expression to each of these statutory protections (R.I. Gen. Laws, ch. 11-24 (public accommodations); ch. 28-5 (employment); ch. 28-5.1 (equal opportunity and affirmative action); and ch. 34-37 (housing and credit)).

Does it also protect people perceived to be LGBTQ+ in places of public accommodation?

Yes. The anti-discrimination laws define “sexual orientation” as “having or being perceived as having an orientation for heterosexuality, bisexuality or homosexuality and define “gender identity or expression” as including a “person’s actual or perceived gender” (R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 28-5-6(11)(gender identity or expression) and (16)(sexual orientation) (employment); 34-37-3(9)(gender identity or expression) and (15)(sexual orientation) (housing and credit); and 11-24-2.1(h)(sexual orientation) and (i)(gender identity or expression) (public accommodations)). Thus, if a person is fired because they are perceived to be gay (whether they are or not), they may still invoke the protection of the anti-discrimination law to challenge the firing.

What does the law say about discrimination in places of public accommodation?

Such places shall not “directly or indirectly refuse, withhold from, or deny to any … person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges of that public place,” and shall not advertise or state that their accommodations are so limited, because of a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity or expression (or other protected characteristics) (R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-24-2).

How do I file a claim of discrimination?

You may file a charge of discrimination in person or in writing at the Rhode Island Commission For Human Rights (RICHR), 180 Westminster Street, 3rd floor, Providence, RI 02903. If you plan to go in person, you can call in advance to set up an appointment and find out what you need to bring. Their phone number is (401) 222-2661 (voice) and 401-222-2664 (TTY). The fax number is (401) 222-2616.

The charge must be under oath and must state the name and address of the individual making the complaint as well as the name and address of the entity against which they are complaining (called the “respondent”). The complaint must set out the particulars of the alleged unlawful acts and (preferably) the times they occurred.

Do I need a lawyer?

No, but GLAD strongly encourages people to find lawyers to represent them throughout the process. Although the process is designed to allow people to represent themselves, there are many legal rules governing the RICHR process, and employers and other defendants are almost certain to have legal representation.

What are the deadlines for filing a complaint of discrimination?

A complaint must generally be filed with the RICHR within one year of the discriminatory act or acts (R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 28-5-17(a); 34-37-5 (b); see Rules and Regulations of the RICHR Rule 4.05). There are very few exceptions for lateness, and GLAD encourages people to move promptly in filing claims.

Can I file more than one type of discrimination complaint at once, for example, if I believe I was fired both because I am a lesbian and Latina?

Yes, you can file several claims if you have suffered discriminatory treatment based on more than one personal characteristic. The state antidiscrimination laws for employment and public accommodations forbid taking an action against someone because of sexual orientation or gender identity or expression as well as race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy and sexual harassment), disability, age, or country of ancestral origin (R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-24-2 and § 28-5-7 (1)(i)).

What happens after a charge is filed with the RICHR?

The RICHR may initiate a preliminary investigation in an employment, credit, housing, or public accommodations case. If the RICHR determines it is probable that a defendant is or was engaged in unlawful practices, then the RICHR shall attempt to eliminate the unlawful practices by “informal methods of conference, conciliation and persuasion” (See, e.g., R.I. Gen. Laws, § 28-5-17(a) and § 34-37-5(b); see also Rules and Regulations of the RICHR Rule 5.02).

If conciliation is unsuccessful, or at any time when the circumstances so warrant (including before investigation in egregious cases), the RICHR may serve a complaint and notice of hearing on the respondent. This process involves a trial type hearing but is not as formal as an actual trial in court. This process must be commenced within 2 years of when the complainant first filed their charge with the RICHR (R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 28-5-18; 34-37-5).

After the RICHR rules (either because it has found no probable cause to proceed, or because it has ruled on the merits after a hearing), any complainant, intervener, or respondent claiming to be aggrieved by a final order of the commission may obtain judicial review in Superior Court (R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 28-5-28; 34-37-6).

There are a few times when the case can be taken from the RICHR and filed in court. For example:

  • Once the complaint has been pending at the RICHR for at least 120 days, (but less than 2 years and before any conciliation agreement has been made), the complainant may request permission to remove the case from the RICHR. That request should be granted, and the complainant then has 90 days from when they receive a “right to sue” letter to file the case in Superior Court (R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-5-24.1(a) and § 34-37-5(l); see also Rules and Regulations of the RICHR Rule 17.01).
  • After the RICHR finds probable cause to credit the allegations in a complaint, either party may elect to terminate the proceedings at the RICHR and file in court as long as they do so within the strict timelines set by the RICHR rules (See R.I. Gen. Laws, § 28-5-24.1(c) and § 34-37-5(n)).
  • In addition, in housing cases, the RICHR may go to court to seek an order forbidding the respondent from selling, renting or otherwise disposing of the property at issue while the case is pending (R.I. Gen. Laws § 34-37-5(m)).

If probable cause is found lacking, the case is over unless you seek judicial review of the “lack of probable cause” finding. There are special rules and time constraints on this process which must be observed strictly (R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-5-28 and § 34-37-6).

What are the legal remedies the RICHR may award for discrimination if an individual wins their case there?

In all cases alleging different treatment discrimination, the remedies for a successful complainant in an intentional discrimination case may include compensatory damages (including for emotional distress), attorney’s fees (including expert fees and other litigation expenses), cease and desist orders, and any other action which will effectuate the purpose of the anti-discrimination laws (R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-5-24 (b)(employment); § 34-37-5(h) (housing cases); § 11-24-4 (public accommodations cases); Rules and Regulations of the RICHR Rule 12.02).

When complainants prevail in court, the remedies named above may be awarded, as well as punitive damages when the challenged conduct is shown to be motivated by malice or ill will, or when the action involves reckless or callous indifference to the statutorily protected rights of others (R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-5-29.1 (employment); § 11-24-4 (public accommodations); § 34-37-5 (o) (3) (housing)). The only exception is that punitive damages may not be awarded against the State.

Can I also file a discrimination complaint with a federal agency?

Yes, in many cases. Since federal law and state law contain overlapping provisions, someone bringing a discrimination claim may sometimes pursue protections under both. For example, the federal employment non-discrimination law, called Title VII, applies to employers with at least 15 employees and forbids employment discrimination based on race, sex, age, religion, and disability (which includes HIV status).

While Title VII does not expressly forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, a growing number of courts and government agencies have taken the position that its proscription against sex discrimination encompasses both (See, e.g., United States & Dr. Rachel Tudor v. Southeastern Oklahoma State University, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89547 (2015) (denying motion to dismiss professor’s Title VII complaint that school had subjected her to a hostile work environment based on her gender identity)). In two separate decisions in 2012 and 2016, the EEOC itself concluded that sexual orientation discrimination, gender identity discrimination, and sex discrimination are one and the same, since the latter two are based on preferences, assumptions, expectations, stereotypes, and norms associated with masculinity and femininity (See Macy v. Holder, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (Apr. 20, 2012); Baldwin v. Foxx, EEOC Appeal No. 0120133080 (July 15, 2015)). Although the EEOC’s decisions are not binding on the courts, many have used similar reasoning in affirming Title VII’s applicability to discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation (See, e.g., Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding that Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender people based on gender stereotyping); Videckis v. Pepperdine Univ., 150 F. Supp. 3d 1151, 1160 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (holding “sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex or gender discrimination”)).

Should I file a complaint with a federal agency?

GLAD recommends that, where there may be overlapping state and federal jurisdiction, you explore filing with the state first but keep in mind the possibility of pursuing a federal claim as well. Federal complaints must be filed within 180 days of the discriminatory act with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). However, if you initially institute your complaint with the RICHR and indicate that you wish to have the complaint cross-filed with the EEOC, then the time limit is extended to the earlier of 300 days or 30 days after the RICHR has terminated the case (42 United States Code § 2000e-5(e)(1)). (People who work for federal agencies are beyond the scope of this publication.)

If you have a sexual orientation or gender identity or expression complaint, you should check off “sex” as well as “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” as the bases for your claim and request that the RICHR cross-file your complaint with the EEOC.

Are there other options for filing a complaint for discrimination?

Possibly yes, depending on the facts of your particular situation.

State or Federal Court: After filing with the RICHR, the EEOC, or both, you may decide to remove your discrimination case from those agencies and file the case in court. There are rules about when and how this must be done, as discussed above. In addition, you may file a court case to address other claims which are not appropriately handled by discrimination agencies. For example, if you are fired in violation of a contract; fired without the progressive discipline promised in a handbook; or fired for doing something the employer doesn’t like but which the law requires, then these matters are beyond the scope of what the agencies can investigate and the matter should be pursued in court. Similarly, if your claim involves a violation of constitutional rights, such as a teacher or governmental employee who believes their free speech or equal protection rights were violated, then those matters must be heard in court.

What can I do to prepare myself before filing a complaint of discrimination?

Some people prefer to meet with an attorney to evaluate the strength of their claims before filing a case. It is always helpful to bring the attorney an outline of what happened on the job that you are complaining about, organized by date and with an explanation of who the various players are (and how to get in touch with them); what happened; who said what; and who else was present.

en_USEnglish