Civil Rights Act Protects Gay Workers, Appeals Court Rules

A federal appeals court in Manhattan ruled on Monday that federal civil rights law bars employers from discriminating based on sexual orientation.

The case, which stemmed from the 2010 dismissal of a Long Island sky-diving instructor, was a setback for the Trump Justice Department, whose lawyers found themselves in the unusual position of arguing against government lawyers from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.Discrimination

The E.E.O.C. had argued that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars workplace discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex or national origin,” protected gay employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

But the Trump Justice Department took the position that the law did not reach sexual orientation, and said the E.E.O.C. was “not speaking for the United States.”

The Justice Department and Altitude Express, the instructor’s employer, could seek review of the decision by the United States Supreme Court, although neither party had any immediate comment on the ruling.

In its decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said, “We see no principled basis for recognizing a violation of Title VII for associational discrimination based on race but not on sex.”

New York Times – By BENJAMIN WEISER and ALAN FEUER  

Click here to read the entire article.

in In the News / Legal  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

The predictable reason why anti-LGBT bills become law

The cavalcade of crazy ginned up by folks fearful of equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans was predictable. That far-right conservatives have been wigged out ever since the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage last June is not surprising.  Anti-LGBT bills are popping up all over the country.

Nor is the move by states to pass so-called religious freedom laws. Nor is the push to deny transgender people the dignity of using the bathroom that matches their gender identity. LGBT-rights activist and radio host Michelangelo Signorile predicted as much a year ago in his book “It’s Not Over: Getting beyond Tolerance, Defeating Homophobia, and Winning True Equality.”

 

Also, “Nearly all of the states facing anti-LGBT bills / anti-transgender bills have only 1 or no openly LGBT people serving in their state legislatures,” the report notes.

“One of the reasons the LGBT movement has seen such rapid progress is because our allies have really stepped up. But allies aren’t enough. When LGBT people are serving in public office, and especially in state legislatures, they directly change the conversation,” Aisha Moodie-Mills, president and CEO of Victory Fund and Institute. told me. “Their visibility and their relationships with their colleagues mean the discussion quickly becomes about a real person with a real family. It’s not just political grandstanding on one side and allies pleading their case on the other. Representation matters. Our voices make a huge difference when we’re in those rooms.”rainbowsilhouetteparents

Knowing this then, the opposite actions recently by Gov. Pat McCrory (R-N.C.) and Gov. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) have a bit more context.

With lightning speed, the North Carolina legislature passed and McCrory signed into law legislation that not only strips the state of antidiscrimination protections for LGBT folks but also requires transmen and transwomen to use bathrooms based on the sex on their birth certificate and not on their gender identity. The Tar Heel State has no openly LGBT members of its legislature.

Meanwhile, down in the Peach State, Deal vetoed a so-called religious freedom bill. “I do not think we have to discriminate against anyone to protect the faith-based community in Georgia,” he said announcing his decision on March 28. Georgia has three openly LGBT legislators.

by Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post, April 29, 2016

Click here to read the entire article.

in In the News / Legal / Legislation  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Gay rights – Why religious freedom bills could be just the beginning of the gay marriage debate

Gay rights vs. religious protections feels like the social battle of the moment right now, and it might not go away anytime soon.

In the wake of the June Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, dozens of states have considered or are considering legislation to give Christians and other people protections from doing something that violates their religious belief. It’s got LGBT advocates playing whack-a-mole across the nation as they argue that these laws amount to sanctioned discrimination of gay rights.

Three battles in the South over gay rights in particular have made headlines. Mississippi recently passed a sweeping bill allowing  businesses, religious institutions and state government employees to refuse service to LGBT people. Georgia’s Gov. Nathan Deal (R) vetoed a bill aimed at protecting religious institutions from having to perform same-sex marriages. And then there’s North Carolina and its bill limiting public bathrooms and locker room access for transgender people, which is a whole other issue for another day.

We spoke to Rochelle Finzel,  director of the children and families program with the nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislatures to get a better feel for why this seems to be taking up so much oxygen now — and what could come next. It’s important to note that Finzel and her staff don’t take any positions on policy; rather they track the legislative trends related to family law. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.marriage equality

THE FIX: There’s a perception that laws protecting religious institutions and officials from having to perform same-sex marriages is a new phenomenon this year. But really, the 13 states that legalized same-sex marriage through state legislation included religious freedom protections too, right?

Finzel: That’s right. In some states that was the compromise; the only way they were going to get their legislation passed to legalize same-sex marriage was to make sure those religious officials were protected.

What’s happening now, after the Supreme Court ruling where now all states have to recognize same-sex marriage, I think it raised those same concerns of: How do we make sure the law is protecting those whose religious beliefs do not necessarily support same-sex marriage? So these conversations have been a little bit broader than just the solemnization question.

THE FIX: So you’re saying these new bills are controversial in part because they’re expanding beyond protecting religious institutions to how to protect the average person on the street who doesn’t agree with same-sex marriage for religious reasons? Is that a new debate?

Finzel: From my vantage point, that’s new.

The bills that have generated the most controversy and the legislation that ultimately most states, besides Mississippi, have  vetoed, that’s been where that controversy has arisen. And certainly where you see the business community weigh in.

It raises the question of: Are we then allowing discrimination if a person is able to deny services or benefits to someone based on their religious beliefs? We’re protecting one set of beliefs, but then is it discrimination on the other end? And that’s been the real question. But we are very early on in this conversation on gay rights.

THE FIX: How do you see this conversation evolving?

Finzel: This is new territory for states. They’re trying to think about the implications of same-sex marriage across a whole host of issues, from the religious protections as well as some of the family law. I think certainly the emphasis and focus right now is just on same-sex marriage and recognizing same-sex marriage.

The next piece will be, now that we have same-sex marriage and also have same-sex parents, what are the implications in terms of custody, parentage, paternity and all those related issues — child support, child custody, adoption.

THE FIX: When the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in June, was your reaction like, ‘Oh man, get ready for this huge legislative battle in the states,’ or have all these developments surprised you?

Finzel: It may have happened more quickly than we had anticipated. But it certainly has been on our radar. We were thinking, ‘What will this do for family law?’ And I’m not so sure that anyone really has all of the answers to that question yet.

THE FIX: Why are bathroom bills happening in conjunction with all this?

Finzel: That’s a good question. Maybe it’s a question to pose to some of the advocates on these issues. Has that been part of their platform as well?

THE FIX: Is it fair to say the religious protection vs. gay rights discussion has been centered in the South, which tends to have a higher concentration of social and religious conservatives who don’t necessarily agree with same-sex marriage?

Finzel: I think it’s a discussion around the country. All states are — and especially where the Supreme Court ruling was the first time they had to recognize same-sex marriage — sort of deer in the headlights, like, ‘Okay, what do we do?’ And I would say that’s across the board.

There are some that are looking at family law, some looking at how we change the language of our statutes so they reflect a more gender-neutral portrayal of family structures. We see more activity in the Republican states, but it’s not that it hasn’t been introduced or discussed in Democratic states. Family issues are not partisan.

by Amber Phillips, Washington Post – April 13, 2106

Click here to read the entire article.

in In the News / Legal / Legislation  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Mississippi Same-Sex Adoption Ban Unconstitutional

Mississippi Same-Sex Adoption Ban Unconstitutional: The Supreme Court “foreclosed litigation over laws interfering with the right to marry and ‘rights and responsibilities intertwined with marriage,’” a federal judge ruled Thursday.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Mississippi on Thursday afternoon halted enforcement of the state’s ban on same-sex couples adopting children.

Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision ending bans on same-sex couples’ marriages, U.S. District Court Judge Daniel P. Jordan III granted a preliminary injunction against the state’s Department of Human Services in a case filed this past August.gay rights, lgbt adoption rights, adoption rights, gay adoption rights, gay adoption new york

Of the Supreme Court’s decision, Jordan wrote, “[T]he majority opinion foreclosed litigation over laws interfering with the right to marry and ‘rights and responsibilities intertwined with marriage.’”

Jordan concluded on Thursday: “The majority of the United States Supreme Court dictates the law of the land, and lower courts are bound to follow it. In this case, that means that [the adoption ban] violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.”

The case was brought by same-sex couples seeking to adopt through the foster care system or private adoptions, as well as by the Campaign for Southern Equality and the Family Equality Council. They snagged Roberta Kaplan as their lead attorney in the challenge — the lawyer who represented Edie Windsor in her successful challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act and then Mississippi same-sex couples who successfully challenged the state’s same-sex marriage ban.

While Jordan did grant their requested preliminary injunction, he also granted the requests made by many of the defendants to be removed from the lawsuit. Jordan granted requests to dismiss the complaint against Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant, Attorney General Jim Hood, and several judges — finding that they were not the appropriate parties to be sued by the couples and groups.

Buzzfeed.com, by Chris Gender – March 31, 2016

in Adoption / Ethics / In the News / Legal / Parenting  by Anthony Brown 0 comments