DOCSLIB.ORG

An Amici Curiae

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Nos. 17-1618, 17-1623, 18-107 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States GERALD LYNN BOSTOCK, Petitioner, v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, Respondent. ALTITUDE EXPRESS, INC., and RAY MAYNARD, Petitioners, v. MELISSA ZARDA and WILLIAM MOORE, JR., CO-INDEPENDENT EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF DONALD ZARDA, Respondents. R.G. & G.R. HARRIS FUNERAL HOMES, INC., Petitioner, v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION and AIMEE STEPHENS, Respondents. ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH, SECOND, AND SIXTH CIRCUITS BRIEF OF GLBTQ LEGAL ADVOCATES & DEFENDERS, NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS, ET AL. AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF THE EMPLOYEES ALAN E. SCHOENFELD Counsel of Record WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 (212) 937-7518 [email protected] ADDITIONAL COUNSEL AND REPRESENTATION INFORMATION ON INSIDE COVER MARY BONAUTO LEON T. KENWORTHY GLBTQ LEGAL ADVOCATES JAMES BARTON & DEFENDERS WILMER CUTLER PICKERING 18 Tremont St., Suite 950 HALE AND DORR LLP Boston, MA 02108 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Counsel for GLAD Washington, DC 20006 CHRISTOPHER D. DODGE CHRISTOPHER STOLL WILMER CUTLER PICKERING JULIE WILENSKY HALE AND DORR LLP SHANNON MINTER 60 State Street NATIONAL CENTER FOR Boston, MA 02109 LESBIAN RIGHTS 870 Market Street, Suite 370 Counsel for amici curiae San Francisco, CA 94102 Counsel for NCLR TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ..................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 7 ARGUMENT ........................................................................ 9 I. A Rule Excluding Discrimination Against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Or Transgender Persons From Title VII Is Unworkable And Leads To Inconsistent Results .......................... 9 A. Courts’ Attempts To Apply A Rule Excluding Discrimination Against Lesbian, Gay, And Bisexual Plaintiffs From Title VII Have Led To Confusion And Inconsistent Outcomes .............. 9 B. With Near Uniformity In The Last Twenty Years, Courts Have Refused To Draw Arbitrary Lines In Cases Brought By Transgender Plaintiffs, Avoiding The Confusion Endemic To Cases Involving Lesbian, Gay, And Bisexual Plaintiffs ............................................... 15 II. Enforcing Title VII According To Its Text And In Accordance With This Court’s Precedents Will Ensure Consistent Outcomes And Provide Clear Guidance To Lower Courts .............................................................. 17 CONCLUSION .................................................................. 21 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page(s) Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp. v. Arkansas Public Service Commission, 461 U.S. 375 (1983) ..................................................... 18 Baldwin v. Foxx, E.E.O.C. Decision No. 0120133080, 2015 WL 4397641 (July 16, 2015) ............................................................................. 19 Bibby v. Philadelphia Coca Cola Bottling Co., No. 00-1261, 2001 WL 919976 (3d Cir. Aug. 1, 2001) ......................................................................... 10 Boutillier v. Hartford Public Schools, 221 F. Supp. 3d 255 (D. Conn. 2016) .................................... 13 Centola v. Potter, 183 F. Supp. 2d 403 (D. Mass. 2002) ............................................................................. 14 Christiansen v. Omnicom Group, Inc., 852 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 2017) ............................................... 19 Dawson v. Bumble & Bumble, 398 F.3d 211 (2d Cir. 2005) ......................................................... 12, 13 EEOC v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., 731 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2013)....................................................... 12 EEOC v. R.G. &. G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., 884 F.3d 560 (6th Cir. 2018) ............................... 7 Estate of D.B. by Briggs v. Thousand Islands Central School District, 169 F. Supp. 3d 320 (N.D.N.Y. 2016) ................................................... 13 Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008) ............................................................................ 18 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) Fabian v. Hospital of Central Connecticut, 172 F. Supp. 3d 509 (D. Conn. 2016) ................... 15, 16 Glenn v. Brumby, 663 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2011) ................................................................... 7, 15, 16 Heller v. Columbia Edgewater Country Club, 195 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Or. 2002) ........................... 14 Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010) ...................... 17 Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, 853 F.3d 339 (7th Cir. 2017)................... 7, 8, 10, 14, 19 Kay v. Independence Blue Cross, 142 F. App’x 48 (3d Cir. 2005) .......................................................... 12 Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) ..................... 17 Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) ............................................. 8, 19, 20 Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972) ..................................................................... 18 Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991)........................ 18 Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) ............................................................................ 15 Prowel v. Wise Business Forms, Inc., 579 F.3d 285 (3d Cir. 2009) ........................................................ 12 Schroer v. Billington, 577 F. Supp. 2d 293 (D.D.C. 2008) ..................................................... 7, 15, 16 Spearman v. Ford Motor Co., 231 F.3d 1080 (7th Cir. 2000).............................................................. 10 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) Trigg v. New York City Transit Authority, No. 99-CV-4730, 2001 WL 868336 (E.D.N.Y. July 26, 2001) ............................................................... 10 Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (1986) ......................... 18 Vickers v. Fairfield Medical Center, 453 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 2006)....................................................... 11 Whitaker By Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District No. 1 Board of Education, 858 F.3d 1034 (7th Cir. 2017) ...................................... 7 Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., 883 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2018) ................................................... 7, 8, 9, 13 INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1 Through strategic litigation, public policy advocacy, and education, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) works in New England and nationally to cre- ate a just society free of discrimination based on gender identity and expression, HIV status, and sexual orien- tation. GLAD has litigated widely in both state and federal courts in all areas of the law in order to protect and advance the rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender individuals, and people living with HIV and AIDS. GLAD has an enduring interest in ensuring that employees receive full and complete redress for violation of their civil rights in the workplace. The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) is a national non-profit legal organization dedicated to protecting and advancing the civil rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and their families through litigation, public policy advocacy, and public education. Since its founding in 1977, NCLR has played a leading role in securing fair and equal treat- ment for LGBT people and their families in cases across the country involving constitutional and civil rights. NCLR has a particular interest in promoting equal op- portunity for LGBT people in the workplace through legislation, policy, and litigation, and represents LGBT people in employment and other cases in courts throughout the country. 1 No party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no one other than amici, their members, and their counsel made a mone- tary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief. All employers and the United States have filed blan- ket letters of consent to the filing of this brief. Amici obtained written consent from the employees to the filing of this brief. 2 Advocates for Youth (Advocates) partners with youth leaders, adult allies, and youth serving organiza- tions that promote policies and champion programs re- lated to young people’s sexual and reproductive health and rights. Advocates works alongside thousands of young people here in the U.S. and around the globe as they fight for sexual health, rights, and justice. Advo- cates envision a world in which marginalized young people are not discriminated against based on their ac- tual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity and expression. The Disciples LGBTQ+ Alliance is a network of congregations and individual members of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) called to join in God’s work of transforming the Christian Church into a just and inclusive church that welcomes persons of all gender expressions and sexual identities into the full life and leadership of the church; and to work ecumenically in advocacy for LGBTQ+ people, voicing our faith position about equality and inclusion in secular/cultural issues. Equality Arizona is a non-profit organization dedi- cated to building the cultural and political power of the LGBTQ community in Arizona. Since our founding in 1992, we have led the fight for LGBTQ equality in Ari- zona by advocating and organizing for the civil and hu- man rights of LGBTQ individuals
Recommended publications
  • Bonauto, Mary (B

    Bonauto, Mary (B

    Bonauto, Mary (b. 1961) by Claude J. Summers Mary L. Bonauto at the Encyclopedia Copyright © 2015, glbtq, Inc. 2010 Spirit of Justice dinner. Entry Copyright © 2012 glbtq, Inc. Reprinted from http://www.glbtq.com A leading American lawyer, Mary Bonauto has served as the civil rights project director at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) for more than two decades. In that capacity, she has won major rulings that have brought the promise of equal rights nearer to reality in the lives of glbtq citizens. She is widely regarded as among the country's best litigators in the cause of marriage equality. Bonauto was born on June 8, 1961 into a Roman Catholic family of modest means in Newburgh, New York. The only daughter of a pharmacist and a teacher, she grew up with three brothers. When Bonauto was growing up and attending public schools, Newburgh was a depressed factory town riven by racial and class divisions. A good athlete who played tennis, basketball, softball, and volleyball, she had the opportunity to mingle with a wide variety of individuals. This interaction led her to distrust stereotypes of all kinds. Bonauto received her undergraduate education at Hamilton College, where she majored in history and comparative literature. There she also came to terms with her lesbianism, though she did not come out to her parents until she entered law school at Northeastern University in 1984. Bonauto's acceptance of her homosexuality caused her to abandon the Roman Catholic Church, though she says she is still guided by the Catholic values that helped form her commitment to social justice.
  • Organizations Endorsing the Equality Act

    Organizations Endorsing the Equality Act

    647 ORGANIZATIONS ENDORSING THE EQUALITY ACT National Organizations 9to5, National Association of Working Women Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC A Better Balance Asian American Federation A. Philip Randolph Institute Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA) ACRIA Association of Flight Attendants – CWA ADAP Advocacy Association Association of Title IX Administrators - ATIXA Advocates for Youth Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists AFGE Athlete Ally AFL-CIO Auburn Seminary African American Ministers In Action Autistic Self Advocacy Network The AIDS Institute Avodah AIDS United BALM Ministries Alan and Leslie Chambers Foundation Bayard Rustin Liberation Initiative American Academy of HIV Medicine Bend the Arc Jewish Action American Academy of Pediatrics Black and Pink American Association for Access, EQuity and Diversity BPFNA ~ Bautistas por la PaZ American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Brethren Mennonite Council for LGBTQ Interests American Association of University Women (AAUW) Caring Across Generations American Atheists Catholics for Choice American Bar Association Center for American Progress American Civil Liberties Union Center for Black Equity American Conference of Cantors Center for Disability Rights American Counseling Association Center for Inclusivity American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Center for Inquiry Employees (AFSCME) Center for LGBTQ and Gender Studies American Federation of Teachers CenterLink: The Community of LGBT Centers American Heart Association Central Conference
  • GLAD and Equality Maine Testimony

    GLAD and Equality Maine Testimony

    TESTIMONY OF MARY L. BONAUTO for GLBTQ LEGAL ADVOCATES & DEFENDERS & EQUALITY MAINE LD 1512 – OUGHT TO PASS COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS May 4, 2021 Senator Rafferty, Representative Brennan, and Honorable Members of the Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs: Good Morning. My name is Mary Bonauto, and I am an attorney at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD). GLAD is a legal rights organization that works throughout New England and nationally to create a just society free of discrimination based on gender identity and expression, HIV status, and sexual orientation. Joining us in this testimony is EqualityMaine. GLAD and EqualityMaine are supportive of the overall concept and goals of LD 1512, An Act To Create the Office of the Education Ombudsman and To Establish a Commission To Study the Creation of a Reporting and Response System To Assist Public Schools in Addressing Incidents of Bias, Discrimination and Harassment. We are supportive of a study commission as set forth in section 2 of the bill, and are supportive of the concept of an ombudsperson in section 1 of the bill. As to section 1, we have a number of comments. • We agree with dedicated resources to address the duties identified in the proposed §973 and on a state-wide level, but are curious as to whether the Department of Education can or already does this role, and whether it can continue to do so across administrations. • To the extent this new Ombudsperson would help to harmonize differing local policies into statewide polices, we support that clarity and believe it would assist communities across the state in building positive, respectful, learning environments for students and teachers and staff.
  • LGBTQ Organizations Unite in Calling for Transformational Change in Policing

    LGBTQ Organizations Unite in Calling for Transformational Change in Policing

    LGBTQ Organizations Unite in Calling for Transformational Change in Policing Black people have been killed, Black people are dying at the hands of police, our country is in crisis, and we all need to take action. We cannot sit on the sidelines, we cannot acquiesce, and we cannot assign responsibility to others. We, as leaders in the LGBTQ movement, must rise up and call for structural change, for divestment of police resources and reinvestment in communities, and for long-term transformational change. Now is the time to take action, and this letter amplifies our strong calls for urgent and immediate action to be taken. Ongoing police brutality and systemic racism have plagued this nation for generations and have been captured on video and laid bare to the public in the United States and around the world. In 2019, more than 1,000 people were killed at the hands of the police.1 We mourn the unacceptable and untimely deaths of Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, Sandra Bland, Philando Castile, Eric Garner, Stephon Clark, Freddie Gray, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Mya Hall, Tony McDade, Rayshard Brooks, and many more who were gone too soon. We have seen with increased frequency the shocking video footage of police brutality. Officers have been recorded instigating violence, screaming obscenities, dragging individuals out of cars, using unnecessary force, holding individuals at gunpoint, and kneeling on peoples’ necks to the desperate plea of “I can’t breathe.” These occurrences are stark reminders of a police system that needs structural changes, deconstruction, and transformation. No one should fear for their lives when they are pulled over by the police.
  • Testimony of Mary L. Bonauto for GLAD LD 320 Ought to Pass An

    Testimony of Mary L. Bonauto for GLAD LD 320 Ought to Pass An

    Testimony of Mary L. Bonauto for GLAD LD 320 Ought To Pass An Act To Provide the Right to Counsel for Juveniles and Improve Due Process for Juveniles Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary February 24, 2021 Senator Carney, Representative Harnett and distinguished members of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary, Good Morning. My name is Mary Bonauto. I am an attorney at the Maine office of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, which works primarily in New England and for equal justice under law without regard to sexual orientation, gender identity or HIV status. I am happy bill. LGBTQ children and families so they can live their lives and contribute to their communities with the same legal protections and responsibilities as others, and without harassment and discrimination because of their overlapping BIPOC and other identities. On a weekend in November 2016, I was notified that a young transgender individual had committed suicide while in detention at Long Creek. I was stunned, and because we had also just received disturbing letters from two gay individuals committed there, I asked a volunteer at the facility to please connect me with young people there. With what I saw, there was no option to look away. 1 Most of the young people I met at Long Creek were members of the LGBTQ community. Researchers and experts identify LGBTQ young people, particularly when they are girls and/or BIPOC, as also overrepresented in the juvenile justice system. The reasons include rejection from their own families, disproportionate physical and sexual abuse,
  • Deboer V. Snyder: a Case Study in Litigation and Social Reform

    Deboer V. Snyder: a Case Study in Litigation and Social Reform

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Michigan School of Law Michigan Journal of Gender & Law Volume 22 Issue 1 2015 DeBoer v. Snyder: A Case Study In Litigation and Social Reform Wyatt Fore University of Michigan School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjgl Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, Sexuality and the Law Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Wyatt Fore, DeBoer v. Snyder: A Case Study In Litigation and Social Reform, 22 MICH. J. GENDER & L. 169 (2015). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjgl/vol22/iss1/4 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of Gender & Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DEBOER V. SNYDER: A CASE STUDY IN LITIGATION AND SOCIAL REFORM yatt ore* ABSTRACT On April 28, 2015, the Supreme Court will hear oral argu- ments for four cases from the Sixth Circuit addressing the constitu- tionality of state bans on same-sex marriage. This Note examines DeBoer v. Snyder, the Michigan marriage case, with the goal of providing litigators and scholars the proper context for our current historical moment in which (1) the legal status of LGBT people; and (2) the conventional wisdom about the role of impact litigation in social reform movements are rapidly evolving.
  • Legal Strategies, Political Strategies and Their Intersection in The

    Legal Strategies, Political Strategies and Their Intersection in The

    University of Vermont ScholarWorks @ UVM UVM Honors College Senior Theses Undergraduate Theses 2014 “Dual Track Advocacy:” Legal Strategies, Political Strategies and Their nI tersection in the Marriage Equality Movement Alexander Wade Jones Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/hcoltheses Recommended Citation Jones, Alexander Wade, "“Dual Track Advocacy:” Legal Strategies, Political Strategies and Their nI tersection in the Marriage Equality Movement" (2014). UVM Honors College Senior Theses. 14. https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/hcoltheses/14 This Honors College Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Undergraduate Theses at ScholarWorks @ UVM. It has been accepted for inclusion in UVM Honors College Senior Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ UVM. For more information, please contact [email protected]. “Dual Track Advocacy:” Legal Strategies, Political Strategies and Their Intersection in the Marriage Equality Movement A thesis offered to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of a Bachelors of Arts with an Honors Endorsement By Alexander Wade Jones May 13, 2014 2 Table of Contents I. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….4 II. Definitions of Key Terms…..………………………………………………………………….6 A. Legal…………………………………………………………………………………...6 B. Political………………………………………………………………………………...7 C. LGB……………………………………………………………………………………8 III. Methods……………………………………………………………………………………...11 IV. Literature Review…………………………………………………………………………...12 A. Politics and Law in the Marriage Equality Movement………………………………12 B. Backlash……………………………………………………………………………...13 C. Legal Strategy………………………………………………………………………..20 D. Political Strategy……………………………………………………………………..22 V. A Short History of Marriage Equality Litigation…………………………………………….24 A. Overview……………………………………………………………………………..24 B. The First Cases (1970-1985)…..……………………………………………………..24 C. Victory and Defeat in the Shadow of Bowers (1986-2002)………………………….27 D. The Advent of Marriage Equality: the Lawrence and Goodridge Era (2003-2007)…35 E.
  • How to Get Married in Connecticut

    How to Get Married in Connecticut

    How to Get Married in Connecticut July 2015 Funding for this publication provided by Samuel C. Pang, M.D. www.GayIVF.com This document is intended to provide general information only and cannot provide guidance or legal advice as to one’s specific situation. Moreover, the law is constantly changing and this publication is based upon the information that is known to us as of this printing. For guidance on your particular situation, you must consult a lawyer. You should not act independently on this information. The provision of this information is not meant to create an attorney-client relationship. Check our website, www.glad.org, for more information. If you have questions about this publication, other legal issues or need lawyer referrals, contact GLAD Answers by live chat or email at www.GLADAnswers.org or by phone weekdays between 1:30 and 4:30pm at (800) 455-GLAD (4523). Contents INTRODUCTION 1 THE BASICS 3 SAME-SEX COUPLES WHO ARE ALREADY MARRIED OR HAVE A 9 CIVIL UNION OR DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP WHAT ARE SOME THINGS WE SHOULD CONSIDER BEFORE 12 ENTERING INTO A MARRIAGE? WHAT PROTECTIONS DO WE GAIN FROM A MARRIAGE IN 14 CONNECTICUT? RESPECT FOR YOUR CONNECTICUT MARRIAGE 16 HOW WILL A MARRIAGE OR AFFECT MY CHILDREN? 18 WILL I BE ABLE TO GET HEALTH INSURANCE FROM MY 20 EMPLOYER FOR MY CONNECTICUT SAME-SEX SPOUSE? CAN A MARRIED SAME-SEX COUPLE IN CONNECTICUT FILE A 22 JOINT TAX RETURN? HOW DO I GET OUT OF A MARRIAGE OR CIVIL UNION IN 23 CONNECTICUT? WHAT LEGAL PROTECTIONS CAN SAME-SEX COUPLES ACQUIRE 24 IN CONNECTICUT WITHOUT ENTERING INTO A MARRIAGE? Introduction On October 10, 2008, Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled that the state can no longer bar gay and lesbian couples from marrying.
  • The Freedom to Marry for Same-Sex Couples: the Opening Appellate Brief of Plaintiffs Stan Baker Et Al

    The Freedom to Marry for Same-Sex Couples: the Opening Appellate Brief of Plaintiffs Stan Baker Et Al

    Michigan Journal of Gender & Law Volume 6 Issue 1 1999 The Freedom to Marry for Same-Sex Couples: The Opening Appellate Brief of Plaintiffs Stan Baker Et Al. In Baker Et Al. V. State of Vermont Mary Bonauto Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders Susan M. Murray Langrock Sperry & Wool Beth Robinson Langrock Sperry & Wool Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjgl Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Law and Gender Commons, and the Sexuality and the Law Commons Recommended Citation Mary Bonauto, Susan M. Murray & Beth Robinson, The Freedom to Marry for Same-Sex Couples: The Opening Appellate Brief of Plaintiffs Stan Baker Et Al. In Baker Et Al. V. State of Vermont, 6 MICH. J. GENDER & L. 1 (1999). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjgl/vol6/iss1/1 This Brief is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of Gender & Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE FREEDOM TO MARRY FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES: THE REPLY BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS STAN BAKER ET AL. IN BAKER ET AL. V. STATE OF VERMONT t (-ary "Bonauto* Susan cM Jvfurra/** 'Beth Rebinson*** INTRODUCTION • 2 I. THIS Is A HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY CASE • 3 A, The Right to Marry Is Fundamentalto All Individuals • 4 B. The State's Gender ClassificationIs Impermissible atAll Levels • 8 1. The State, Not Divine Providence, Defines Civil Marriage • 8 2.
  • September 14, 2009 Dear Member of Congress, on Behalf of the Below

    September 14, 2009 Dear Member of Congress, on Behalf of the Below

    September 14, 2009 Dear Member of Congress, On behalf of the below-named civil rights organizations, we urge you to become a cosponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act of 2009. The Respect for Marriage Act repeals the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which singles out lawfully married same-sex couples for discriminatory treatment under federal law, thereby denying them and them alone among married couples more than 1100 federal protections and responsibilities that would otherwise apply to them once legally married. Until DOMA was enacted in 1996, federal law deferred to states in determining who could marry and be considered married, and the principle of comity and constitutional guarantee of full faith and credit governed states’ obligations to honor marriages validly celebrated elsewhere. DOMA was an unprecedented departure from these long-established rules. Not only does DOMA purport to allow states to refuse to recognize valid civil marriages of same-sex couples (§ 2), it carves all same-sex couples, even those who have taken on the serious legal responsibilities of civil marriage and are recognized as married under state law, out of all federal statutes, regulations, and rulings applicable to all other married people (§ 3). As a result, legally married same-sex spouses cannot: • File their taxes jointly • Receive spousal, mother’s and father’s, or surviving spouse benefits under Social Security even though they pay into Social Security throughout their careers • Take unpaid leave to care for a sick or injured spouse • Receive employer-provided family health benefits without paying an additional tax that different-sex spouses do not pay • Receive the same family health and retirement/pension benefits as fellow married employees • Be protected by the safe harbor provisions in bankruptcy law, Medicaid rules and other federal statutes that secure some resources and the family home when debts of one spouse threaten to leave both financially responsible spouses destitute.
  • Why Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Unions Does Not End the Need for Domestic Partner Benefit Programs

    Why Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Unions Does Not End the Need for Domestic Partner Benefit Programs

    IN LOVE AND IN JEOPARDY: WHY LEGAL RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX UNIONS DOES NOT END THE NEED FOR DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFIT PROGRAMS Bindu Kolli* Imagine this: while sitting at your desk at work, you receive a frantic call from the emergency room of the local hospital informing you that your significant other has been in a terrible car accident. A drunk driver plowed through an intersection and crashed into your partner's vehicle. The voice on the phone informs you that your partner is being taken to the operating room and that you should get to the hospital as soon as possible. You grab your keys and head for the door. You rush to the local hospital, run to the nearest desk, and ask about the status of your significant other. After you are repeatedly asked for identification and given the run-around, you finally find a nurse who directs you to the room where your loved one is recovering. You enter the room and see the person with whom you have shared the last eighteen years of your life and with whom you are raising two beautiful children, lying on a hospital bed. Fast forward two months. Your significant other is on the way to a complete recovery from the many internal injuries sustained from the car accident-though it will be a long and painful process. The bills keep piling up. Medical costs for the hospital stay, surgery, prescription painkillers, and rehabilitative therapies are adding up to tens of thousands of dollars. Years ago, you had decided together that once you had children your significant other would be a stay-at-home parent and you would bear the responsibility of being the lone breadwinner.
  • Deboer V. Snyder: a Case Study in Litigation and Social Reform

    Deboer V. Snyder: a Case Study in Litigation and Social Reform

    Michigan Journal of Gender & Law Volume 22 Issue 1 2015 DeBoer v. Snyder: A Case Study In Litigation and Social Reform Wyatt Fore University of Michigan School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjgl Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, Sexuality and the Law Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Wyatt Fore, DeBoer v. Snyder: A Case Study In Litigation and Social Reform, 22 MICH. J. GENDER & L. 169 (2015). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjgl/vol22/iss1/4 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of Gender & Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DEBOER V. SNYDER: A CASE STUDY IN LITIGATION AND SOCIAL REFORM yatt ore* ABSTRACT On April 28, 2015, the Supreme Court will hear oral argu- ments for four cases from the Sixth Circuit addressing the constitu- tionality of state bans on same-sex marriage. This Note examines DeBoer v. Snyder, the Michigan marriage case, with the goal of providing litigators and scholars the proper context for our current historical moment in which (1) the legal status of LGBT people; and (2) the conventional wisdom about the role of impact litigation in social reform movements are rapidly evolving. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION • 170 I. DEBOER V.