Web Feature

Janet Jenkins and Lisa Miller were joined in a civil union in Vermont and later had a child. When the couple split up, Miller moved with their child to Virginia. She asked a Vermont court to dissolve the union and sort out custody of the child.

The Vermont court granted visitation to Jenkins. Miller filed a new lawsuit in Virginia, using the state's antigay marriage law to have her declared as the sole parent. The conflicting court orders led a Virginia court to rule in Jenkins's favor.  Miller then took her case to the Virginia Supreme Court.

Lambda Legal, along with Arent Fox LLP and ACLU-VA, is defending Jenkins and her relationship with her daughter, using the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act as the basis of the argument. The act makes it clear that court orders regarding custody and visitation issued in one state must be enforced in other states as well.

"I love and adore my daughter," said Jenkins, "and I am going to honor my commitment to be a parent. I hope very much that the Virginia Supreme Court will allow me to continue to do that."

The case is Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins.

Mearmon Davis, Tom Walton and children TJ & JymmeAnne After mounting pressure from Lambda Legal and New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, United Parcel Service said it will provide benefits to the same-sex civil union partners of its employees in New Jersey.

Lambda Legal announced that we would represent UPS employees Nickie Brazier and Tom Walton after UPS sent a letter outlining why it was denying spousal benefits. The letter read: "The New Jersey legislature…did not go as far as Massachusetts and afford same-sex couples the ability to marry.  Had the New Jersey legislature done that, you could have added your partner as a spouse under the benefit plan."

In a statement to announce the company's change of policy, UPS's senior vice president of human resources said, "Based on initial legal review when this law was enacted, it did not appear that a 'civil union' and 'marriage' were equivalent." UPS has decided to provide health benefits to same-sex partners, but UPS is just one company.

"The consequences to such ongoing mistakes are severe," says Lambda Legal Marriage Project Director David Buckel. "Rather than going employer to employer and explaining civil unions one by one, the legislature has a quick fix: allowing same-sex couples to marry."

Background:

On October 25, 2006, Lambda Legal won a declaration from the New Jersey Supreme Court that barring same-sex couples from the rights and benefits of marriage violated the constitutional promise of equality. The court gave the New Jersey legislature a deadline of 180 days to correct the violation, and the legislature chose to create the separate status of civil unions.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ):
Civil Unions for Same-Sex Couples in the State of New Jersey

Q: Will my employer have to give my civil union partner health insurance coverage?

A: There are employers who must do so and those who should do so. The court said that government cannot treat same-sex couples differently from different-sex couples when it comes to the rights and benefits of marriage, so government employers, both state and local, must treat equally the civil union partners and married spouses of employees. In addition, New Jersey law bars discrimination against civil union partners, so many private employers and others — like businesses, and insurance companies — will be barred from discriminating against someone because he or she is a partner in a civil union. Read more »

Did New Jersey Fulfill Its Constitutional Promise of Equality?

Lewis v. Harris: Essay On a Settled Questions and an Open Question
By David Buckel, for the Rutgers Law Review, Vol. 59, Winter 2007, No.2

If a state creates an institution separate from marriage solely for a minority group, does that fulfill the State's constitutional promise of equality? Read more »

The Illinois Supreme Court has ordered a lower court to file a name change petition and fee-waiver request for Daunn Turner — a disabled, transgender woman. A circuit court judge had originally denied the name change and fee waiver, saying Turner’s name change was “not that important.”

Lambda Legal is representing Turner, a 52-year-old transgender woman seeking to change her name from Donald to Daunn. She wants the name change to better reflect her female identity and to avoid the harassment and discrimination that can result when people learn her current name.

Turner is disabled and receives benefits from the Social Security Disability Insurance Program. When she submitted her name change petition along with an Application To Sue As a Poor Person on July 6, 2007, the Will County Circuit Clerk declined to file her papers, refusing her an official record or case number. Adding insult to injury, when asked to consider Turner’s disability and financial situation, the Chief Judge refused, telling her that she should ask for money from her friends on her upcoming birthday to help fund her name change.

Turner’s case is a clear example of the need to provide access to fair courts for all. It is a stark reminder of the discrimination and hostility that transgender people face, even when seeking to do something as seemingly uncontroversial as changing their name. Most states, including Illinois, allow a name change for any reason other than to perpetuate a fraud. In other words, there is no reason Turner should be denied a name change, and she is now one step closer to completing the process.

Want to learn more about access to fair courts? Visit Lambda Legal’s Fair Courts Project.

"You will be a man until you have THAT surgery!" the Chief Judge of Will County Court told Daunn Turner, a 52-year-old transgender woman who was seeking to change her name from Donald to Daunn.

Turner is disabled and receives benefits from the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program. She wants to legally change her name from Donald to Daunn so her name will better reflect her female identity and so she can avoid the harassment and discrimination that often results when people learn her current legal "male" name. But first she'll have to fight discrimination by the very court that holds the power to change her name.

On July 6, 2007, Turner submitted a petition to the Will County Court to begin the process of changing her legal name. Included with her petition was a request for a waiver of the court fees associated with the petition based on her status as a low-income, disabled individual.

The Circuit Clerk declined to file her papers and did not open an official court record. Instead, Turner was directed to submit her paperwork to the offices of the Chief Judge. Weeks later, the Chief Judge rejected Turner's petition in a telephone call telling her that he would not spend county money on her request. He said that a name change was "not that important" and "something she wanted" rather than "something she needed."

Adding insult to injury, when asked to consider Turner's disability and financial situation, the Chief Judge refused, telling her that she should ask for money from her friends on her upcoming birthday to help fund her name change.

Lambda Legal has filed a motion with the Illinois Supreme Court requesting that Turner's name change petition be heard. We are also requesting that the Chief Judge either grants a fee waiver or issues a denial in writing, so Turner can appeal the decision if need be.

All people living in Illinois deserve equal access to the courts and to the judicial process. All people too must be able to petition for a waiver of fees. Without this right an entire segment of the population — often those most in need — would be unable to initiate a law suit, obtain a divorce, seek custody of children or, as in Turner's case, legally change their name.

Turner's case is a clear example of the need to provide access to fair courts for all. It is a stark reminder of the discrimination and hostility that transgender people face, even when seeking to do something as seemingly uncontroversial as changing their name. Most states, including Illinois, allow a name change for any reason other than to perpetuate a fraud. In other words, there is no reason Turner should be denied a name change, and we're fighting to make sure she gets her day in court to prove it.

Want to learn more about access to fair courts? Visit Lambda Legal's Fair Courts Project.

The governor of Utah did a dangerous thing last week. He signed a bill into law that would allow schools throughout the state to ban gay-straight alliances if they do not “maintain the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior.”

The extremist lawmakers who’d backed the bill claim its regulations will apply equally to all student clubs. This is as disingenuous as it is homophobic. Debating the bill over the past month or so, lawmakers dubbed it the “gay clubs bill,” and used it to codify their baseless concerns that gay-straight alliances (GSAs) “indoctrinate” helpless youth into the “gay lifestyle.” And while the new rules are indeed written to apply to all clubs, everybody knows that requirements like obtaining parental permission to join a club or submitting written materials to the principal for review mean quite a different thing when you’re comparing a GSA with, say, a chess club.

A school district rarely monitors a chess club to see if it’s maintaining “boundaries of socially appropriate behavior,” but this kind of scrutiny is routine for GSAs. It’s why we’ve spent more than a decade fighting for the rights of gay clubs. In fact, one of Lambda Legal’s earliest GSA cases involved the first gay student club in the state of Utah, formed in 1995 at a Salt Lake City school. We argued that under the federal Equal Access Act, schools that receive federal funding and allow at least one after-school club to meet and use the school’s facilities may not deny any student club the same treatment based on the content of what they want to discuss.

The Salt Lake City school district knew we were right, but instead of simply letting the GSA meet, it banned all noncurricular student clubs. Talk about cutting off your nose… There were more lawsuits and protests by students and parents, and finally in 2000, the district relented, allowing all clubs to meet, including the GSA. Two years ago, the controversy surfaced again when students at a school in conservative Utah County formed a GSA. The school board navigated around the Equal Access Act by requiring parental permission before students could join any student club. It’s no surprise that the GSA stalled out under such a tough restriction — and that restriction is now state law.

Today there are about a dozen GSAs in the state of Utah. Think about that: roughly 12 gay clubs in the entire state. Even if each club has 10 active members (which they all don’t), we’re still talking about 120 people out of 2.5 million. So state lawmakers cannot be proud: they’ve targeted the 120 or so young people under their wings who are some of the most in need of their protection.

It is too soon to tell how Utah’s new law, if enforced against GSAs as its proponents hope it will be, will fare under the Equal Access Act. But Lambda Legal has a strong track record of winning GSA cases, and we’ve got the momentum on our side. When our attorneys started litigating these cases, there were only a handful of gay student clubs around the country. Today, with the right to form gay student clubs firmly established, there are more than 3,200 GSAs registered with the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).

Twelve of those GSAs are in Utah — and you can bet we’ll do everything we can to make sure they stay there, even in the face of this shameful new law.

Kevin Cathcart is a featured monthly columnist for 365Gay.com. You can also read more about Utah’s new law in the New York Times.

This year on National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day (February 7), Lambda Legal continues to examine the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s revised recommendations for expanded HIV testing. Scott Schoettes, Lambda Legal’s HIV Project Staff Attorney, will join a lineup of HIV and health care professionals at Morris Brown College in Atlanta to discuss the new regulations and the impact they could have on Black communities.

In 2006, the CDC revised its HIV testing guidelines for all health-care providers in the public and private sectors. The agency now recommends that the nation’s health care providers test all individuals between the ages of 13 to 64 on an “opt-out” basis, regardless of identified risk factors.

Lambda Legal and approximately 70 community-based organizations have questioned these requirements. Among many concerns is the abandonment of specific, informed consent for HIV testing, the lack of clear recommendations for pre-test counseling and the recommended routine testing of vulnerable populations (undocumented immigrants, prison inmates, etc.) without specific safeguards.

In response to the CDC’s revised guidelines, Lambda Legal has helped develop 15 Fundamental Principles to Guide Implementation. Grounded in sound medical and public health science, the principles should be followed by public and private decision makers as they implement expanded HIV testing services. Among other things, the principles state that HIV testing must always be informed, voluntary, confidential, offered by someone trustworthy, accompanied by counseling and supported by health care and other services.

"HIV/AIDS in the Black Community: Testing, Discrimination and Stigma" is Thursday, February 7, 2008 3pm — 5pm, at Morris Brown College

More than 250 people showed their support for Cheryl Bachmann, a teacher at New Jersey's West Milford High School, during a Board of Education meeting to determine whether Bachmann will or will not receive tenure. She had been recommended for tenure by her supervisor with overall good performance reviews, but the decision was reversed last month after Bachmann sent two students from her classroom for using an antigay slur. One student was later heard threatening to stab her.

Lambda Legal stepped in to represent Bachmann at the hearing. "Schools have a responsibility to create a harassment-free learning environment and Cheryl Bachmann was trying to fulfill that responsibility by disciplining a student for using threatening language — now she is in danger of losing her job," says Hayley Gorenberg, Deputy Legal Director at Lambda Legal.  "Denying Bachmann tenure for protecting her students from harassment would be a reckless example for the West Milford Board of Education to set."

Immediately after the hearing Bachmann was notified that she would receive her tenure.

Read Lambda Legal's testimony before the West Milford Board of Education on behalf of Bachmann.

When Juneau-Douglas High School in Alaska let its students out early to watch the Olympic torch pass, Joseph Frederick, a student, and some of his friends unfurled a banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." They'd hoped to get airtime on national television. But they got much more. The school's principal crumpled up the banner and suspended Frederick for 10 days. Frederick sued and the case has made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court — the first student free speech case to make it to the high court in 20 years. Lambda Legal has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Frederick's right to free speech. We're asking the Court to reaffirm the First Amendment freedoms that have helped us secure the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning students to be out in school, to take the dates of their choice to the prom and to form gay-straight alliances. This is one of many cases representing Lambda Legal's work on behalf of youth in schools.

Lambda Legal mourns the passing of Mildred Loving, whose interracial marriage sparked controversy more than 40 years ago. Loving died just one year after the 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia, the historic U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down all state bans on interracial marriage and declared that marriage is a fundamental right, subsequently forging a connection to the ongoing fight for marriage equality for same-sex couples.

Last year, Mrs. Loving acknowledged the struggle for lesbians and gay men to marry the person they choose. "Mrs. Loving bravely stepped forward to include marriage equality for same-sex couples as part of her vision of equality," said Lambda Legal Executive Director Kevin Cathcart. "We are grateful for her leadership."

Commander Kristi Wilson has been a police officer for 20 years, 14 of those years with the city of Redmond, Washington. She is raising two young children with her partner of eight years who is a stay-at-home mom without any affordable access to health insurance. Last January, Wilson was diagnosed with breast cancer. While she had health insurance, it terrified her to think what might have happened if her partner had received the diagnosis instead of her.

Wilson and her colleague, Lieutenant Betsy Lawrence, a law enforcement veteran of 23 years, joined forces to demand benefits for their families. They sought out Lambda Legal's help to fight for equal pay for equal work.

Lambda Legal threatened the city with legal action in a strongly written demand letter, and after a late night session, the city council took an initial vote to extend family benefits to city employees with same-sex partners, and is expected to approve the plan. Lambda Legal Staff Attorney Tara Borelli says, "Other cities should follow Redmond's lead by recognizing that their dedicated lesbian and gay employees deserve equal pay for equal work."

This victory comes just two months after the neighboring city of Bellevue voted to extend similar benefits to its city employees in response to Lambda Legal's lawsuit on behalf of two firefighters and a 911 dispatcher.