Department of Justice Intervenes in Title IX Lawsuit over Anti-Gay Bullying
January 21, 2010
On January 14th, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit against the Mohawk Central School District of New York for its failure to protect a gender non-conforming gay male student, who was the target of his classmates’ ongoing verbal harassment and bullying for his gender expression.
Since last week, when NPR’s Ari Shapiro provided the first in-depth report of the news, media coverage of the DOJ’s momentous decision has rocketed, since the motion rests upon an exceptional, though not unprecedented, argument that Title IX’s gender discrimination protections apply to gender identity as well.
The student (Jacob) and his father originally brought suit against the District and officials at Jarvis Jr./Sr. High School in August 2009 with the help of the New York Civil Liberties Union. NPR reported some of the harassment Jacob routinely faced at school:
According to court papers, kids threw food at him and told him to get a sex change. One student pulled out a knife and threatened to string Jacob up the flagpole. A teacher allegedly told Jacob to “hate himself every day until he changed.”
While the original private suit was seeking monetary damages for the negligence of school officials, the Wellesville Daily Reporter noted, “The Justice Department’s legal filing states the government is entering the case against Mohawk to ensure ‘district-wide relief for all district students’ in the future.”
“It’s a significant and welcomed returned presence by the Department of Justice to these issues [of civil rights for LGBT people],” Lambda Legal’s Hayley Gorenberg told Main Justice.
NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman told NBC Affiliate WKTV:
This means that there will be an independent assessment of the school district’s commitment and procedures to ensure that every child who goes there, has a right to go there in a safe and nurturing environment, and it will ensure, I hope, that there is an end to homophobic bullying and harassment the school district has yet to get a handle on.
LGBT advocates are also hopeful that a federal court decision in Jacob’s favor will lead to a broader interpretation of Title IX in future cases of harassment based on gender non-conforming behavior or self-expression. The National Center for Transgender Equality applauded the DOJ’s involvement in their announcement.
Superintendent of Schools Joyce Caputo issued a statement that, “While the district cannot comment on the details of a pending lawsuit, our staff and administration are committed to doing everything in their power to prevent bullying and promote tolerance.”
The full text of the DOJ’s motion to intervene can be found on the Main Justice website.
We will continue to keep you updated about media coverage related to these efforts to combat school bullying and harassment and to offer gender non-conforming people new access to legal protections.
Related Posts:UPDATE: Vermont Mother Asks Judge to Hold Ex-Partner in Contempt as Search for Missing Girl Continues
January 5, 2010
Janet Jenkins asked a Vermont judge on Monday to hold her ex-partner, Lisa Miller, in contempt of the court after Miller failed to turn over custody of the couple’s 7 year-old daughter. Jenkins has also asked that law enforcement assist in searching for the young girl, The Associated Press reports.
The whereabouts of Miller and daughter Isabella remain unknown.
Miller and Jenkins shared a civil union in 2000 and celebrated the birth of their daughter shortly thereafter. The couple split in 2003, however, and Miller allegedly “renounced homosexuality.”
According to The New York Times, Miller was first awarded custody of the couple’s daughter and Jenkins was granted liberal visitation rights. After Miller repeatedly denied Jenkins those visitation rights, a Vermont judge found her to be in contempt of the court and awarded full custody to Ms. Jenkins in Nov. 2009.
Yesterday, Jenkins issued a statement that appealed to the public for help in locating Isabella:
I am so worried about Isabella. I do not know where she is or whether she is okay.
Isabella is my daughter. Lisa and I decided together to have a child, and that we would use alternative reproductive technology to do so. We picked out a donor together. I was there with Lisa when she gave birth to Isabella. We gave her both our last names, since we were both her parents. After Isabella was born, Lisa and I cared for her together. We both fed her, played with her, changed her diapers, and loved her.
Eventually, the courts ruled that I was Isabella’s parent, but in my heart I’ve always known that. It was devastating to me, as I’m sure it was to Isabella, when Lisa withheld contact between me and my daughter.
My goal has never been to separate Isabella from Lisa. I just want Isabella to know and love both of her parents. I just want to be with her, like any parent.
Please help me find my child.
If you have any information in this case, please contact:
Sarah Star, Attorney at Law, Middlebury Vermont – 802-385-1023
Lisa Hardaway, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund – 973-902-9298
Carisa Cunningham, GLAD - 617-426-1350
Rebecca Glenberg, ACLU of Virginia – 804-644-8080
GLAAD will continue to follow the media’s coverage of Isabella Miller-Jenkins’s whereabouts. Updates can be found on GLAADblog.org
Related Posts:Virginia Woman Fails to Surrender Custody of Child, Defies Court Order
January 4, 2010
A Virginia woman failed on Friday to surrender custody of her 7 year-old daughter that she shares with a former lesbian partner of over 4 years, defying a Vermont court’s order.
The New York Times reports that Lisa Miller, a so-called ‘ex-gay’ evangelical Christian woman, was ordered by a Vermont judge to surrender custody of her daughter, Isabella, to her former partner Janet Jenkins at 1 P.M. on Jan. 1 at the home of Ms. Jenkins’s parents in Falls Church, VA. Miller failed to show up at that time, however.
The whereabouts of Miller and the girl are unclear at this time and Vermont police will likely issue a warrant for Miller’s arrest, according to The Examiner.
(Watch CNN’s coverage of the case here)
Miller and Jenkins shared a civil union in Vermont in 2000 and Miller gave birth to Isabella two years later. The couple split in 2003 and Miller became an evangelical Christian and renounced ‘homosexuality’.
According to The New York Times, Miller was first awarded custody of the couple’s daughter and Jenkins was granted liberal visitation rights. After Miller repeatedly denied Jenkins those visitation rights, a Vermont judge found her to be in contempt of the court and awarded full custody to Ms. Jenkins in Nov. 2009.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), as well as Lambda Legal have joined forces to ensure the safe return of young Isabella.
Janet Jenkins today appealed to the public for help in locating her daughter, Isabella:
I am so worried about Isabella. I do not know where she is or whether she is okay.
Isabella is my daughter. Lisa and I decided together to have a child, and that we would use alternative reproductive technology to do so. We picked out a donor together. I was there with Lisa when she gave birth to Isabella. We gave her both our last names, since we were both her parents. After Isabella was born, Lisa and I cared for her together. We both fed her, played with her, changed her diapers, and loved her.
Eventually, the courts ruled that I was Isabella’s parent, but in my heart I’ve always known that. It was devastating to me, as I’m sure it was to Isabella, when Lisa withheld contact between me and my daughter.
My goal has never been to separate Isabella from Lisa. I just want Isabella to know and love both of her parents. I just want to be with her, like any parent.
Please help me find my child.
If you have any information in this case, please contact:
Sarah Star, Attorney at Law, Middlebury Vermont – 802-385-1023
Lisa Hardaway, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund – 973-902-9298
Carisa Cunningham, GLAD - 617-426-1350
Rebecca Glenberg, ACLU of Virginia – 804-644-8080
GLAAD will continue to follow the media’s coverage of Isabella Miller-Jenkins’s whereabouts. Updates can be found on GLAADblog.org
Related Posts:Federal Court Dismisses Langbehn’s Lawsuit over Hospital Visitation Rights
September 30, 2009
On Tuesday, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed Lambda Legal’s lawsuit on behalf of Janice Langbehn, Lisa Pond’s partner of 17 years who was kept from her bedside during her final hours of life in the Jackson Memorial Hospital in 2007. 
Agreeing with the Public Health Trust of Miami Dade County’s motion to dismiss, the court ruled that “the hospital has neither an obligation to allow their patients’ visitors nor any obligation whatsoever to provide their patients’ families, healthcare surrogates, or visitors with access to patients in their trauma unit.”
Lisa Pond suffered a fatal brain aneurysm at age 39 just before she, Janice, and their three children were to depart on a Caribbean cruise for gay families on February 18, 2007. She was rushed off the ship to Jackson Memorial Hospital, where officials refused to let Langbehn or their children see Pond for eight hours until a priest came to deliver her last rites, by which time Pond had already slipped into a coma.
One of the most shocking components of Langbehn’s experience, as laudably reported by the New York Times last May, was her reception by Jackson Memorial social worker Garnett Frederick, who informed her that she was in an “antigay city and state,” and that despite producing the necessary legal papers, they would not recognize her power of attorney authority. Frederick denies making the comment. The court dismissed the case without deciding whether Langbehn had been discriminated against.
Jackson continues to deny that LGBT patients and families are treated differently at their facility. The Miami Herald quoted Jackson Memorial spokeswoman Jennifer Piedra saying in their news release, “We have always believed and known that the staff at Jackson treats everyone equally, and that their main concern is the well-being of the patients in their care.”
In Lambda Legal’s press release the day of the decision, lead counsel Staff Attorney Beth Littrell [said], “The court’s decision paints a tragically stark picture of how vulnerable same-sex couples and their families really are during times of crisis.”
Langbehn’s latest posts to her family blog reveal a deep sense of despair in the wake of the court’s decision:
“I wanted to win so that you – gay or straight – could be with your loved one as well as bring in your children to hold your loved one’s hand while they could sense you – so that you could begin the grieving process – but all was for not. I am sorry.”
GLAAD has worked with the Langbehn family from the beginning of their ordeal, helping with media strategy and media trainings. They are in our hearts at the difficult time and we will continue spotlighting their story and the stories of countless others who are denied basic protections like hospital visitation.
The court has given Lambda and the Langbehn-Pond family until October 16th to review the ruling and consider all legal options. We will continue to keep you updated about the progress of her fight to ensure equal treatment of all families.
Related Posts:House Introduces DOMA Repeal Bill; Nat’l Orgs Respond
September 15, 2009
Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) introduced the Respect for Marriage Act (RMA) today in Congress – a bill that seeks to overturn the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996.
The Human Rights Campaign noted in a press release on Tuesday that DOMA is a discriminatory policy that does concrete harm to loving and committed same-sex couples:
“Through DOMA, which was signed into law 13 years ago, on September 21, 1996, the federal government singles out legally married same-sex couples for discriminatory treatment under federal law, selectively denying them more than 1,100 federal protections and responsibilities… that otherwise apply to married couples. This policy is discriminatory and harmful to families… [who] have assumed the obligations of civil marriage under state law and contribute as citizens and taxpayers.”
The new bill that works toward achieving total equality is co-sponsored by Reps. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Jared Polis (D-CO), alongside 88 other members of Congress.
The Associated Press said in a Monday article that “there’s little chance of a vote this year.” A spokesman for Rep. Nadler noted, however, that the bill would be introduced now so as to “gain support and momentum and educate people.”
At a press conference today, Lambda Legal – an organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of LGBT people and those with HIV through impact litigation, education and public policy work – Executive Director, Kevin Carthcart, stood with Dawn and Jen BarbouRoske, who married earlier this summer in Iowa. Jen BarouRoske noted of the new bill that “When Dawn and I do our federal tax return next year, our own government will tell us to lie and say we’re not married. But we are, and the government that takes the same taxes and Social Security deductions fr0m our paychecks as fr0m everyone else’s, should give us the same legal rights, too.”
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said of RMA:
“Today’s introduction of legislation to repeal DOMA is a welcome step, and as more states recognize the commitment of loving same-sex couples and their families, it’s time for this law to go into the history books where it belongs.”
Rea Carey, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund which strives to build the grassroots political power of the LGBT community to win complete equality, also commented on the introduction of the Respect for Marriage Act:
We at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, along with people all across the country — fr0m every town and every background — recognize that our entire nation benefits when everyone is allowed to contribute their talents and skills, free fr0m discrimination. That’s why we are urging for passage of the ‘Respect for Marriage Act.’
President Barack Obama has been a longtime supporter of repealing DOMA, though the president has received criticism for his apparent lack of action toward that cause.
GLAAD will continue to monitor the media’s coverage of efforts to repeal DOMA. Updates can be found on glaadBLOG.org
Related Posts:Media and National Orgs React to New DOJ Brief Defending DOMA
August 18, 2009
Obama administration lawyers filed a legal briefing on Monday that defends the so-called ‘Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA),’ though the brief notes that the administration finds the policy “discriminatory.” The filing challenges a lawsuit by Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer (Smelt v. United States), who charge that the act is unconstitutional.
President Obama was scrutinized by LGBT rights advocates last June after a similar briefing was filed and in which Department of Justice lawyers linked marriage for same-sex couples to incest and pedophilia.
The Associated Press writes in an article published Monday that the President claims his decision to defend DOMA “is not about defending traditional marriage, but is instead about defending traditional legal practice.” President Obama maintains that he intends to repeal DOMA, but insists that the repeal come by way of Congressional legislation rather than court rulings.
Though Monday’s brief is a marked improvement from the June filing, LGBT organizations remain cautious in their praise.
Lambda Legal — a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of LGBT people – issued a statement that both lauds and criticizes the Obama administration:
Lambda Legal and other LGBT groups had serious conversations with the administration after the first brief was filed and we appreciate the progress made since then. But, clearly, serious conversation must continue.
But perhaps one of the more remarkable facets of the filing is the DOJ’s declaration that DOMA is in no way a federal tool meant to “protect” children, as some anti-LGBT groups insist:
The United States does not believe that DOMA is rationally related to any legitimate government interests in procreation and child-rearing and is therefore not relying upon any such interests to defend DOMA’s constitutionality.
Indeed, as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) applauded in a statement released on Monday, the filing even “repudiates the argument that sexual orientation has anything to do with the ability to parent”:
Since DOMA was enacted, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Medical Association, and the Child Welfare League of America have issued policies opposing restrictions on lesbian and gay parenting because they concluded, based on numerous studies, that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents.
Blogger Chris Geidner reflected on the significance of the DOJ briefing in regards to LGBT parenting on his blog LawDork.net:
The U.S. Department of Justice took a strong stand today for LGBT equality in at least one portion of its brief in Smelt v. United States, the portion related to LGBT parenting.
Geidner makes an interesting point in wondering if the DOJ briefing will now hold any leverage in future court rulings about LGBT adoption, for instance. Florida’s Supreme Court will hear one such case later this month in which a gay couple is fighting for adoption rights and Geidner asserts that “the DOJ statements certainly will be included in briefing for the likely appeal before Florida’s Supreme Court.”
GLAAD will continue to monitor the media’s coverage of developments surrounding DOMA.
Related Posts:In the Life Presents: “Civil Disobedience”
July 6, 2009
Throughout the month of July, PBS affiliates nationwide will be airing “Civil Disobedience,” part II of In the Life’s Summer of Stonewall series, celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots.
In the Life is the GLAAD Media Award-winning gay and lesbian newsmagazine with guest hosts discussing youth and education, health and AIDS, arts and culture, workplace, relationships and family, and global issues. “Civil Disobedience” examines how the heroic actions taken by the patrons of the Stonewall Inn ignited a movement.
CENTER SPACES
Before Stonewall, few LGBT groups publicly assembled despite their constitutional right to do so. But when they began to, these pioneering activists needed spaces to gather in. Our lead segment highlights the LGBT centers that have sheltered the movement and its organizations, providing refuge, legitimacy – a home – for LGBT people since Stonewall.
In A CONVERSATION WITH… two of our movement’s longest serving executive directors— Katherine Acey of Astrea and Lambda Legal’s Kevin Cathcart—discuss their lives as activists, the impact of Stonewall on their generation, and the passion that keeps them advancing the movement.
STORME DELARVARIE
In this episode’s final story, we profile Storme Delarvarie, the activist, organizer, and celebrated drag performer who—legend has it—threw the punch that started a revolution.
Visit In the Life’s website to check your local listings and view the entire episode.
View the trailer:
Related Posts:Report From the Ground: Iowa
April 22, 2009
Last week, I got back to GLAAD’s NYC office from a week and a half trip to Iowa. I traveled to Des Moines to assist One Iowa with their media and communications work.
As a member of GLAAD’s Media Field Strategy team, working on the ground with the great staffs of One Iowa and Lambda Legal was an amazing experience! The mood on the night I got in was hopeful–the next morning by 8:30 a.m. we expected to hear the Iowa Supreme Court’s historic decision about marriage equality.
When we all heard the good news, a unanimous win for marriage equality, we celebrated! But only for a minute, because we soon realized there was much work to do.
Lambda Legal's Camilla Taylor, architect of the marriage case, at the press conference. (Image credit: Lambda Legal)
One Iowa’s Communications Director, Justin Uebelhor, and I raced to put the final touches on the speech prepared for the organization’s ED, Carolyn Jenison. (Jenison is a GLAAD-trained spokesperson.)
The Des Moines Register has extensively covered the marriage case, including the Lambda Legal press conference:
Iowa will “set the standard for fairness and equality in the Midwest,” said Carolyn Jenison.
You can see much more of the coverage here at glaadBLOG.
After the press conference, we set out to work on media relations for the ten celebratory rallies One Iowa’s organizers had planned across the state.
That weekend, and the following week, was full of successful and challenging work. Though we had a lot to celebrate–the court’s unanimous ruling, the great rallies in small and large cities, and the large number of newspaper editorial boards that came out in favor of the decision–one of our top priorities was to educate Iowans.
Despite all these victories, anti-gay extremists have been, and unfortunately still are, working harder than ever to take away the freedom to marry in Iowa.
Actress Alicia Silverstone gets laughs in the latest spoof of the anti-gay extremist paid TV commercial.
You’ve probably seen the out-of-touch, nonsensical, paid TV advertisement that these anti-gay extremists produced. You’ve probably also seen the hilarious parody videos. Here’s the latest.
I’m going off to Des Moines again this weekend to prepare for April 27, the first day same-sex couples will be able to obtain marriage licenses.
GLAAD’s Media Field Strategy team does this type of local work every day. See team member Adam Bass’ coverage from his work in Colorado for the Zapata trial.
Stay tuned for updates from my second ‘09 Iowa trip and all the exciting marriage day updates!
Federal Sex Discrimination Lawsuit Sheds Light on Transgender Job Bias
September 24, 2008
Last Friday was a landmark day for transgender people across the US. In a historic first, the US District Court ruled that a transgender woman had been discriminated against when an employer rescinded a job offer upon learning of her transition.
Judge James Robertson ruled that the Library of Congress had discriminated against Diane Schroer, a transgender woman, on the basis of her sex. In 2004 Diane Schroer was offered a job as a terrorism research analyst with the Library of Congress, but had the offer rescinded when the hiring manager learned of her impending transition. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which represented Schroer, said Judge James Robertson’s ruling is the first to apply Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to transgender people.
“The court got it exactly right, sending a loud and clear message to employers everywhere: if you fire or refused to hire someone for transitioning, you are guilty of sex discrimination and may well find yourself liable,” said Sharon McGowan, one of the ACLU LGBT Project staff attorneys who tried the case.
“True to form, Diane Schroer has once again demonstrated her bravery and her commitment to American democracy,” noted Mara Keisling, Executive Director of the National Center for Transgender Equality. “By fighting for her rights, she has defended the honor and rights of all transgender people who have been discriminated against on the job. NCTE congratulates her on this historic win and applauds the tremendous work of the ACLU in securing this victory for us all.”
There’s still a great deal of uncertainty about what this could mean, and Judge Robertson has yet to decide what the penalties for the discrimination will be. Despite this, reporters from CNN and ABC have claimed the win as an “important victory”, while the New York Times and Ms. Magazine have steered clear from making any statements about future implications.
While media outlets have been hesitant to make a definitive statement on what the ruling will bring, Schroer has been clear about what she hopes it will accomplish. In a statement from the ACLU, Schroer said she hoped that “employers, family members, friends and co-workers will begin to understand variations in sexual orientation and identity from a basis of knowledge and not fear.”
Earlier this June a similar national transgender story – that of the first ever Congressional Hearings on Transgender Workplace Discrimination – received no national coverage and very little local coverage. The accurate and inclusive coverage of this ruling thus far is a pleasant surprise, though few local papers have picked up the news. Hopefully as the details of the case are laid out and the impact becomes less abstract more local media outlets will cover the victory.
You can hear Schroer speak about her life and the trial in this video from the ACLU:
