Rainbow Alliance Scores Early Victory in Battle Over University of Pittsburgh’s Gendered Facilities Policy

The first volley in a challenge to the University of Pittsburgh’s gendered facilities policy was resolved in the challengers’ favor last week, when the Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations denied the University’s motion to dismiss a gender discrimination complaint filed by the Rainbow Alliance, a student group represented by the Women’s Law Project and Drexel University Professor David S. Cohen. As a result of this ruling, Rainbow Alliance’s case against the University will move forward.

Rainbow Alliance filed its discrimination complaint in April 2012, after University officials announced that students and faculty would be permitted to use only those bathrooms and other gender-specific campus facilities that correspond to the gender on the user’s birth certificate. This policy has had a particularly harsh impact on transgender students and faculty, as well as people whose gender expression does not conform to traditional gender roles.

Transgender people who don’t want to run afoul of this policy must travel with their birth certificate within easy reach and be prepared to produce it if challenged at the bathroom door. Moreover, changing the sex designation on one’s birth certificate can be a difficult, expensive and time-consuming process for transgender people; and in some jurisdictions, it is impossible.  For anyone without a corrected birth certificate, the choices are grim: violate the policy and risk the consequences; go off campus to search for a restroom; or endure the humiliation and harassment involved with using a restroom reserved for the opposite gender.

To bar transgender people from bathroom facilities is to bar them from full participation in the University community. Congratulations to Rainbow Alliance for challenging this policy!

For more information about the Women’s Law Project in fighting against gender discrimination and LGBT rights, please visit our web site.

WLP Celebrates the 10 Year Anniversary of Second-Parent Adoption in Pennsylvania

From WLP Staff

Join the Women’s Law Project on Saturday, August 18^th from 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM at the First Unitarian Church of Pittsburgh (Shadyside), 605 Morewood Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA  for a potluck picnic celebration featuring food, fun and a chance to share what family means to you. Come enjoy a moon bounce, games (with fantastic prizes!), delicious burgers/veggie burgers, Rita’s Italian Ice and family photos. Register for Event!

August 20, 2012 marks the ten-year anniversary of the recognition of second-parent adoption in Pennsylvania, the result of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in In re R.B.F., 803 A.2d 1195 (Pa. 2002).  The Women’s Law Project (WLP) has particular cause to celebrate because of the pivotal role it played in helping same-sex parents each gain the right, through adoption, to have legally secure relationships with the children they nurture and love.

Before second-parent adoption was legalized across Pennsylvania, same-sex couples faced many obstacles in creating and protecting their families.  Women who had given birth to children in heterosexual marriages prior to entering same-sex relationships often had to fight to gain even partial custody of their children.  In fact, the courts were reluctant to recognize one, let alone two, gay or lesbian parents as legally fit.  Regardless of how same-sex couples became parents, they faced a major challenge:  only one partner in a same-sex couple could legally be “the” parent to a particular child.  While it might look as though the child had two mommies or two daddies, technically, only one partner was the official and legal parent.  This forced partners who were co-parents to choose between them who would play this role and have all the rights and obligations attendant on it.  This is a wrenching and divisive experience for even the most stable couples.

Educated, financially secure couples knew enough and had the resources to pursue legal “work-arounds” such as powers of attorney, advance directives, and other artificial surrogates for full parental rights.  In the absence of these cumbersome and costly measures, the non-legal parent could be excluded from making important decisions about the child’s life—such as approving medical care for the child—or even from just picking the child up from daycare or school.  Furthermore, if the partners separated, the non-legal parent could easily be denied visitation with the child and could not be made to pay child support.  If the non-legal parent were to die, the children would not be entitled to receive social security survivor benefits.  If the deceased parent had had the wherewithal to make a will, the children (and the surviving partner, without benefit of marriage) would be still required to pay much higher Pennsylvania inheritance taxes reserved for legal strangers; without a will, the partner and children would receive nothing.

Creating a family when the law did not consider same-sex parents with children as a natural or normal family was so complex a prospect that it required a handbook, a need filled in 1992 by Dabney Miller, longtime Associate Director of the Women’s Law Project, social worker, and adoptive parent, who, assisted by local adoption counselor Abby Ruder, wrote exactly that—a handbook on the rights of lesbian and gay parents in Pennsylvania to help couples negotiate the legal hurdles they faced.  This handbook became an invaluable resource for both parents and advocates, and led to the formation of a working group of lawyers, parents, advocates, and social workers who focused exclusively on making second-parent adoption a reality in Pennsylvania.

Miller recalls that, as the working group at the WLP began to ramp up, “a judge in York County granted a second-parent adoption, pretty quietly, no fanfare but not privately, not secretively.”  Encouraged by this development, members of the WLP’s working group began applying for second-parent adoptions in Philadelphia County and succeeded.  But not all counties in the state were open to this option.  When two families whose petitions for second-parent adoption were denied in other counties decided to appeal, the WLP and working group members stepped in again.  The WLP and the Support Center for Child Advocates provided support in the form of amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs, garnering support from children’s and women’s rights groups, attorneys and bar associations, religious organizations, day care and social service providers, and adoption agencies.  This creative collaboration paid off in August 2002 when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion in In re R.B.F., 803 A.2d 1195 (Pa. 2002), holding that second-parent adoption is indeed permissible under the Pennsylvania Adoption Act, thus making it available in all counties in the state.

Despite this dramatic success, much remains to be done.  Lesbian and gay couples must be educated about the importance of securing second-parent adoption, and they must be able to afford an attorney to guide them through the process.  Though second-parent adoption is now legal across the commonwealth, there is no uniform process for handling these cases county to county.  Furthermore, second-parent adoption is not legal in every U.S. state, and adoptions recognized here many times will not be recognized elsewhere.  See videos and keep abreast of developments on this subject through the WLP website at www.womenslawproject.org.

Employment Non-Discrimination Act Gets Hearing in the Senate

Nikki Ditto, WLP Intern

On June 12^th, the U.S Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions held a hearing to debate the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Currently no federal law exists barring discrimination of individuals based on sexual orientation or gender identity. ENDA would provide an equal standard of workplace protection for LGBT Americans. It was last discussed in 2009, and has been stalled in Congress for the past three years. Activists hope the Senate hearing will be the first step to getting the bill moving in Congress once again.

To gain bipartisan support within the committee, and, it is hoped, within the full senate, a broad exception for religious organizations is included in the bill. The exception is more extensive than in previous discrimination bills, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, on which ENDA is based. The Civil Rights Act lays out protections for individuals based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Religious organizations are allowed to take an individual’s religion into account, but that is the only exemption they are given. For example, a Catholic school can require that all staff and faculty is Catholic, but they cannot fire someone for being a woman or being African American.

The religious exception in ENDA goes one step further, and allows religious organizations to continue to discriminate against members of the LGBT community. Religious organizations will not be held accountable for firing employees whom they learn to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. While this weakens the force of the bill, lawmakers believe it is the only way to ensure the bill is passed.

Pennsylvania is one of 29 states that does not have a law banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. While 24 local governments in Pennsylvania have ordinances that prohibit “discrimination against LGBT people, approximately 70% of the state’s population remains unprotected,” according to the ACLU of Pennsylvania.  Both the Pennsylvania Senate and House debated employment discrimination bills in 2011, but neither came to a vote and there has been little talk for the last year of granting these protections.

This hearing also marks the first time that an individual who is openly transgender has testified in the Senate. Kylar Broadus is the founder of the Trans People of Color Coalition of Columbia, Missouri. He started the organization after he was fired from his job for coming out as transgender and beginning to transition. He had no way to fight his employer because there was no law that made firing him illegal.

There is widespread support for passing ENDA within the American public, even among Republicans and those usually unsympathetic to LGBT rights. A poll found that 73% of Americans believe Congress should pass ENDA, and many think that federal workplace protection already exists for LGBT individuals.  Proponents of ENDA are hopeful that the bill will come to a vote sometime this year.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Time to Treat Trans Patients Right

This month, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released a set of recommendations by committee opinion, urging reproductive health care providers to improve their treatment of transgender people.

These new guidelines encourage ob-gyns to do the following: ask patients about their gender open-endedly on their patient intake forms rather than requiring they check “male” or “female,” to post LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination policies visibly in their offices, and train staff to handle transgender patients professionally and with compassion.  ACOG says that physicians must be prepared to offer gender-nonconforming patients the same basic preventive services as their cisgendered patients (those who identify as the gender they were assigned at birth), such as STD testing and cancer screenings.

This is a huge, much-needed victory in LGBT health and wellness. In October 2010, the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force released the results of the largest survey of transgender people on healthcare discrimination to date, and the results were dismal. Not only are trans people at elevated risk for most of our nation’s worst health problems, but according to the report:

• Respondents reported more than four times the national average of HIV infection, 2.64 percent in our sample compared to 0.6 percent in the general population, with rates for transgender women at 3.76 percent, and with those who are unemployed (4.67 percent) or who have engaged in sex work (15.32 percent) even higher.
• Over a quarter of the respondents reported misusing drugs or alcohol specifically to cope with the discrimination they faced due to their gender identity or expression.
• A staggering 41 percent of respondents reported attempting suicide compared to 1.6 percent of the general population.
• Nearly 1 in 5 (19 percent) reported being refused care outright because they were transgender or gender non-conforming.
• Survey participants reported very high levels of postponing medical care when sick or injured due to discrimination and disrespect (28 percent).
• Harassment: 28 percent of respondents were subjected to harassment in medical settings.
• Significant lack of provider knowledge: 50 percent of the sample reported having to teach their medical providers about transgender care.  (see Source)

Reproductive healthcare is often stressful for transgender patients even when they aren’t treated disrespectfully by their providers, because many transgender people experience gender dysphoria, a feeling of extreme discomfort and anxiety with their assigned genders. Gender dysphoria is what many trans people refer to when they talk about feeling “trapped in the wrong body,” and it frequently includes strong feelings of disgust about their sexual anatomy.

A transgendered man with strong feelings of revulsion and anxiety about the parts of his body that are still “female” would find receiving care for something like an ovarian cyst upsetting under the best of circumstances. The last thing this man should have to worry about is whether he’ll have to argue with health practitioners who insist despite his protests that they’re going to make every effort possible to preserve his ovaries because he “might want to be a mother someday.”

Hopefully the new recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists will make that kind of transgender healthcare horror story a thing of the past – or at least a glaring anomaly. No one should have to receive health care in a hostile environment, and we commend ACOG for recognizing that ignorance and disrespect from providers is a serious and attention-worthy barrier to healthcare access.

What We’re Reading: 2011 was a Banner Year for LGBT Rights

Many online publications have been calling attention to the huge gains advocates have made towards equality for LGBT people this year. While we must recognize that we still have awhile to go to reach equality for all United States citizens, it is important to also celebrate our victories. Below we have compiled a list of some of our favorite stories. Please add your own favorite LGBT victory from 2011 in comments.

• New York became the largest state to legalize same-sex marriage
• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a historic speech, insisting that the protection of LGBT individuals from discrimination is an essential part of the international effort to further human rights
• For the first time, two women shared the traditional “first kiss,” a Navy homecoming tradition
• Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the policy that barred gay servicepeople from serving openly in the military, was repealed
• President Obama and Attorney General Holder issued a letter to Speaker Boehner stating that the Administration will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which states that opposite-sex marriage is the only marriage allowed under federal law
• President Obama’s administration extended benefits to federal employees in same-sex domestic partnerships through executive order

Gay Couples Less Likely to Have Access to Health Care Benefits

The Bureau of Labor Statistics added two questions about domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples to their National Compensation Survey, resulting in the first comprehensive count of domestic partner health care benefits by a federal government agency.  The survey revealed that only one-third of workers in the U.S. have access to health care for same-sex partners.

Among all U.S. employers, 31% provide coverage for unmarried opposite-sex partners, whereas only 21% of U.S. employers provide coverage for same-sex partners, regardless of their marriage status.  These discriminatory health care trends are not just evidenced in  those states where gay marriage is illegal.  Indeed, “even in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal, only 71% of employers reported offering benefits to same-sex spouses in 2009, as opposed to 93% who give them to opposite-sex spouses.”

Because gay employees are less likely to receive health insurance for their partners than their counterparts in opposite-sex relationships, their families spend more on average for health insurance.  M.V. Lee Badgett, the research director of the Williams Institute, a think tank at the UCLA School of Law told MSN that roughly 3 in 4 of those in same-sex partnerships obtain health care through purchasing additional health care for their partner from their employer.  She noted that “some may choose not to sign up their partners because of the higher tax hit or due to a fear that they will encounter discrimination at work if they disclose having a same-sex partner.”  For those couples that do not purchase additional insurance through an employer, some obtain individual plans, though an unsettling number of partners in same-sex relationships cannot find any affordable coverage.

The fact that many in same-sex partnerships lack access to insurance likely leads to lower-quality health care.  Even those in same-sex relationships who are lucky enough to be covered by an employer’s insurance have increased health risks.  If the partner whose employer provides health insurance loses that job, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (which allows individuals to continue their coverage for limited periods of time after the voluntary or involuntary loss of their jobs) does not extend to same-sex partners.

You can find out more about groups whose health is jeopardized as a result of discrimination here.

T-shirt re-opens discussion on marriage equality in U.S.

Radio listeners in the Pittsburgh region tuned in to KDKA radio at 8pm last Friday night to listen to Sue Frietsche, Senior Staff Attorney at the Women’s Law Project in Pittsburgh, weigh in on a recent controversy at Dollywood’s Splash Country water park in Tennessee.

As a guest to Johnna Pro’s evening radio show on KDKA, Sue Frietsche commented on the story and the inequality the LGBT community faces.

“We still face frequent, severe discrimination in public accommodations, employment, housing, and education. As a nation, we pay lip service to equality and justice, but the truth is that we have failed to protect LGBT families from unfairness, exclusion, and bigotry.”

Surprisingly this controversy was sparked by a simple message on a t-shirt.

 On July 9^th, Jennifer Tipton and Olivier Odom visited Dollywood’s Splash Country water park with friends and their friends’ children. While entering the park, Odom was stopped at the park’s gates and quietly asked to turn her shirt inside out. The reason? Her t-shirt read, “Marriage is so gay.”

Dollywood parks enforce a dress code policy that bans clothing deemed offensive or inappropriate. What constitutes “offensive” is left to park attendants to decide. The park attendant justified his decision by saying that the t-shirt was offensive because Dollywood is a “family park.”

“That’s what we found so offensive — that he said it was a family park,” Tipton said. ”Families come in a wide range of definitions these days and we were with our family.”

For many in the gay community, this story was surprising. Dolly Parton is well-known for her acceptance and support of the LGBT population. However, after two weeks of silence, Parton released a statement apologizing to Odom and her family.

“Everyone knows my personal support of the gay and lesbian community. Dollywood is a family park and all families are welcome.”

Because of the media attention they have received, Odom and Tipton are using their story as an opportunity to broadcast the inequality millions of other LGBT people face- even in amusement parks.

Odom stated, “If marriage equality is going to happen, it’s not going to happen if people sit at home quietly.”

Gay Couple Spared Deportation

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage and so strips same-sex married couples of the rights that opposite-sex married couples enjoy. For this reason, Henry Velandia, a Venezuelan man, was in danger of being deported, which would have separated him from Josh Vandiver, who he legally married in Connecticut. Luckily, on June 29^th, federal officials canceled the deportation of Henry Velandia.

The victory for the couple came after a Newark immigration judge suspended Velandia’s deportation last month to give the government more time to consider the issue. Velandia sent a request that his deportation proceedings be canceled to the Department of Homeland Security which the Department agreed to.

This news comes in a flurry of news surrounding DOMA and immigration policies. In February the Obama administration announced that it would no longer defend DOMA in courts but that it would still enforce it. Advocates then asked the Obama administration to suspend deportations of married same-sex couples until the constitutionality of DOMA is settled. The decision on Velandia’s deportation proceedings “came as federal immigration officials were thoroughly reviewing their deportation policies.”

While it is certainly good news that Henry and Jose will not be separated as a result of DOMA, the fight towards marriage equality is still far from over. It is possible that this decision could lead to the cancellation of other deportations for those in a same-sex marriage but advocate.com notes that “it does not settle the question of federal recognition for same-sex marriages.” Until DOMA is repealed and same-sex marriage is legalized, couples like Josh Vandiver and Henry Velandia will not be free from the fear of their spouse’s deportation. To find out what you can do to help ensure marriage equality, visit Freedom to Marry’s “Take Action” page.

Widespread Support for Employment Non-discrimination Ordinances

We recently wrote about the LGBT non-discrimination bills that were introduced in Pennsylvania but a new poll shows support on a national level. A recent nationwide poll by the Center for American Progress captures the widespread support of employment non-discrimination for LGBT individuals:

Nearly three-fourths of voters (73 percent) support protecting gay and transgender people from workplace discrimination…Even among voters who identify themselves as feeling generally unfavorable toward gay people, a full 50 percent support workplace nondiscrimination protections for the gay and transgender population.

The support shown in this poll makes it all the more necessary to get a non-discrimination bill, like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which has been introduced in the U.S. House and Senate, passed. If that happens, Pennsylvanians who live outside of the 19 municipalities that have already passed non-discrimination ordinances would finally be protected, as would anyone living in the 29 other states that do not have statewide protection. Having equal protection under federal law is the right thing to do-and most people think it already exists:

The survey also found that 9 of out 10 voters erroneously think that a federal law is already in place protecting gay and transgender people from workplace discrimination.

When 90% of those surveyed believe that LGBT inclusive employment non-discrimination protections already exist, it is ridiculous for these bills not to pass. Employment discrimination does not occur in isolated incidents; rather nearly half of transgender people also report experiencing an adverse job outcome because of their gender identity. It is unacceptable for people in the United States to be fired, passed over for a job or denied a promotion because they are LGBT.

Contact your U.S. senator and representative and let them know how important it is that all Americans are protected from employment discrimination regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Philadelphia and Pittsburgh to Celebrate LGBT Pride Month This Weekend

On Sunday June 12^th Philadelphia and Pittsburgh will host their respective annual Pride parades and festivals. Philadelphia’s Pride Parade begins at 13^th and Locust at noon, ending at Penn’s lLanding where the festival will last until 6 PM. Pittsburgh’s Pride Awareness March begins at noon on Sunday followed by PrideFest on Liberty Avenue where the festival will continue until 6pm, the end of a five-day celebration of LGBT Pride.

Performers at Philadelphia’s events include Aisha Tyler and Dawn Robinson. Patti LaBelle will be a featured artist in Pittsburgh, performing at the Saturday evening “Pride in the Streets” event. You can find more information on Philadelphia’s events here and on Pittsburgh’s here.

Pennsylvania’s celebrations are part of LGBT Pride month. As we have written  before,  June has been a time of LGBT pride and activism since the Stonewall Riots of 1969 when customers of a LGBT-friendly bar fought back against police who were raiding the establishment. However, it was not until 2000 that June was officially recognized as “Gay and Lesbian Pride Month.” This year, President Obama declared June LGBT Pride Month, as he did in 2010.

During this time of celebration it is important to remember the gains that have been made towards equality for all individuals regardless of their sexual orientation and gender as well as the work that is still left to be done. Last year Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was repealed and recently Vermont ‘s governor signed into law a bill which “explicitly specifies that surgery is not required in order to obtain a new birth certificate,” a gain for the transgendered community. However, 20% of homeless youth are LGBT in an overall youth population that is only 10% LGBT and next year a proposed constitutional amendment will appear on Minnesota’s state ballot which would not only affirm the current ban on same-sex marriage but would prevent any future legalization.

Please support Pride events in your area and let us know about more LGBT victories and work that needs to be done to achieve equality in comments.