New York Law School

Art Leonard Observations

Colorado Appeals Court Reverse’s Teen’s Conviction in “Fighting Words” Analysis

Reversing a ruling by Boulder County District Judge Ingrid S. Bakke, a panel of the Court of Appeals of Colorado voted 2-1 that a 14-year-old middle school student did not commit an actionable “breach of the peace” when he drew a picture of “an ejaculating penis” over the cellphone photo he took of one of his classmates and then exhibited it to the subject as well as other friends. People of the State of Colorado, Petitioner-Appelleee, In the Interest of R.C., Juvenile-Appellant, 2016 COA 166, 2016 Colo. App. LEXIS 1612, 2016 WL 6803065 (Nov. 17, 2016).

Writing for the panel, Justice Elizabeth Harris related the facts: “During class one afternoon, R.C. used his cell phone to take a photo of L.P. Then, using the mobile application Snapchat, he drew a picture of an ejaculating penis next to L.P.’s mouth.  R.C. showed the altered photo to L.P. and three other friends.  R.C. was ‘giggling’ when he showed the other boys the photo. One of the other boys laughed too, but L.P. felt ‘bad.’  About five minutes later, class ended and the boys went to lunch.  In the cafeteria, a few other students looked at the photo and laughed, which made L.P. feel even worse.  Two of L.P.’s friends told R.C. to apologize and R.C. agreed to, but when he approach L.P., L.P. pushed R.C. away.  L.P. and his friends reported the incident to the principal later that day.”

In the way these things escalate in the age of “zero tolerance” for bullying conduct, the principal instituted criminal charges against R.C. under the disorderly conduct statute, and District Judge Bakke ruled “that R.C. knew that his drawing would make L.P. feel humiliated and ashamed and would have tended to incite an immediate breach of the peace, in large part because the drawing implied that L.P. was ‘homosexual or behaves in that kind of behavior or has some sort of demeanor about that.’ The court sentenced R.C. to three months of probation, therapy, and eight hours of work crew.”

The statute in question, Colorado R.S. Sec. 18-9-106(1)(a), provides that a person commits disorderly conduct if he or she “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:. . . makes a coarse or obviously offensive utterance, gesture, or display in a public place and the utterance, gesture, or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”

In reversing the conviction, the majority of the appeals court held that the disorderly conduct statute has been narrowed in interpretation to cover “fighting words” only, and that what R.C. had done failed to come within that narrow class of communicative conduct that is subject to criminal prosecution. Dissenting Judge John Webb sharply disagreed, asserting, with Judge Bakke, that fighting words include those that “inflict injury” even when they may not incite immediate violence.  The majority rejected this reasoning, pointing out, strikingly, that the Supreme Court has so shrunken the category of “fighting words” that it has “overturned every single fighting words conviction it has reviewed since Chaplinsky [the historic Supreme Court case recognizing a “fighting words” exception to First Amendment protection] was decided in 1942.”

“The district court concluded that the drawing constituted fighting words because its display would tend to make the subject of the photo feel humiliated and ashamed,” wrote Judge Harris. “But speech that embarrasses or disgraces another is insufficient to qualify as fighting words.  Even vulgar and insulting speech that is likely to arouse animosity or inflame anger, or even to provoke a forceful response from the other person, is not prohibited,” she continued, pointing to a 10th Circuit case from 1993, Cannon v. City of Denver, 998 F.2d 867.  “Rather, fighting words are limited to ‘speech that, in the context in which it is uttered, is so inflammatory that it is akin to dropping a match into a pool of gasoline.’”  (This vivid quote is from a 2015 Vermont Supreme Court decision.)

“Our position would not change even if we believed, as the district court apparently did, that the photo might have implied that L.P. was gay. Indeed, this assumption was the basis of the court’s ruling; if R.C. had drawn a mustache or a big nose on the photo, the court explained, it would not have amounted to disorderly conduct, even, presumably, if the big-nose photo had hurt L.P.’s feelings.  But R.C. drew a picture that was ‘sexual in nature’ and went ‘directly to L.P.’s gender being male,’ which made the photograph much more offensive, according to the court; so much so that, upon seeing the photo, L.P. would reasonably have been incited to violence.”

Two problems with this, wrote Harris: “First, there was, in fact, no evidence that R.C. intended to imply that L.P. was gay or that L.P. perceived the photograph as any sort of commentary on his sexual orientation. Second, even if we assume such commentary, we cannot conclude that, as a matter of law, the mere insinuation that a person is gay amounts to ‘fighting words.’  We disagree with the district court, and the dissent, that the suggestion of homosexuality or homosexual conduct is so shameful and humiliating that it should be expected to provoke a violent reaction from an ordinary person.”

Furthermore, the court doubted that such a characterization would be appropriate in the full context of what happened. The court found no authority to support the idea that the label “fighting words” automatically applied to this particular doctored photo.  And, indeed, L.P. did not react violently, and “there was no evidence that R.C.’s display of the photo caused any sort of commotion or that it was even noticed by other children or the teacher.”  In this case, said the court, disagreeing with the dissenter, “R.C.’s display of the photo did not amount to fighting words because it was not likely to incite an immediate breach of the peace.  We certainly have not foreclosed the possibility that, under other circumstances, references to a person’s sexual orientation might indeed rise to the level of fighting words.”

The court also rejected the state’s argument that “the photo was akin to R.C. calling L.P. a ‘cocksucker,’ a term that by its mere utterance qualifies as fighting words.” Responded Harris, “The word ‘cocksucker’ is not an innocuous expression; it is vulgar and profane.  But uttering the word is not a crime unless its mere utterance would tend to provoke a reasonable person to immediately retaliate with violence.”  Although the state could point to several past cases where that word had been deemed a “fighting word” in context, those cases were all distinguishable from the circumstances of this case, and the court found that “more recent cases suggest that ‘cocksucker’ has lost its former incendiary quality.”  Indeed, in some circles it is now a term of endearment as “street language,” although Harris dropped a footnote pointing out how Maine Governor Paul LePage recently inspired criticism — but no criminal consequences — for using the word directed in a communication to a legislative opponent, and commented, sarcastically, “We are reluctant to hold a middle school student to a higher standard than the Governor of Maine.”

“A middle school student of average sensibilities and maturity might have told R.C. that the photo was not funny, as L.P.’s friends did, or reported the hurtful conduct to a school administrator, as L.P. and his friends did later that day. But the average person – even an average fourteen-year-old – would not be expected to fly into a violent rage upon being shown a photo of himself with a penis drawn over it.  R.C.’s display simply does not fall within the ‘exceedingly narrow’ class of insults for which violence is a reasonably expected response.”  The court found that a school administrator could discipline R.C. for such conduct, and that a state bullying statute even authorized principals to impose discipline in appropriate cases, but that criminal prosecution was definitely overdoing it.

Judge Webb dissented at length, concluding, “I would hold that the image R.C. created and circulated showing an ejaculating penis adjacent to L.P.’s mouth constituted fighting words. Therefore, I would deny it First Amendment protection and affirm the judgment of conviction.”

Public Defender Douglas K. Wilson and Deputy Public Defender Elizabeth Porter-Merrill represented R.C. in appealing his conviction.

Legal Issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comment

Mindless Bureaucracy Temporarily Foiled as District Judge Refuses to Dismiss Challenge to Gender-Binary Requirement on U.S. Passports

“Just because” is not a good enough answer when the question is whether the State Department’s Passport Office was “arbitrary or capricious” when it refused to process a passport application from an intersexual applicant who declined to check either M or F on a passport application.  U.S. District Judge Richard Brooke Jackson of the District Court in Colorado rejected the government’s motion to dismiss Dana Alix Zzyym’s challenge to the gender binary requirement under the Administrative Procedure Act on November 22 in Zzyym v. Kerry, 2015 Westlaw 6879827, while reserving any ruling on the plaintiff’s constitutional claims.  Instead, Judge Jackson returned the matter to the Department for “reconsideration.”  Zzymm is represented by attorneys from Lambda Legal

Zzyym identifies as an intersex person, who was born “with sex characteristics that do not fit typical binary notions of bodies designated ‘male’ or ‘female,’” according to an explanation contained in the complaint. To avoid having to use sex-based pronouns, the court refers to Zzyym through the opinion by the plaintiff’s first name, Dana, as we will do in reporting on the case.  In a press release about the court’s ruling, Lambda Legal mentions that Dana’s birth certificate says “unknown” in the space for sex, reflecting the ambiguous genitalia that are sometimes characteristic of intersex newborns.

Dana applied for a passport in 2014 and wrote the word “intersex” below the “sex” category on the application form, rather than checking the box labeled male or the box labeled female. Dana identifies as neither.  In a separate letter, Dana explained this and requested that an X be used as an acceptable marker in the sex field, to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards for machine-readable travel documents.  Some other countries have adopted the X for documents issued to intersexual people as well as transgender people who have rejected a gender binary choice in describing their sexual identity.

The Passport Office reacted like a typical hide-bound bureaucracy and rejected the application immediately, without any evident thought or policy consideration, merely explaining that “the Department of State currently requires the sex field on United States passports to be listed as ‘M’ or ‘F’” and that the Department would be “unable to fulfill your request to list your sex as ‘X’.” The Department noted that Dana had submitted a copy of Dana’s driver’s license which identified Dana as “female” and offered to list Dana that way, or, if Dana could supply a doctor’s letter certifying such, they could list Dana as “male.”

Dana rejected this suggestion, submitting a letter to the Department appealing the Passport Office’s refusal to process the application, and included sworn documents from physicians with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Cheyenne, Wyoming, where Dana had received treatment as a Navy veteran, verifying Dana’s sex as “intersex.” Dana also met with staff members at the Colorado Passport Office to explain that a passport identifying Dana as either male or female would be inaccurate.  The Department rejected Dana’s appeal, providing no explanation other than its original response, but suggesting that Dana could obtain a passport by submitting a new application and checking the box for “M” or “F”.  Dana’s request for further reconsideration was rejected, and this lawsuit followed.

Dana attacked the State Department’s position on several grounds. First, Dana relied on the Administrative Procedure Act, a statute that forbids administrative agencies from making decisions that are “arbitrary or capricious” in their interpretation and application of their statutory authority.  Dana also alleged that the Department’s requirement that passport applicants identify as male or female exceeded the authority Congress delegated to the Department in administering the passport program, as there is no statutory requirement that gender be listed on a passport.  (Indeed, prior to 1976, the passport application did not require applicants to indicate gender.)  Dana also alleged that the refusal to process the application was a violation of rights protected by the due process and equal protection obligations imposed on the federal government by the 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and asked the court to order the Department to issue Dana a passport, as Dana is otherwise fully qualified to get one.  The State Department filed a motion seeking judgment on the APA claims and dismissal of the remaining claims in the Complaint, and the court held a hearing on July 20.

Judge Jackson decided to focus on the APA claim in his November 22 Order, reserving judgment on the constitutional claims. The essence of the arbitrary and capricious standard is to require the government to have a reason for its policy.  “I find that the administrative record contains no evidence that the Department followed a rational decisionmaking process in deciding to implement its binary-only gender passport policy,” wrote the judge.  He noted that the “policy” to which the Department referred in rejecting Dana’s application was actually a “collection of rules pertaining to gender contained within the Foreign Affairs Manual,” and that “these rules to not explicitly state that the Department cannot issue a passport containing an alternative gender marking.  Rather, they simply explain how the Department deals with different issues related to gender on passport applications.  The rules collectively do not contemplate the existence of a gender other than male or female.”

What should an agency do when presented with a “new issue” that has not been previously resolved? Under the Administrative Procedure Act, it should undergo a reasoned examination of the issue and come forth with a policy that makes sense in light of any relevant statutory requirements and the reasons for which the policy exists.  If the purpose of a passport is to accurately identify the person to whom it is issued and to certify that person’s status as a citizen, is it sensible to insist on identifying a person as having a sex that both the person and qualified medical authorities reject as inaccurate?

Judge Jackson pointed out that the Department “simply justified the Department’s decision to deny Dana’s application by referring to” its policy. After litigation commenced, the Department realized that it had to come up with some sort of rational justification for its policy, and submitted a declaration from a Division Chief, Bennet S. Fellows, but Judge Jackson found that the explanation “falls short.”  Much of it merely describes the background information underlying the policy, such as that the Department considers sex to be part of the “key data” necessary to identify somebody, and that an application without a sex designation is thus “incomplete.”  Fellows pointed out that no other federal agency that issues citizenship documents recognizes the use of a “third marker,” but Jackson said that none of this “rationalizes the decisionmaking process behind this policy.”

Fellows also insisted that the “key data” had to be supported by documentation from other official sources, such as “birth certificates, driver’s licenses, social security cards, third-party affidavits, and/or other documentation consistent with the information submitted by the applicant,” but that none of these sorts of documents “currently authorize the use of ‘X’ or any marker other than ‘M’ and ‘F’.”

Jackson found this rationale “unpersuasive” because “it is entirely self-fulfilling” and the Department’s own response to Dana’s application indicated that it would accept an application showing either “M” or “F” depending whether Dana sought to rely on Dana’s driver’s license (showing “female”) or a physician’s certification of Dana’s gender as “male.” That is, the Department was not concerned with accuracy, as such, but rather with being able to fit into its predetermined formal classifications.  The Fellows declaration also argues that the computer chip embedded in identity documents only accommodates “M” or “F” as gender identification.  “To the extent that is just another recitation of the Department’s current policy,” wrote the judge, “it does not advance the ball.”  If that means that reprogramming the chips to accept additional categories would be necessary, “that does not explain why the government first began to require passport applications to choose either sex in 1976, but it would at least provide a reason for the Department’s reluctance to change course now,” he continued.  “In any event, the Department hasn’t yet made that argument or attempted to show why it would consider that to be worse than accommodating this presumably small population of intersex individuals.”

The declaration also argued that it was necessary for U.S. passport information to “sync with law enforcement databases that exclusively use binary gender systems,” but it concedes that not every such database actually includes sex designations and that “a field left blank in the system is assumed to reflect that the particular datum is unknown or unrecorded, and not to indicate ‘intersex’ or other possible alternative categorization.’” Jackson expressed puzzlement, asking why if this is a critical factor, the Department was willing to record Dana as “male” knowing that Dana had state identification documents – the driver’s license – listing Dana as “female”?  “How does the Department sync a transgender individual’s passport information with law enforcement records that might list that very same passport holder as the opposite sex,” he asked.  “Without answers to these questions, I cannot conclude that the government rationally decided to formulate a binary-only gender policy.”

The Fellows declaration also suggested that the holder of a U.S. Passport without a male or female gender designation or with some third marker, such as “X”, might encounter difficulties in travel to other countries that insisted on a binary classification. “Is this pure speculation,” asked Jackson. “Is it a fact that other countries validate the information contained within a passport, as opposed to simply verifying the authenticity of the passport itself? And if a third gender marker did lead to inconvenience or difficulty entering other countries, isn’t that solely the problem of the passport holder who made the choice?  The current record does not explain why these factors rationally support the policy in place.”

Judge Jackson found that this first attempt by the Department to supply a rationale for its position was lacking. “That is not to say that it can’t be done,” he continued, “but the Department’s first effort to get over the arbitrary and capricious hump was not convincing.”  Jackson’s remedy was to return the matter to the Department for “reconsideration,” without dismissing the complaint or ruling on Dana’s constitutional claims.

Given the pending change of administration, there remains some question whether a second attempt will be made by incumbent officials to satisfy the court before January 20, 2017, or whether they will just capitulate and, consistent with the Obama Administration’s decision a few years ago to liberalize the procedure for allowing transgender people to change the sex designation on their passports, accept the reality of people who do not identify either as male or female and figure out a way to accommodate them on U.S. passports, as some other countries have done.   Otherwise, the task of responding to the court’s Order will be left to officials of the incoming administration.

Judge Jackson, previously a Colorado state court judge, was appointed to the federal bench by President Barack Obama in 2010, and was confirmed by unanimous consent of the Senate in 2011.

 

Legal Issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comment

Another Federal Judge Lets Gay Plaintiff Pursue Discrimination Claim under Title VII

One of the nation’s most senior federal trial judges, Warren W. Eginton (age 92) of Connecticut, rejected an employer’s motion to dismiss a Title VII sex discrimination claim brought by an openly gay employee in a November 17 ruling.  Boutillier v. Hartford Public Schools, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159093, 2016 WL 6818348 (D. Conn.).  Eginton, who was appointed by Jimmy Carter in 1979 and has been a senior judge (semi-retired) since 1992, accepted the argument that Title VII can be interpreted to ban sexual orientation discrimination, despite prior contrary rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, to which his decision can be appealed.

 

Eginton’s ruling came less than two weeks after a federal district judge in Pennsylvania, Cathy Bissoon, appointed by Barack Obama, issued a similar ruling in EEOC v. Scott Medical Health Center, bucking contrary appellate precedent in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.  Could this be the beginning of a trend?

 

Lisa Boutillier, a lesbian who formerly taught in the Hartford Public School system, claimed that she had suffered discrimination and retaliation because of her sexual orientation and physical disability in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  Because Connecticut law explicitly bans sexual orientation and disability discrimination, she could have brought her case in state court and, by confining her claims to state law, she could have avoided ending up in federal court where adverse circuit precedent might have doomed her Title VII claim.  Instead, however, her attorney, Margaret M. Doherty, included the federal claims and filed in the U.S. District Court, prompting the school district to file a motion arguing that Title VII does not cover this case.  The case could remain in Judge Eginton’s court only if he found that Boutillier could assert a potentially valid claim under either or both of the Americans with Disabilities Act or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Eginton concluded that Boutillier failed to allege facts sufficient to qualify as a person with a disability under the ADA, so her ability to maintain the action in federal court turned entirely on whether she could allege a sex discrimination claim under Title VII.       There is little doubt from her factual allegations that if Title VII covers this case, Boutillier will have stated a potentially valid claim and avoid summary judgment against her.

 

Judge Eginton devoted most of his opinion to the Title VII question.  He sharply disputed the Second Circuit’s prior rulings refusing to allow sexual orientation discrimination claims under Title VII.  “Early interpretations of Title VII’s sex discrimination provisions reached illogical conclusions based on a supposed traditional concept of discrimination, which, for example, determined that discrimination based on pregnancy was not discrimination based on sex,” he began his analysis, noting that Congress had overruled that mistaken early Supreme Court decision by amending Title VII.  He said that the pregnancy case “and other similar decisions that imposed incongruous traditional norms were misguided in their interpretations regardless of whether Congress had been able to overrule them.”  He charged that these early cases were mistaken because “they failed to take the ordinary meaning of the Act’s text to its logical conclusions . . . .  The converse of the majority’s decision,” wrote Eginton, “and equally absurd, would be to hold that an exclusion in coverage for prostate cancer does not discriminate against men based on sex.  Such conclusion represent a fundamental failure of ordinary interpretation.”

 

He found a similar error of reasoning in the Second Circuit’s approach to sexual orientation claims.  He noted that when Congress overruled the pregnancy case, the House Report stated: “It is the Committee’s view that the dissenting Justices correctly interpreted the Act.”  The 2nd Circuit has premised its view on lack of legislative history showing that Congress intended to protect gay people from discrimination when it included “sex” in Title VII in 1964.  “Acknowledging that the legislative history on whether sexual orientation should be included in the category of sex under Title VII is slight,” wrote Eginton, “it is difficult to glean the absence of prior intention merely from subsequent efforts by Congress to reinforce statutory civil rights protections” by adding “sexual orientation” to federal law, as the 2nd Circuit has repeatedly done.  He pointed out that the Supreme Court has cautioned against relying on legislative inaction as an indication of legislative intent.

 

More importantly, however, he wrote, “straightforward statutory interpretation and logic dictate that sexual orientation cannot be extricated from sex: the two are necessarily intertwined in a manner that, when viewed under the Title VII paradigm set forth by the Supreme Court, place sexual orientation discrimination within the penumbra of sex discrimination.”

 

The judge pointed out the inconsistency between the 2nd Circuit’s approach to sexual orientation and its cases about race discrimination.  The 2nd Circuit has accepted the argument that it is race discrimination when an employer discriminates against an employee for engaging in an interracial relationship.  “The logic is inescapable,” wrote Eginton: “If interracial association discrimination is held to be ‘because of the employee’s own race,’ so ought sexual orientation discrimination be held to be because of the employee’s own sex.”  The 2nd Circuit’s cases are “not legitimately distinguishable,” he argued.  “If Title VII protects individuals who are discriminated against on the basis of race because of interracial association (it does), it should similarly protect individuals who are discriminated against on the basis of sex because of sexual orientation – which could otherwise be named ‘intrasexual association.’”

 

He pointed out that the Supreme Court’s key decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins “bolsters” his conclusion, in holding that “sex stereotyping could constitute discrimination because of sex. . .  Indeed, stereotypes concerning sexual orientation are probably the most prominent of all sex related stereotypes, which can lead to discrimination based on what the Second Circuit refers to interchangeably as gender non-conformity.”  The 2nd Circuit has refused to extend this reasoning to sexual orientation cases, however, using an analysis that Eginton maintains is “inherently unmanageable, as homosexuality is the ultimate gender non-conformity, the prototypical sex stereotyping animus.”

 

He quoted extensively from a recent 7th Circuit decision, Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, where a 3-judge panel of that court dismissed a sexual orientation discrimination claim because of circuit precedent, but two members of the panel submitted an opinion suggesting that the circuit should be reconsidering its position.  Since then, the 7th Circuit has voted to grant “en banc” review in the case, with reargument scheduled for November 30.

 

Eginton pointed out the paradox stemming from the 2nd Circuit’s position.  “Essentially, employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees for exhibiting stereotypical gay behavior, yet, at the same time, employers are free to discriminate against employees for actually being gay.”  Thus, Eginton, concluded, he would follow the lead of the 2nd Circuit’s interracial discrimination case instead of its past dismissal of sexual orientation discrimination claims “by interpreting the ordinary meaning of sex under Title VII to include sexual orientation, thereby obviating the need to parse sexuality from gender norms.”  Eginton pointed out that the EEOC adopted this view in 2015, the 7th Circuit agreed to a full rehearing in Hively, and a 2nd Circuit panel will soon rule on appeals from trial court dismissals of sexual orientation claims in several cases from New York.  While the 2nd Circuit’s expected ruling on those appeals “may ultimately decide the fate of plaintiff’s Title VII claims,” he wrote, “in the meantime, summary judgment will be denied.  Plaintiff has adequately established a right to protection under Title VII.”

Legal Issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comment

Hawaii Supreme Court Allows Gay Dad to Seek Custody as De Facto Parent

The five members of the Hawaii Supreme Court unanimously ruled on November 3 in A.A. v. B.B., 2016 Haw. LEXIS 280, that a gay dad can seek joint custody of the kids that were adopted by his partner during their relationship and who he helped to raise. The opinion by Justice Richard W. Pollack reversed a trial judge’s ruling that a “de facto” parent had to prove that there was a compelling state interest to justify letting the court use the “de facto” provision of the family law statute in order to overcome the adoptive parent’s rights.

 

Justice Pollack identified the parties by initials in his opinion for the court. A.A. and B.B. began their relationship in March 2009 and concluded it in October 2013.  The child, a girl, was born in 2011.  B.B. is the biological grandfather of the child, according to Judge Pollack, and they decided that B.B. would adopt the child.  A.A. and B.B. jointly made a decision to raise the child together.  They lived together with the child and B.B.’s teenage son from March 2009 through October 2013.  They jointly decided on the child’s name and until they split up they shared parenting responsibilities.  The child called A.A. “Daddy” and B.B. “Papa.”  They planned to have A.A. also adopt the child, but that plan was never completed.

 

After A.A. and B.B. separated, they made a written co-parenting agreement, dividing up residential custody on specified days of the week. B.B. sent an email to A.A. stating that if anything ever happened to him he wanted A.A. to have custody of the child.  However, in April 2014 B.B. sent a letter to A.A. stating that the agreement was “revoked, as this was B.B.’s parental right.”

 

A.A. went to court seeking joint custody, alleging that he met the statutory requirement of being wholesome and fit to raise the child. Indeed, A.A. argued that he had “de facto” joint custody based on his role and relationship with the child, as well as the “stable and wholesome” home he could provide.  The relevant statute provides that “Custody may be awarded to persons other than the father or mother whenever the award services the best interest of the child.  Any person who has had de facto custody of the child in a stable and wholesome home and is a fit and proper person shall be entitled prima facie to an award of custody.”

 

During a custody hearing, B.B.’s expert witness testified about psychological and developmental problems concerning B.B.’s son and the son’s interactions with A.A., and B.B.’s counsel raised hypothetical questions about “anger management” problems for A.A., which were objected to. This doctor testified that she “would have concerns about Child having a relationship with A.A.,” and that she didn’t think the Child would be harmed by termination of her relationship with A.A.

 

On the other hand, an expert witness offered by A.A. testified favorably about A.A. as a parent and the home he provided for the Child, and opined that termination of the Child’s relationship with A.A. “would result in immediate-term and long-term damaging psychological consequences to the child. This expert also testified the while he was aware of sex abuse allegations involving A.A., he did not believe that A.A. posed a threat of abuse to the Child, “be it sexual, physical or emotional abuse or neglect.”

The trial judge concluded that A.A. did not have standing as the Child’s “psychological parent” to seek custody because the parties had not married, even though same-sex marriage had become available in Hawaii prior to the termination of their relationship. Although the judge concluded that the statutory provision on third party de facto parents could apply to the case, it concluded that A.A. failed to demonstrate “by strict scrutiny a compelling state interest as to why this ‘de facto’ section should apply to him when in fact the parties were not married, and when the options of civil union or marriage were unavailable.”

 

The Supreme Court concluded unanimously that the trial judge had misapplied the statute. Although A.A.’s evidence addressed all the factors spelled out in the statute for deciding whether a de facto parent was entitled to a custody award, the trail court made no explicit determination whether A.A. had satisfied those factors.  The court held that the trial judge incorrectly placed a burden on A.A. to demonstrate the constitutionality of the de facto parent provision, apparently based on a misinterpretation of Troxel v. Granville, a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down a state law that opened up the possibility of third party custody to any adult who could satisfy a court that it was in a  child’s interest to award custody to the third party, regardless of objections by a child’s legal parent.

 

The Supreme Court has ruled that natural or adoptive parents do have constitutional due process rights, liberty interests, regarding their right to raise their children without undue state interference. In Troxel, a mother whose ex-husband had committed suicide was fending off an attempt by her late husband’s parents to obtain court-ordered trial visitation, when the mother wanted to retain control over when and how the grandparents would have contact.  The Supreme Court struck down the state law in that case as “breathtakingly broad” and inadequately protecting the rights of the child’s legal parent.

 

Justice Pollack wrote that this case does not directly implicate the issues decided by the Supreme Court in Troxel. After engaging in an extended discussion of the Troxel decision and of subsequent Hawaii cases, the court concluded that this case, involving a de facto parent, presented different issues.  “In this case, B.B. voluntarily allowed A.A. to share physical custody of Child in addition to sharing the duties and responsibilities for parenting child, and thus the circumstances do not implicate the Hawai’I Constitution’s right to privacy” as was implicated in cases like Troxel and similar Hawaii cases involving custody or visitation claims by grandparents.

 

The court rejected any argument by B.B. that the state’s de facto parent custody statute was unconstitutional, or that A.A. could not seek joint custody without proving the constitutionality of that statute.   Wrote Pollack, “because B.B. permitted A.A. to share physical custody of Child in addition to the parenting responsibilities and duties with regard to Child, B.B. does not have a protected privacy interest in excluding A.A. from Child’s life under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment or the Hawai’i Constitution’s due process and privacy protections.  As such, B.B. has not demonstrated that the application of the [de facto parent statute] under the circumstances of this case would implicate his parental rights protected under the federal or Hawai’i constitutions.”

 

Turning to the facts of this case, the court said that the “de facto presumption” of custody created by the state would apply “when the nonparent custodian is able to demonstrate that he or she (1) has had ‘de facto custody’ of the child (2) in a stable and wholesome home and that (3) the custodian is a fit and proper person.”

 

As the court found that the family court “misapprehended the law” and that “the plain language. . . contemplates standing to seek custody when a person has had ‘de facto custody’ of a child and meets the other requirements,” the case had to be sent back to the family court, with A.A.’s standing to seek custody established, so that the court could make a determine whether it would be in the best interest of the child to award joint custody to A.A.

 

A.A. was represented by Michael S. Zola. B.B. was represented by Brian J. De Lime, Francis R. Alcain, and Justin P. Haspe.

 

 

Legal Issues | Tagged , , , , , | Comment

New Court Ruling Shows What May Be Lost Due to Trump/Pence Election

A November 4 ruling in a sexual orientation discrimination case that was brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) shows that progress on LGBTS rights may be lost as a result of the election of Donald Trump and Mike Pence. The ruling in EEOC v. Scott Medical Health Center, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153744, 2016 WL 6569233 (W.D. Pa.), was issued by U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon, who was nominated to the federal district court in Pittsburgh by President Obama in 2010 and confirmed by the Senate in October 2011 by a vote of 82-3.  The judge, a Brooklyn native, was reportedly the first woman of Indian descent to sit as a federal judge when she took her previous position as a U.S. Magistrate Judge in 2008. In this ruling, the judge held that Title VII may be used to protect gay people from sexual orientation discrimination.

In this case, Dale Baxley was hired in mid-July 2013 by Scott Medical Health Center in a telemarketing position. He claims that he was subjected by his manager, Robert McClendon, to “a continuing course of unwelcome and offensive harassment because of his sex” that created a hostile work environment.  According to the Complaint filed in the district court, McClendon “routinely made unwelcome and offensive comments about Baxley, including but not limited to regularly calling him ‘fag,’ ‘faggot,’ ‘fucking faggot,’ and ‘queer,’ and making statements such as ‘fucking queer can’t do your job.’”  The Complaint also alleges that after McClendon found out that Baxley is gay and had a same-sex partner, he “made highly offensive statements to Baxley about Baxley’s relationship with the partner such as saying, ‘I always wondered how you fags have sex,’ ‘I don’t understand how you fucking fags have sex,’ and ‘Who’s the butch and who is the bitch?’”  Baxley was gone from the job after about a month of McClendon’s verbal abuse, a victim – he claims – of “constructive discharge.”  That is, his working conditions were so miserable that he was compelled to quit.

Ironically, the EEOC’s lawsuit on behalf of Baxley resulted not from a charge he filed but from the agency’s investigation of discrimination charges filed with the Pittsburgh office by five of Baxley’s former female co-workers. These women alleged that they were subjected to sexual harassment by McClendon, including “unwanted touching so frequently and severely that it created a hostile and offensive work environment and resulted in adverse employment decisions being taken against them.”  While investigating these charges, the agency learned about McClendon’s treatment of Baxley and Baxley’s claim that he had been constructively discharged.

At the end of the investigation, the EEOC issued a “Letter of Determination” to Scott Medical Health Center stating that the investigation “also revealed that McClendon harassed a male employee because of sex, specifically and repeatedly referring to the male employee as a ‘faggot,’ and repeatedly asking about the employee’s sexual experiences and preferences. The investigation revealed that McClendon targeted this male employee because he did not conform to what McClendon believed was acceptable or expected behavior for a male because of his association with members of the same sex rather than the opposite sex.”  The letter concluded that McClendon’s conduct created a hostile environment resulting in the constructive discharge of Baxley.  The EEOC attempted unsuccessfully to achieve a conciliation agreement with the employer, then filed this lawsuit.

This was the first lawsuit that the EEOC filed on behalf of a gay former employee alleging that his discharge was “because of sex” in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In July 2015, the agency had reversed its position of half a century when it ruled in Baldwin v. Foxx that the U.S. Transportation Department may have violated Title VII when it denied a promotion to a gay air traffic controller.  After accepting the view that sexual orientation claims can be asserted under Title VII, the agency was on the lookout for appropriate private sector cases to bring, in order to vindicate a public policy against such discrimination as well as seeking a remedy for the employee involved.  The agency was seeking to establish court precedents that would lock its interpretation into the case law.  Prior to this case filing, all of the Title VII sexual orientation claims presented to federal courts had been lawsuits filed by individual discrimination victims, not by the federal agency.

The Health Center asked the court to dismiss the EEOC’s complaint, arguing that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, citing two precedents from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, Bibby v. Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 260 F.3d 257 (3rd Cir. 2001), and Prowel v. Wise Business Forms, Inc., 579 F.3d 285 (3rd Cir. 2009), in support of that argument.  But Judge Bissoon found that in those prior decisions, the court of appeals had not been presented with all the arguments that the EEOC has developed in support of its 2015 change of position on this issue, and more recent events have undermined the earlier rulings, so she concluded that those rulings – by the court with direct appellate authority over district court decisions from Pennsylvania – did not compel dismissal of this complaint.

The EEOC advanced three lines of argument in support of its position. First, that Baxley was “targeted because he is a male, for had he been female instead of a male, he would not have been subjected to discrimination for his intimate relationships with men.”  Second, the he was “targeted and harassed because of his intimate association with someone of the same sex, which necessarily takes Baxley’s sex into account.”  And, third, that he was “targeted because he did not conform to his harasser’s concepts of what a man should be or do.”  This last argument is a version of the “sex stereotype” theory that the Supreme Court approved in 1989 in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins.

Judge Bissoon said that the EEOC’s three arguments were actually just one argument stated three different ways, “with the singular question being whether, but for Mr. Baxley’s sex, would he have been subjected to this discrimination or harassment. The answer, based on these allegations, is no.”

For purposes of ruling on a motion to dismiss a claim, the court assumes that the plaintiff’s factual allegations are true, and asks whether, based on those facts, the plaintiff has a plausible legal claim. Thus, Judge Bissoon was ruling, if the EEOC can prove these factual allegations, it will win the case.

Judge Bissoon held, straightforwardly, that “Title VII’s ‘because of sex’ provision forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.” This statement directly contradicts the two prior 3rd Circuit rulings, but Judge Bissoon found that it was consistent with how the law had developed under Title VII, dating back as early as 1983 when the Supreme Court began “broadening” its interpretation of sex discrimination in a series of cases culminating with Price Waterhouse in 1989.  She also noted that at least one federal appeals court, the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit, has already used the sex stereotyping theory to extend protection to a transgender plaintiff.

As the EEOC has done, Judge Bissoon quoted Justice Scalia’s statement in the Supreme Court’s 1998 same-sex harassment case, Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, that “statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil [that Congress intended to address] to cover reasonably comparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are governed.” Thus, the lack of any evidence that Congress intended to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in 1964 does not require rejecting a sexual orientation discrimination claim in 2016.

Referring back to Price Waterhouse, the judge wrote, “There is no more obvious form of sex stereotyping than making a determination that a person should conform to heterosexuality. As the EEOC states, ‘discrimination against a person because of the sex of that person’s romantic partner necessarily involves stereotypes about “proper” roles in sexual relationships – that men are and should only be sexually attracted to women, not men.’  This discriminatory evil is more than reasonably comparable to the evil identified by the Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse.  Indeed, the Court finds discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is, at its very core, sex stereotyping plain and simple; there is no line separating the two.”

And the judge found that this argument was not presenting in its fully developed form to the 3rd Circuit in its earlier cases, so it had not been specifically rejected by that court.  In its earlier cases, furthermore, the 3rd Circuit panels had relied on the failure of Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act as evidence that Congress did not intend to protect gay people from discrimination.  “However,” she wrote, “subsequent Third Circuit decisions have questioned the value of reliance on Congress inaction.”  Furthermore, she pointed out, many of the cases relied upon in those earlier 3rd Circuit decisions had in turned relied upon circuit court cases that pre-dated Price Waterhouse, and so necessarily had not ruled on the sex stereotype theory.

“The Supreme Court’s recent opinion legalizing gay marriage demonstrates a growing recognition of the illegality of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” wrote the judge. “That someone can be subjected to a barrage of insults, humiliation, hostility and/or changes to the terms and conditions of their employment, based upon nothing more than the aggressor’s view of what it means to be a man or a woman, is exactly the evil Title VII was designed to eradicate.” Thus, the court denied the employer’s motion to dismiss the Title VII complaint.

If the employer appeals this case to the 3rd Circuit, it will be reaching an appellate bench with seven Democratic appointees (by Presidents Clinton and Obama) and five Republican appointees (by Presidents Bush I and II).  There are two vacancies.  There are nine active senior judges of the circuit, mostly appointed by Republican presidents, who might sit on particular three-judge panels but would not participate in “en banc” reviews by the full circuit bench.   By random draw, any particular three-judge panel might by more or less receptive to Judge Bissoon’s reasoning, although one can’t conclusively presume that every Democratic appointee will agree and every Republican appointee will disagree.  But the point to bear in mind is that Obama, through his appointments, switched the 3rd Circuit from a more conservative to a more progressive bench, and Trump can rebalance the circuit by filling the two vacancies and the next one that comes along if a Clinton or Obama appointee takes senior status.

Similarly, at the EEOC, significant progress in protecting LGBT rights came through administrative rulings and litigation decisions undertaken by President Obama’s appointees. The agency has become a vocal proponent of a broad interpretation of Title VII to protect LGBT people from employment discrimination, and its reasoning has been followed by other agencies, such as the Department of Labor and the Department of Education.   It seems unlikely that Trump’s appointees, once attaining full control of the federal agencies and departments, would keep to the same course.  Indeed, it is not a sure thing that Trump will allow Obama’s executive orders banning sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination within the Executive Branch, to stay in place.  The Order requiring federal contractors to have non-discrimination policies is likely on the repeal list.

Luckily, individuals can continue to file discrimination lawsuits under Title VII, so the loss of the agency as a plaintiff in their cases will not shut them out of court. But preserving the gains made so far may be difficult against the tide of new judicial and agency appointments that will be made beginning January 21.  Stalling on confirmations by the Senate has left close to 100 federal judgeships vacant, and there are hundreds of agency appointments to be made as well, which will cumulatively change the direction in which federal anti-discrimination law has been developing during the Obama years.  The appointment of new Supreme Court justices will matter as well, of course, because ultimately the question whether Title VII and other federal sex discrimination laws protect LGBT people will end up before that Court, where a transgender “bathroom” case under Title IX has already been accepted for review.   If these cases are decided after Trump has had two Supreme Court appointments, it is reasonable to speculate that the newly solidified conservative majority will not be inclined to adopt such a broad interpretation of Title VII or other federal sex discrimination laws.  Elections matter.

Legal Issues | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comment

No, Donald Trump Can’t Repeal Marriage Equality

Some panicky LGBT people have been calling the LGBT legal and political organizations to ask whether they should accelerate their wedding plans to marry before Donald Trump takes office, and many are expressing concern that the marriage equality victory, won in the Supreme Court on June 26, 2015, after so much hard work and heartache, is now in danger of being reversed, and that their own same-sex marriages might become invalid.

 

Although nobody can predict the future with absolute certainty, it is highly unlikely that the marriage equality decision will be reversed, and it is an absolute certainty that Trump as president will not have the authority to reverse it on his own or even with the connivance of Congress.  Furthermore, there is good legal authority to conclude that a valid marriage, once contracted, can only be ended by a divorce or by the death of one of the spouses, not by executive fiat or legislative action.

 

The Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges, voting 5-4, that same-sex couples have a right to marry as part of the liberty guaranteed under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, bolstered by the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws.  A ruling on a constitutional right by the U.S. Supreme Court can only be changed in one of two ways: a constitutional amendment, or an overruling by the Supreme Court in a later case.  Once a case is decided and the Court sends its mandate out to the lower court from which the case was appealed, the losing party can file a petition seeking a rehearing, but such a petition has to be filed quickly and the Court almost always denies them.  We are now 18 months out from the Obergefell ruling.  It is final, done, no longer open to reconsideration by the Court.  And the President has no power to “repeal” or “overrule” it by himself.  Neither does Congress.

 

During the campaign, Donald Trump did not threaten to try to repeal or reverse the ruling on his own. He said he thought the question of marriage should have been left to the states, so he disagreed with the Court’s decision, and he said he would consider appointing new justices to the Supreme Court who would vote to overrule it.

 

Trump can’t appoint a new justice to the Court until there is a vacancy.  There is one now, due to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last winter and the refusal by the Senate to consider President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to replace him.  But Justice Scalia dissented in the Obergefell case, so replacing him with a conservative judge would not change the outcome.  The five-member majority in Obergefell – Justices Anthony Kennedy (who wrote the Court’s opinion), Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan – are all still there.  And there is no case now pending before the Court that would provide a vehicle for overruling Obergefell v. Hodges.  And any marriage equality opponent thinking strategically would be waiting until one of those majority justices leaves before attempting to launch a legal challenge.

 

What about the constitutional amendment route?  That is not going to happen.  Trump’s election doesn’t affect that at all, since the President plays no role in amending the Constitution.  Article V makes it so difficult to pass an amendment that our 240-year-old Constitution has picked up only 27 amendments, ten of them being the Bill of Rights adopted in 1791, and the most recent one, adopted in 1992, a quarter century ago, requiring that any pay raise that Congress votes for itself cannot go into effect until after the next House of Representatives election.  In order to propose a new amendment, at least 2/3 of each house of Congress has to approve it, and then it has to be ratified by at least ¾ of the states.  Alternatively, 2/3 of the states can apply to Congress to call a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments, but any amendments proposed would still require ratification by ¾ of the states.

 

By the time the Supreme Court decided Obergefell in 2015, popular opinion polls showed that a clear majority of the public supported marriage equality, and that margin of support only increases over time, as polling in the early marriage equality states such as Massachusetts has shown.  Amendments to the Constitution can only pass with overwhelming public support.  There is no overwhelming public support to abolish same-sex marriage.  That effort is now the province mainly of far-right-wing cranks and religious fanatics.  And as long as the Democrats hold more than 1/3 of the seats in the Senate, it is highly unlikely that a Marriage Amendment would get the necessary 2/3 vote in that chamber.  Indeed, the Democrats hold enough seats in that House, in combination with some more moderate Republicans, to block it in that chamber as well.  So, marriage equality opponents, forget about passing a Marriage Amendment.

 

The alternative, of course, is for opponents to set up a lawsuit raising the question and to get it to the Supreme Court after Trump (or a successor) has had an opportunity to appoint somebody to replace a member of the Obergefell majority.   That majority includes the three oldest members of the Court, Ginsburg, Kennedy and Breyer, so it is possible Trump will have that opportunity before the end of a four-year term.   Even then, however, an overruling is highly unlikely.

 

First, a case presenting the question has to come to the Court, and the issue of marriage equality has to be central to that case.  The Court may be presented over the next few years with cases that involving marriage equality in some way.  They already have a petition to review the Colorado marriage cake case, presenting the claim that a baker’s 1st Amendment rights are violated by fining him under a state anti-discrimination law for refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, but I’m not sure such a case, even if the Supreme Court decided to hear it, would provide a vehicle for overruling Obergefell.  More likely, a challenge would come from some state deciding to provoke a lawsuit by denying equal treatment for some benefit to a married same-sex couples. But it’s not enough just to petition the Court, because the Court has complete discretion about whether to accept a case for review, and it takes four Justices to grant such a petition.  By the time they get such a petition AFTER a change of membership has reduced the Obergefell majority, perhaps several years from now, same-sex marriage will be such a settled issue, with so many tens of thousands of same-sex couples married throughout the country, that it seems highly unlikely that even four members of the Court would be motivated to reopen the issue.

 

Furthermore, the Court normally embraces a concept called “stare decisis,” a Latin term meaning standing by what has been decided.  They are very reluctant to overrule themselves, especially when a decision has been embraced by society and incorporated into the everyday lives of many people.  When they do overrule a prior decision, it is usually in the direction of realizing that the old decision wrongly denied a constitutional claim or adopted an incorrect and harmful interpretation of a statute.   The Court resists attempts to get it to cut back rights that it previously recognized.

 

In the course of litigating about LGBT rights, the Court has twice overruled past decisions.  In 2003, the Court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) when it decided that the constitution protected people engaged in consensual gay sex from criminal prosecution, in Lawrence v. Texas (2003).  Indeed, the Court said that Bowers was wrong when it was decided.  The second time, it overruled Baker v. Nelson (1972) when it held that same-sex couples have a right to marry.  Baker, however, was a one-sentence decision stating that the issue of same-sex marriage did not present a “substantial federal question.”  In both cases, overruling involved a determination that the prior case had wrongly failed to recognize a constitutional right, so the new decision marked an expansion of liberty and equality. The Court is unlikely to overrule a case in order to contract liberty or deny equality.

 

As to the validity of existing same-sex marriages, when Californians passed Proposition 8 in 2008 after several thousand same-sex couples had married in that state, the California Supreme Court ruled that although Prop 8 was validly enacted, it could not retroactively “un-marry” all those couples.  Their marriages would continue to be valid and recognized by the state.  It is unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court would take a different position regarding existing same-sex marriages if it were to overrule Obergefell.  That would raise daunting due process and equal protection questions.

 

Trump’s taking office does not present a direct and present threat to marriage equality.  It does present many other threats, including the loss of pro-LGBT executive orders and the likely abandonment by federal agencies of the position that sex discrimination laws protect LGBT people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.  But those are other issues….

Legal Issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comment

Supreme Court Will Hear Title IX Transgender Discrimination Case and Case Challenging Social Media Restrictions on Sex Offenders

Supreme Court Will Hear Title IX Transgender Discrimination Case and Case Challenging Social Media Restrictions on Sex Offenders

The Supreme Court substantially enlivened its docket for the October 2016 Term on October 28 when it granted petitions for certiorari in Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., No. 16-273, and Packingham v. North Carolina, No. 15-1194.  In Gloucester, a school district in Virginia, obligated not to discriminate because of sex under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, seeks review of the 4th Circuit’s decision, 822 F.3d 709 (2016), holding that the district court should defer to the U.S. Department of Education’s interpretation of a regulation on restrooms in educational facilities, 34 C.F.R. Sec. 106.33, that would require the school to let a transgender boy use the boys’ restroom facilities at his high school.  In Packingham, the petitioner seeks to overturn the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision, 368 N.C. 380, 777 S.E.2d 738 (2015), upholding his conviction for violating North Carolina’s rules governing registered sex offenders by posting a message on Facebook.com celebrating the dismissal of a traffic ticket.  Lester Packingham claims that the broad prohibition of his use of social media violates his 1st Amendment rights.

The Gloucester Case

The Gloucester case was closely watched by LGBT lawyers and legal commentators for presenting the Court with a vehicle to respond to the broader question of whether federal laws prohibiting discrimination “because of sex,” mostly passed many decades ago, can now be construed to forbid gender identity discrimination (and maybe, also, sexual orientation discrimination), despite the obvious lack of intent by the enacting legislators in the 1960s and 1970s to reach such discrimination.  That is, to recur to a question repeatedly raised by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, are we governed by the intentions of our legislators or by reasonable interpretations of the actual texts they adopted in their statutes, or that administrative agencies subsequently adopted in regulations intended to aid in the enforcement of the statutes?  Scalia, who was an ardent foe of using “legislative history” as a method of statutory interpretation, decisively argued that courts should focus on the language of the statute, not viewed in isolation of course but rather in the context of the overall statute (including any declaration of congressional purpose contained in it), and he won unanimous concurrence by his colleagues in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998), holding that a man employed in an all-male workplace could maintain an action for hostile environment sexual harassment under Title VII, even though it was unlikely that the enacting Congress in 1964 was thinking about same-sex harassment when it amended Title VII to add “sex” to the list of forbidden grounds for workplace discrimination.  Scalia wrote for the Court that we are governed by the statutory text, and thus Mr. Oncale could maintain his Title VII suit subject to his burden to prove that he was harassed “because of sex” as specified by the statute.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has prominently cited and quoted from Justice Scalia’s Oncale opinion in its federal employment rulings of recent years (Macy, Lusardi, Baldwin) holding that discrimination because of gender identity or sexual orientation is “necessarily” discrimination “because of sex,” even though the 1964 Congress would not necessarily have thought so.  Although Gloucester does not directly involve Title VII, federal courts have generally followed Title VII precedents when they interpret the sex discrimination ban in Title IX, as the 4th Circuit explained in this case.

The controversy arose when fellow students and their parents objected to Gavin Grimm, a transgender boy, using the boys’ restrooms during fall term of his sophomore year, in 2014. The principal of the high school had given Grimm permission to use the boys’ restrooms, after being presented with the facts about Grimm’s transition and his discomfort with continuing to use the girls’ restrooms, since he was dressing, grooming, and – most significantly – strongly identifying as male.  Responding to the complaints, the Gloucester County School Board voted to establish a policy under which students were required to use the restroom consistent with their “biological sex” – the sex identified on their birth certificate – or to use a gender-neutral restroom, of which there were a few in the high school.  Grimm was dissatisfied with this turn of events and enlisted the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Virginia to sue the school board in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, in Newport News.  The case was assigned to Senior U.S. District Judge Robert G. Doumar, who was appointed to the district court by President Ronald Reagan in 1981.  The plaintiff was identified in the original complaint as “G.G., by his next friend and mother, Deirdre Grimm,” but Gavin Grimm decided early on to be open about his role as plaintiff and has spoken publicly about the case.  The complaint relied on Title IX as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction by the plaintiff and a motion to dismiss by the defendants on September 17, 2015, 132 F. Supp. 3d 736, Judge Doumar found that Grimm could not win a ruling on the merits of his Title IX claim because, in the judge’s view, Title IX regulations expressly allowed schools to maintain separate restroom facilities for boys and girls based on “sex,” and so it was not unlawful for them to require Grimm to use restrooms consistent with his “sex” which, in the school district’s view, was female. He rejected the ACLU’s claim that he should defer to the U.S. Department of Education’s interpretation of the “bathroom regulation,” which was articulated in a letter that the Department’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) sent in January 2015 as a “party in interest” in response to Grimm’s request for the Department’s assistance in his case.  OCR took the position, consistent with recent developments in sex discrimination law, that Grimm should be treated as a boy under the circumstances because it was undisputed that this was his gender identity, and thus under the regulation he was entitled to use the boy’s restroom, although he could also request as an accommodation to have access to gender-neutral facilities.   To Judge Doumar, the text of the regulation was clear and unambiguous, so the OCR’s attempt to ‘interpret’ the regulation in favor of Grimm’s claim was not entitled to deference from the court.  He wrote that deferring to the position articulated in the letter would allow OCR to “create a de facto new regulation.”   Doumar opined that if OCR wanted to change the regulation, it should go through the procedures set out in the Administrative Procedure Act, a time-consuming process that would result in a new or amended regulation that would then be subject to direct judicial review in the court of appeals.  As to the facts, Doumar referred to Grimm in his opinion as a “natal female” and seemingly was unwilling to credit the idea that for purposes of the law Grimm should be treated as a boy.  To Doumar, the case presented the simple question whether the school district had to let a girl use the boy’s restroom, and under the “clear” regulation the answer to that question was “No.”  While denying the preliminary injunction and dismissing the Title IX claim, Judge Doumar reserved judgment on the Equal Protection Claim.

Grimm appealed to the 4th Circuit, which reversed Judge Doumar in a 2-1 opinion on April 19, 2016.  Where Doumar saw clarity in the regulation, the 4th Circuit majority saw ambiguity, although a dissenting judge sided with Judge Doumar.  Although the regulation clearly said that schools could maintain separate restroom facilities for males and females, it said nothing directly about which restrooms transgender students could use, thus creating the ambiguity.  Unlike Judge Doumar, the 4th Circuit majority was unwilling to accept the School Board’s argument that a person’s sex is definitely established by their birth certificate.  The court took note of the developing case law in other circuits and in many district courts accepting the proposition that sex discrimination laws are concerned not just with genetic or “biological” sex but rather with the range of factors and characteristics that go into gender, including gender identity and expression.  Many federal courts (including several on the appellate level) have come to accept the proposition that gender identity and sex are inextricably related, that gender dysphoria and transgender identity are real phenomena that deeply affect the identity of people, and that transgender people are entitled to be treated consistent with their gender identity.  The court mentioned, in addition to the OCR letter, a December 2014 OCR publication setting forth the same view, which had been published on the Department of Education’s website.  Thus, the School District’s questioning of deference to an “unpublished letter” was not entirely factual, as the Department had previously published its interpretation on its website, and it was relying on an earlier ruling under Title VII by the EEOC in the Macy employment discrimination case, which was issued in 2012.

Having found that the regulation was ambiguous as to the issue before the court, the 4th Circuit relied on Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), a Supreme Court decision holding that an agency’s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation should be given controlling weight by the court unless the interpretation is “plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation or statute.”  In other words, a reasonable agency interpretation of an ambiguous regulation should be deferred to by the court.  The 4th Circuit panel majority went on to find that the requirements of Auer were met in this case, and remanded the matter to Judge Doumar to reconsider his ruling.  The court’s discussion made clear what direction the reconsideration should take and stressed urgency. Judge Doumar reacted with alacrity, issuing the requested preliminary injunction on June 23.  The School Board sought a stay, which was denied by both Judge Doumar and the 4th Circuit, which also denied a petition for rehearing en banc. With the new school year looming, and desperate to avoid having to let Grimm use the boys’ restrooms during his final year of high school, the School Board petitioned the Supreme Court for a stay of the preliminary injunction, which was granted on August 3 by a vote of 5-3.  See 136 S. Ct. 2442.  Justice Stephen Breyer, taking the unusual step of issuing a brief statement explaining why he had voted for the stay along with the four more conservative members of the Court; said it was an “accommodation.”  There was speculation at the time about what that meant.  In light of the October 28 vote to grant the School District’s petition for certiorari, it probably meant that the four conservatives had indicated they would likely vote to grant a petition for certiorari to review the 4th Circuit’s decision, so in Breyer’s view it made sense to delay implementing the injunction and to preserve the status quo, as the case would eventually be placed on the Court’s active docket for the October 2016 Term (which runs through June 2017).  Breyer was careful to refrain from expressing any view about the merits in his brief statement.  After the School Board filed its petition for certiorari on August 29, the case generated considerable interest, attracting more than a dozen amicus briefs in support or opposition to the petition, including briefs from many states and from members of Congress.  There will undoubtedly be heavy media interest when the parties file their merits briefs with the Court, accompanied by numerous amicus briefs on both sides of the case.

The School Board’s petition to the Court posed three questions, first asking whether the %Auer% doctrine, which some of the Justices have signaled a desire to overrule, should be reconsidered; second asking whether under the Auer doctrine “an unpublished agency letter that, among other things, does not carry the force of law and was adopted in the context of the very dispute in which deference is sought” merits deference; and third asking whether the Department’s interpretation of Title IX and the bathroom regulation should be “given effect”?  The Court granted the petition only as to the second and third questions, so there are not four members of the Court ready to reconsider Auer, at least in the context of this case.

The remaining questions give the Court different paths to a decision, one of which has minimal substantive doctrinal significance, while others could make this a landmark ruling on the possible application of federal sex discrimination statutes and regulations to discrimination claims by sexual minorities.

The Court might agree with the School Board that no deference is due to an agency position formulated in response to a particular case and expressed in an unpublished agency letter. This could result in a remand to the 4th Circuit for a new determination of whether Judge Doumar’s dismissal of the Title IX claim was correct in the absence of any need to defer to the agency’s interpretation, a question as to which the 4th Circuit majority has already signaled an answer in its discussion of the merits.

Alternatively, and more efficiently in terms of the development of the law, the Court could take on the substantive issue and decide, at the least, whether interpreting Title IX to extend to gender identity discrimination claims is a viable interpretation, in light of the Court’s seminal ruling in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), that an employer’s use of sex stereotypes to the disadvantage of an employee’s promotion application was evidence of intentional discrimination because of sex.  It was that ruling that eventually led federal courts to conclude that because transgender people generally do not conform to sex stereotypes concerning their “biological” sex as determined at birth, discrimination against them is a form of “sex discrimination” in violation of such federal laws as the Fair Credit Act, the Violence Against Women Act, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  The EEOC also relied on Price Waterhouse in reaching its conclusion that transgender plaintiffs could assert discrimination claims under Title VII, and the 6th and 11th Circuits have relied on it in finding that claims of gender identity discrimination by public employees should be treated the same as sex discrimination claims under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Were the Supreme Court to rule by majority vote that laws banning discrimination “because of sex” also “necessarily” cover discrimination because of gender identity, rather than issuing a narrower ruling focusing solely on Title IX, one could plausibly assert that the inclusion of “gender identity” in the pending Equality Act bill would not be, strictly speaking, necessary in order to establish a federal policy against gender identity discrimination under all federal sex discrimination laws. But it is possible that the Court might write a more narrowly focused decision that would in some way be logically restricted to Title IX claims. At least one district court, in a case involving a transgender student at the University of Pittsburgh, suggested that there were significant enough differences between workplaces and educational institutions to merit a different approach under Title VII and Title IX, especially noting that many of the students affected by Title IX are not adults, while most people affected by Title VII are older, more experienced, and less susceptible to psychological injury in the realm of sexual development.  There was the suggestion that sexual privacy concerns in the context of an educational institution are different from such concerns in the context of an adult workplace.  The Supreme Court has generally preferred to decide statutory interpretation cases on narrow grounds, so it is possible that a merits decision in this case would not necessarily decide how other sex discrimination laws should be construed.

This case will most likely be argued early in 2017, and it may not be decided until the end of the Court’s term in June. Thus, it is possible that Gavin Grimm could win but never personally benefit as a student at Gloucester County’s high school, since he may have completed his studies before the final decision is issued.  But, of course, if he goes on to college, a winning decision would personally benefit him in being able to use men’s restrooms if he attends a college subject to Title IX – unless, given another complication of our times, he decides to attend a religious school that raises theological objections to letting him use such facilities and seeks to rely on the Hobby Lobby decision to avoid complying with Title IX.  We suspect, however, that his higher education would likely avoid that complication!

The Supreme Court has not granted as many petitions as usual thus far this fall, leading to speculation that it is trying to avoid granting review in cases where the justices might be predictably split evenly on the outcome and thus would not be able to render a precedential decision. If the Senate Republicans stand firm on their position that President Obama’s nominee for the vacant seat, U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland, will not be considered for confirmation, it is possible that the Court will have only eight justices when the Gloucester case is argued.  A tie vote by the Court would leave the 4th Circuit’s decision in place, but it would not be precedential outside of the 4th Circuit.  If a newly-elected president nominates a new candidate and the confirmation process takes the average time of several months, a new justice would probably not be seated in time to participate in deciding this case, unless the Court voted to hold it over for re-argument.  (In the past, the Court has sometimes held new arguments in cases that were heard when the Court was shorthanded.  This happened once when Justice Lewis Powell missed many arguments due to ill health, and his colleagues left it up to him whether to participate in those cases, in some instances by holding new arguments.)  This raises the possibility that Grimm’s graduation from high school might be found to have mooted the case, resulting in a dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.  This wouldn’t be an issue, of course, had the lawsuit been filed by DOE and the Justice Department, but where the plaintiff is an individual, his standing remains an issue throughout consideration of the case.

The Packingham Case

In the Packingham case, the North Carolina Supreme Court, reversing a decision by the state’s court of appeals, held that a state law restricting certain on-line social media use by all registered sex offenders was neither facially unconstitutional nor unconstitutional as applied to the defendant, Lester Gerard Packingham.  The North Carolina court, which divided 5-2 on the case, concluded that the statute was a regulation of conduct that incidentally affects freedom of speech, thus subject to heightened but not strict scrutiny, and that it survived such review due to the state’s important interest in protecting minors from sexual exploitation and to the measures taken by the legislature to narrow the scope of on-line communications that would be affected.

Packingham was convicted in 2002 of a sexual offense involving a minor. The opinion for the Supreme Court by Justice Robert H. Edmunds, Jr., does not specify the nature of the offense, but a reference in the dissenting opinion suggests it did not involve violence.  He did, however, have to register as a sex offender.  In 2008, the state legislature amended the sex offender registration law to make it a crime for a registered sex offender to “access a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages on the commercial social networking Web site.”  The statute included a detailed definition of the characteristics of the kinds of sites that would be prohibited, and explicitly exempted various kinds of websites.  In effect, the ban is on sites where a registered sex offender might be able to identify and communicate directly with minors.  Sites that require individuals to be at least 18 years old in order to be members would not be affected by the ban, for example, and those that limited their services to things like commercial transactions for selling goods were also exempted.  After the law was passed, a written notice was sent to all registered sex offenders in the state advising of these new restrictions to which they must comply.  There was evidence in this case that Packingham received the notice.

In 2010 a Durham police officer began an investigation to determine whether any local registered sex offenders were violating the new law. His investigation uncovered the fact that Packingham was maintaining a facebook.com page under an assumed name and had posted messages to it, most recently a message celebrating his escape from traffic ticket liability.  The investigation did not, apparently, uncover any communications by Packingham to minors using facebook.com.  Packingham was indicted for violating the statute, and moved to dismiss the charges on 1st Amendment grounds.  The trial judge denied the motion, finding the statute constitutional as applied to Packingham while declining to rule on Packingham’s facial challenge to the statute, and he was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 6-8 months, suspended for a year while on probation.  Packingham appealed.  The court of appeals reversed, finding that the statute was unconstitutional on its face and as applied, too broadly sweeping in its effect on the free speech rights of registered sex offenders, and unduly vague.

The North Carolina Supreme Court totally rejected the court of appeals’ analysis. For one thing, the court found that the statute regulated conduct (the act of accessing the social media), not directly speech, although it clearly has an incidental effect on the ability of a sex offender to engage in speech activities using social media.  But the court decided that under the “heightened scrutiny” approach for evaluating regulations of conduct that incidentally affect speech, this statute survived because of the important state interest in protecting children, and the legislature’s care in tailoring the prohibition to focus on the kinds of social media where those so inclined could identify and communicate with minors.  The court concluded that this left open a wide variety of social media and other internet forums in which sex offenders were free to participate, and that the statute (and the notices to sex offenders) were written in such a way that somebody who sought to comply with the statute could determine which social media were off-limits.  Nobody disputed that accessing facebook.com was prohibited under this law, for example, and the court concluded that Packingham knew that facebook.com was off-limits for him, as reflected by his opening an account in an assumed name.  (What gave him away was that his photograph on the site matched the photographic depiction on his sex offender registration form.)  The court acknowledged that several similar laws in other states had been declared unconstitutionally, but sought to distinguish them as not being as fine-tuned as the North Carolina law in terms of the kinds of websites that were made off-limits.

The dissent was written by Justice Robin E. Hudson, joined by Justice Cheri Beasley. She disputed the majority’s conclusion that this was a regulation of conduct, but she determined that didn’t make much difference because she concluded that even under the standard of review used by the majority, the statute failed as overly broad and vague.  Restricting all sex offenders without regard to the nature of their offenses, for example, undercut the state’s justification of protecting minors.  Many people are required to register who committed offenses that do not involve minors, and who have no sexual interest in minors. Why, then, is the state restricting their 1st Amendment activities if its articulated justification for the restriction is to protect minors?  She also pointed out that there is no requirement that their offense leading to registration status involved using a computer, so why is their computer access being restricted?  Further, she contested the majority’s conclusion about how narrowly tailored the restriction is.  She pointed out that, literally applied, it could bar somebody from using amazon.com, because that website makes it possible for users to create profile pages including contact information facilitating communications between users with common interests.  Indeed, she pointed out that some websites allow minors to register with the approval of their parents.  One such is the largest circulation daily newspaper in North Carolina, so theoretically Packingham could be barred from accessing the newspaper on-line.  She argued that the law is both facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional as applied to Packingham.

In petitioning the Supreme Court for review, Packingham’s counsel wrote: “The statute singles out a subclass of persons, who are subject to criminal punishment based on expressive, associational, and communicative activities at the heart of the First Amendment, without any requirement that their activity caused any harm or was intended to.” The certiorari grant extends to the questions of whether the law is facially unconstitutional or just unconstitutional as applied to Packingham.  The case has the potential to bring into question numerous state laws that seek to regulate the expressive activities of sex offenders in the name of protecting minors.  Nobody argues that the state does not have a significant interest in protecting minors from sexual exploitation, or that the internet has created new opportunities for adults who are sexually interested in minors to locate and communicate with them.  At issue is how broadly such laws may sweep.  Should the laws pay more attention to the nature of sex offenses leading to registration in deciding whose activities should be restricted, and how narrowly tailored must the restrictions be to avoid subjecting individuals to long-term (even life-long in some cases) restrictions on their ability to use one of the main vehicles for communication in the 21st century without substantial justification for the limitation.  The petition was supported by an amicus brief from professors concerned with the law’s substantial burden they perceived on communicative freedom imposed by the statute.  Interestingly, N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper did not want to bother responding to the certiorari petition, and filed a waiver of the right to respond on April 6, but then was requested to respond after the amicus brief was filed, and ultimately filed a response on June 30.

The interests of LGBT people are significantly implicated by this dispute. Even after the Supreme Court declared in 2003 that laws against gay sex were not enforceable against individuals engaged in private, adult consensual activities, there is a not inconsiderable number of gay people, especially men, who are still affected by sex registration requirements in many states based on pre-2003 criminal convictions and continuing enforcement of laws involving solicitation, conduct in public, prostitution, and, of course, intergenerational sex.  Many offender registration laws sweep broadly encompassing a wide variety of activity that is not specifically protected under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Lawrence v. Texas ruling, and litigation is ongoing challenging the continued registration requirements imposed in some jurisdictions on people whose offender status is based on pre-Lawrence convictions for conduct that may no longer be criminalized.  In this connection it is notable that there are still several states that have not legislatively reformed their sex crimes laws to comply with the Lawrence ruling, as a result of which law enforcement officials continue to make arrests for constitutionally protected conduct.

 

Legal Issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comment

After Half a Century, Surviving Same-Sex Partner Tries to Inherit His Partner’s Estate

It seems that anything that could go wrong did go wrong – legally speaking, that is – when William Cornwell died on June 19, 2014, believing he had made a will leaving his entire estate to Thomas Doyle, the man with whom he had shared his life for more than half a century. Cornwell had not involved a lawyer in preparing and signing the will, apparently, because no lawyer would have made the simple mistake he made: getting only one person to witness the will.  After Cornwell died, Doyle turned to Sheila McNichols, Cornwell’s niece and a longtime friend to the two men, “for comfort, support and advice,” said Doyle in a sworn petition filed this month in the New York County Surrogate’s Court.  He showed her the will, and she suggested taking it to her lawyer, Peter Gray, to handle probate.

 

Gray immediately saw the problem. The New York courts will not accept a will unless there are at least two sworn witnesses to the signing.  Indeed, the will form that Cornwell used had spaces indicated for two witness signatures, but one was blank.  The instruction sheet that came with the will form did not specifically say that two witnesses were required, although the instructions referred to witnesses in the plural several times.  Gray advised Doyle that the will could not be accepted for probate, and because the men had never married, Doyle had no rights as a surviving unmarried partner.  The estate would go to Cornwell’s intestate heirs, two nephews and two nieces, all living in California, three of whom had virtually no relationship with Cornwell or Doyle.

 

This was a big blow to Doyle, now 85, because his living arrangements depended crucially on the rental income from the other apartments in the West Village brownstone on Horatio Street where he and Cornwell had lived together since 1961, and his ability to continue occupying the ground floor apartment without paying rent. Although they had moved in as tenants after living together elsewhere beginning in 1958, in 1979 the owner decided to sell the building and Cornwell, who had greater resources to finance the purchase, bought it, setting up a corporate entity to own and operate it, and putting Doyle on the board. That building and the rental income it generates is the estate’s main asset.  Cornwell and Doyle had lived on their social security checks and the rental income.  Now Doyle was reduced to his individual monthly social security check (smaller than Cornwell’s, because Cornwell had the good paying job while Doyle was a freelancer with sporadic income), having no pension or other resources.

 

Although the men lived together and considered themselves spouses, they had never taken any step to formalize their relationship. In the time they lived together, New York City had passed a domestic partnership ordinance in the 1990s, then in this century surrounding states and finally New York State in 2011 had changed their laws to allow same-sex couples to marry, but these men never registered their partnership or formally married.  Doyle says they were planning to marry, and had even purchased rings in anticipation of a ceremony, but in the end it seemed too much of an effort, as Cornwell was in poor health for some time prior to his death. The only legal documents of their relationship are health care proxy forms the men had made in 2002 (properly witnessed by two people, by the way), and joint bank account statements.

 

According to Doyle, McNichols told him that she felt this situation wasn’t right, Doyle should not be shut out after more than 50 years. She retained Gray to draft an agreement by which the heirs would renounce their interest in the estate in favor of Doyle, and provide that the ownership of the building would go to Doyle as well.  At the same time, Doyle would execute a will leaving everything to McNichols.  This plan seems to have proceeded at first, since Doyle’s attorney attached to the petition a copy of McNichols’ signed agreement to renounce her inheritance, as well as an affidavit she signed for filing in the probate court. Doyle swears that he trusted and relied on McNichols to help him with decisions, named her as his power of attorney and made her joint owner of his bank account.  He depended on her to convince the other relatives to fall in with this plan.

 

But the other heirs were not willing to go along with it. Doyle claims that the two nephews had never even met Cornwell, and the other niece only met him fleetingly as a child, and none of them knew Doyle. Evidently the allure of a monetary windfall from a “rich uncle” was too powerful. Suddenly, Doyle was confronted with the contention that the papers McNichols signed were not valid, merely “samples,” that McNichols and one of the nephews had been appointed by the Surrogate to administer the estate, to sell the brownstone, and to split up the proceeds among the heirs.  Indeed, according to a New York Times article published on October 23, the building is now in contract for about $7 million.  The Times also reports (although Doyle does not mention it in his petition), that the nieces and nephews offered to let Doyle continue living in the building by including a clause in the sales contract under which he can stay for up to five years at a nominal rent of $10 a month, and that he would receive $250,000 from the proceeds of the sale, but Doyle, stiffened by the heirs’ resistance, decided to sue for the full inheritance he claims Cornwell intended to leave him.

 

Although he didn’t have a retainer agreement with Gray, Doyle says he regarded Gray as his attorney and trusted him to advise on how to protected his legal rights, but Gray never suggested any legal strategy to advance Doyle’s claim. Doyle says that some friends suggested he get another legal opinion, so he spoke with Polly Eustis, who confirmed Gray’s opinion that Doyle had no standing to inherit Cornwell’s estate.  Eventually, however, he found Arthur Schwartz and Jamie Wolf, his current attorneys, who have devised a new strategy on his behalf.

 

It seems that Doyle and Cornwell had gone to Pennsylvania in 1991 to purchase a show dog together, and Doyle has the American Kennel Club registration certificate with the date of the sale, listing the two men as the owners. He also claims that they had a good friend in New Hope whom they visited several times on vacations.  The significance of this is that under Pennsylvania law until January 2005, cohabiting individuals who spent time together in that state could be considered to have a common law marriage, and New York courts have recognized Pennsylvania common law marriages in determining whether an individual who was not formally married to a partner is to be considered a surviving spouse.  Doyle’s lawyers have constructed an intricate argument based on New York and Pennsylvania cases seeking to persuade the Surrogate’s Court that Doyle should be recognized as Cornwell’s sole heir, the surviving spouse of a man who had no children, and thus should inherit the entire estate.  Their argument crucially depends on a court retroactively applying last year’s Supreme Court Obergefell marriage decision more than a decade into the past in order to find that two men spending time living together in Pennsylvania prior to 2005 had a common law marriage that New York will recognize.  The will that Cornwell signed may not be admissible for probate, but it would be admissible as evidence to support Doyle’s claim that the two men considered themselves to be married and that Cornwell planned to leave everything to Doyle.

 

This is a difficult argument to make in retrospect, so Schwartz and Wolf face an uphill battle in the Surrogate’s Court. Doyle’s petition is vague on some of the kinds of facts that would be helpful to his case, such as exactly when and for how long he and Cornwell stayed in New Hope on their vacation trips.  All the affidavits submitted with the Petition to bolster his case come from Doyle’s relatives and neighbors in New York.  There are no affidavits from anybody in Pennsylvania to corroborate Doyle’s recollections about those trips.  The affidavit by Sheila McNichols, signed two years ago, refers to the men as lifetime partners and domestic partners, but not as spouses.    This isn’t surprising, since it was prepared under Gray’s supervision, before Doyle met his current lawyers, who first suggested the common law marriage theory after interviewing Doyle about the details of his relationship with Cornwell and their lives together.  New York court decisions have accepted common law marriage arguments based solely on the testimony of the alleged surviving spouse, but the cases have usually mentioned more details that a court would likely rely upon to support marital intent, such as the couple having had a religious ceremony or exchanged rings before a gathering of friends.

 

Doyle’s lawyers will also have to convince the court to waive various deadlines that were missed while Doyle was letting McNichols and Gray take the lead in handling the estate affairs. Doyle’s claim should have been filed shortly after Cornwell’s death, not more than two years later, but he argues in his petition that he only recently learned from his current attorney about his legal right as a common law surviving spouse.  In a written argument accompanying the petition, Schwartz and Wolf contend that Doyle had reasonably relied on Gray and McNichols’ assurances that he would be taken care of, and he “did not think that he needed to pursue any sort of litigation to inherit from this estate.”

 

There are plenty of cautionary tales here for couples in similar situations. If significant property is involved in a relationship, getting a competent lawyer to prepare and supervise the execution of legal documents (including wills) is essential.  Whether to marry is a decision that couples need to weigh carefully, but the benefits in terms of inheritance rights are substantial, especially taking into account the spousal deduction if an inheritance will be large enough to generate federal or state tax liability.  Even at the mundane level, surviving spouses may get a death benefit from social security or from the decedent’s employer’s benefits plan, and monthly social security payments at the higher rate enjoyed by their deceased spouse.  These men first got together when these things weren’t spoken about, and the idea of same-sex marriage seemed a pipe dream in 1958!  Unfortunately for Doyle, they failed to keep up with the times.

 

The case is pending before New York County Surrogate Nora Anderson, who signed the document appointing the co-administrators and authorized the sale of the building.

 

Legal Issues | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comment

Gender Identity Discrimination U.S. Appellate Decisions of the 21st Century (So Far)

I am giving a talk at NY Law School under the auspices of the Justice Action Center tomorrow, Oct. 19, about the current controversy over Title IX and the rights of transgender students.  I’ve prepared a case table to distribute at the talk and thought I would post it here as a useful reference.  The table covers U.S. appellate rulings from 2000 to date on gender identity discrimination claims.  I count decisions by the EEOC on appeal from agency determinations to be appellate decisions for purposes of this table.  This table does not include prisoner litigation, benefits claims, name change claims, etc.  The focus is on Title IX, Title VII, other federal sex discrimination laws, and the Equal Protection Clause.

Transgender [Gender Identity] Discrimination Law – Important 21st Century Appellate Rulings:

 

Barnes v. City of Cincinnati, 401 F.3d 729 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1003 (2005) (allowing Title VII sex discrimination claim by transgender woman police officer discharged after transitioning).

 

Chavez v. Credit Nation Auto Sales LLC, 641 Fed.Appx. 883 (11th Cir. 2016) (“Sex discrimination [under Title VII] includes discrimination against a transgender person for gender nonconformity.”)

 

Doe v. Brockton School Committee, 2000 WL 33342399 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000) (unofficially published disposition) (junior high school administration preliminarily enjoined from barring transgender student from school based on student’s refusal to wear gender-appropriate clothing as defined by school).

 

Etsitty v. Utah Transit Auth., 502 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2007) (gender identity is not a suspect classification for Equal Protection purposes).

 

Fowlkes v. Ironworkers Local 40, 790 F.3d 378 (2nd Cir. 2015) (Union violates duty of fair representation under National Labor Relations Act by discriminating against transgender woman in operation of hiring hall program).

 

G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board, 822 F.3d 709 (4th Cir. 2016), petition for certiorari pending (district court must defer to DOE/DOJ interpretation of Title IX sex discrimination provision allowing transgender high school student to use bathroom facilities consistent with his gender identity, because regulation is ambiguous and agency interpretation is reasonable). See also 136 S. Ct. 2442 (U.S. Supreme Ct., August 3, 2016), granting stay of preliminary injunction pending a decision on petition for certiorari, or if such petition is granted, pending ultimate disposition of appeal.

 

Glenn v. Brumby, 663 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2011) (discrimination against a transgender woman because of her gender identity was sex discrimination for purposes of a 14th Amendment equal protection claim, invoking heightened scrutiny).

 

Hispanic Aids Forum v. Estate of Bruno, 16 A.D.3d 294 (N.Y. Appellate Division, 1st Dept. 2005) (landlord did not violate NYC Human Rights Law prohibition of gender identity discrimination by insisting that transgender patrons of commercial tenant use public hallway restrooms consistent with their biological sex rather than their gender identity).

 

Hunter v. United Parcel Service, 697 F.3d 697 (8th Cir. 2012) (granting summary judgment to employer on transgender employee’s Title VII claim because the employer’s decision-maker was unaware of the plaintiff’s gender identity and had a non-discriminatory reason for the discharge).

 

Lusardi v. McHugh, 2015 WL 1607756 (EEOC, April 1, 2015) (employer must allow a transgender employee to use the restroom consistent with the employee’s gender identity).

 

Macy v. Holder, 2012 WL 1435995 (EEOC 2012) (gender identity discrimination claims are actionable under Title VII as sex discrimination claims).

 

Rosa v. Park West Bank & Trust Co., 214 F.3d 213 (1st Cir. 2000) (bank discrimination against a transgender woman violates sex discrimination provision of federal Fair Credit Act).

 

Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2000) (The Violence against Women Act [VAWA] covers violence against transgender women; the Act was subsequently amended to clarify that it covers violence against persons because of their gender identity).

 

Smith v. City of Salem, Ohio, 378 F.2d 566 (6th Cir. 2004) (allowing Title VII sex discrimination claim and equal protection claim [heightened scrutiny] by a transgender woman discharged as firefighter after transitioning).

Uncategorized | Comment

Arizona Appeals Court Adopts Gender-Neutral Construction of Paternity Statute in Same-Sex Couple Dispute

The Court of Appeals of Arizona ruled on October 11 that as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), holding that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry and that their marriages must receive equal treatment under the law to those of different-sex couples, the Arizona courts must construe the state’s paternity statute in a gender neutral way so that the same-sex spouse of a woman who gives birth enjoys the presumption of parental status. McLaughlin v. Jones, 2016 Ariz. App. LEXIS 256, 2016 WL 5929205 (Oct. 11, 2016).  Judge Philip Espinosa wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel.

Kimberly and Suzan were legally married in California in October 2008, shortly before voters approved Proposition 8, which enshrined a different-sex only marriage definition in the state constitution. Shortly thereafter, however, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriages contracted before the passage of Prop 8 remained valid under California law.  “The couple agreed to have a child through artificial insemination,” wrote Judge Espinosa, “using an anonymous sperm donor selected from a sperm bank.”  Suzan’s efforts to conceive this way were unsuccessful, but Kimberly became pregnant in 2010. Before their child was born, the women moved to Arizona, a state that did not then recognize their marriage or allow second-parent adoptions.

The women made a joint parenting agreement and executed mirror-image wills, declaring “they were to be equal parents of the child Kimberly was carrying,” wrote the court. After their son was born in June 2011, Suzan was the stay-at-home mom while Kimberly resumed her work as a physician.  The women’s relationship deteriorated, however, and when their son was almost two years old, Kimberly moved out of their home, taking the child with her and cutting off his contact with Suzan.

In April 2013, Suzan filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage and a petition for a court order recognizing her parental status in various ways, most significantly decision-making and parenting time. The matter came before Superior Court Judge Lori Jones in Pima County, who decided to stay the proceedings while marriage equality litigation was pending.  In January 2016, six months after the Supreme Court decided Obergefell, Kimberly moved to set the case for trial and Judge Jones ordered briefing concerning “the issue whether the case was a dissolution proceeding with or without children in view of the presumption of paternity under an Arizona statute, Section 25-814(A).  In an April 7, 2016, ruling, Judge Jones found that it would violate Suzan’s 14th Amendment rights not to afford her the same presumption of parenthood that a husband would enjoy.  Thus, she ordered, the case should proceed as a “dissolution action with children.”

Kimberly then moved for a declaratory judgment about whether she would be permitted to introduce evidence to rebut the presumption. On May 2, Judge Jones ruled that Kimberly would not be permitted to attempt to rebut the presumption that Suzan was a parent of their son.  Jones found that there was nothing for Kimberly to rebut, adding that a “family presumption applies to same sex and opposite sex non-biological spouses married to a spouse who conceived a child during the marriage via artificial insemination.”  She relied on Section 25-501, a support statute which is applicable when a child is born as a result of donor insemination, finding that this “necessarily gives rise to parental rights in the non-biological spouse.”  Kimberly appealed this ruling.

On appeal, Kimberly argued that as the child’s biological mother, “she is, by definition, the only parent and therefore the only person who has parental rights, which are fundamental rights,” wrote Judge Espinosa, summarizing Kimberly’s argument. She contended that Judge Jones erroneously construed the paternity statute to encompass same-sex lesbian couples.  Suzan, in response, argued that because of Obergefell, parentage statutes “must be applied and interpreted in a gender-neutral manner so that same-sex couples’ fundamental marital rights are not restricted and they are afforded the same benefits of marriage as heterosexual couples and on the same terms,” wrote Espinosa.

The Arizona statute defining “legal parents” includes “biological” or “adoptive” parents, and “does not include a person whose paternity has not been established pursuant to Section 25-812 [acknowledgment of paternity] or Section 25-814 [presumptions of paternity].” The court found that Section 25-814(A)(1) applies to the McLaughlin case, assuming one applies a gender-neutral interpretation of the statutory language.  This provides that “a man is presumed to be the father of the child if 1. He and the mother of the child were married at any time in the ten months immediately preceding the birth.”

Judge Espinosa wrote, “Enacted well before the Supreme Court decided Obergefell, this statute was written with gender-specific language at a time when the marriage referred to in subsection (A)(1) could only be between a man and a woman.” While accepting Kimberly’s argument that Judge Jones should not have relied on the child support statute to determine Suzan’s status, the court rejected Kimberly’s argument that “it would be impossible and absurd to apply Section 25-841(A)(1) in a gender-neutral manner to give rise to presumption parenthood in Suzan.  Indeed, Obergefell mandates that we do so,” he continued, “and the plain language of the statute, as well as the purpose and policy behind it, are not in conflict with that application.”  Not to do that would deprive same-sex married couples of the same “terms and conditions of marriage” as are enjoyed by different-sex couples, which would be a clear violation of the Supreme Court’s mandate of equal treatment in Obergefell.

“The word ‘paternity’ therefore signifies more than biologically established paternity,” wrote Espinosa. “It encompasses the notion of parenthood, including parenthood voluntarily established without regard to biology.”  He pointed out that the long-established purpose of paternity statutes is “to provide financial support for the child of the natural parent.”  The marital presumption “is intended to assure that two parents will be required to provide support for a child born during the marriage” and serves the additional purpose “or preserving the family unit.”  For these propositions, the court relied on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling in Partanen v. Gallagher, decided just days earlier.  The court rejected Kimberly’s argument that there was any reason to treat men and women differently in this regard, after Obergefell.

As to Kimberly’s request to be able to rebut the presumption of parenthood, the court held that it “need not decide how the rebuttal provision in Section 25-814(C) applies in a same-sex marriage because we determine Kimberly is estopped from rebutting the presumption.  Equitable estoppel applies when a party engages in acts inconsistent with a position later adopted and the other party justifiably relies on those acts, resulting in an injury.”

In this case, it was uncontested that the women were lawfully married when Kimberly became pregnant as a result of a donor insemination process upon which both women agreed.  It is not disputed that their son was born during the marriage.  It is not disputed that Suzan was the stay-at-home mom and cared for their son until Kimberly “left the home with him.”  Furthermore, the women had made a written parenting agreement providing that they were to be equal parents of the child.  In that agreement, Kimberly agreed to “waive any constitutional, federal or state law that provide her with a greater right to custody and visitation than that enjoyed by Suzan.”  They even provided in the agreement that if their relationship broke down, Suzan would continue to enjoy parenting rights, and that if second-parent adoption became available in the jurisdiction where they lived, Suzan would adopt the child.  Since their partnership broke up before Obergefell was decided, however, Suzan never had an opportunity to adopt their son.

The court concluded that based on these uncontested facts, the doctrine of equitable estoppel applied, barring Kimberly from attempting to rebut the presumption that Suzan is a parent to their son.  “Suzan is the only parent other than Kimberly,” wrote Judge Espinosa, “and having two parents to love and support [their son] is in his best interest.  Under these circumstances, Kimberly is estopped from rebutting the presumption of parenthood pursuant to Section 25-814(C).”

Consequently, Kimberly’s appeal was denied, and the case will continue before Judge Jones as a dissolution with a child.  It will be up to Judge Jones in the first instance to determine whether it is in the best interest of the child to order Kimberly to allow Suzan to have a continuing relationship, including parenting time and decision-making authority.

Kimberly is represented by Keith Berkshire and Megan Lankford, Phoenix.  Suzan is represented by Campbell Law Group, Phoenix, and attorneys from the National Center for Lesbian Rights, San Francisco.  Appointed counsel for the child included law students and supervising faculty from various clinical programs, including the Family and Juvenile Law Certificate Program in Tucson, and Child and Family Law Clinic in Tucson, the Community Law Group, Tucson, and the Child and Family Law Clinic at the University of Arizona Rogers College of Law.

 

 

Legal Issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comment