New York Law School

Art Leonard Observations

Archive for the ‘Legal Issues’ Category

California Judge Issues Unprecedented Ruling in Favor of Baker Who Declined to Make Wedding Cake for Same-Sex Couple

Posted on: February 8th, 2018 by Art Leonard No Comments

Breaking a consensus among courts that has developed over the past several years that people with religious or moral objections to same-sex weddings are not entitled to exempt their business from selling goods or services for such events, Kern County (California) Superior Court Judge David Lampe ruled on February 5, 2018, in Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Miller, BCV-17-102855, that Cathy Miller, owner of Cathy’s Creations, Inc., doing business as Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield, California, is entitled to a First Amendment exemption from complying with California’s law that bans sexual orientation discrimination by businesses.  Judge Lampe is the first to rule in favor of a business in such a case.

Miller refused to make a wedding cake for Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio, who came to her bakery in August 2017 to plan for a celebration to take place in October.  They had selected a design of a cake in the display case, but since their celebration would not be until October, the transaction would be for Miller to prepare a cake specifically for their event.  “The couple did not want or request any written words or messages on the cake,” wrote the judge in his opinion.  Nonetheless, Miller refused to make it because of her religious objections to same-sex marriage, and offered to refer them to another bakery in town that was happy to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples.

Eileen and Mireya filed an administrative complaint, charging Miller and her business with a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California’s law that prohibits discrimination by businesses.  The Department of Fair Employment and Housing, with is charged with enforcement of the law, filed suit against the bakery, asking the court to issue an injunction requiring that Miller’s business not refuse to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples.

Miller’s defense relied on two provisions of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, one forbidding laws that abridge freedom of speech, and the other forbidding laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.   Judge Lampe decided that this case could be resolved most easily by reference to the free speech provision, and did not render a ruling on whether the free exercise of religion clause would protect Miller in this case.

The judge accepted Miller “cake artist” argument, the same argument that Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado is making in his case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.  Miller and Phillips argue that when they are contracting to produce a cake for a specific event, they are engaging in a creative effort that communicates a message of endorsement for that event.  Under this theory of symbolic speech, they argue, requiring them to make the cake when they do not approve of the event is compelling them to voice a particular message.

They rely on past decisions in which the Supreme Court has found that government officials had violated free speech rights by compelling people to voice particular messages with which they disagree, such as the famous “flag salute” cases first decided during World War II and most recently reiterated in  Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977), in which the Court famously reversed direction on this issue, overruling its own prior precedent to find that the government cannot compel a student to recite the pledge of allegiance.  Although there are circumstances where the courts have held that government requirements did not impose a substantial burden on free speech, the compelled speech argument has taken on particular weight in several important LGBT-related rulings.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), for example, that Massachusetts civil rights authorities could not compel the organizers of the Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade to include an LGBT rights contingent in the parade with a banner proclaiming their identity.  The court said this would unconstitutionally compel the parade organizers to include a message in their event that they did not want to include.  Similarly, although more controversially, the Court later ruled in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 US 640 (2000), that the BSA was not required to allow an openly gay man to service as an adult leader, because that would be compelling them to implicitly send a message of endorsement for homosexuality which they did not want to communicate to their members or the public.  Unlike the unanimous parade decision, however, the Court split 5-4 in the Boy Scouts case, with a minority rejecting the contention that the BSA’s free speech rights would be unconstitutionally burdened.

Despite these rulings, the Court concluded that Congress did not unconstitutionally burden the free speech rights of law schools when it required them to allow military recruiters equal access to their facilities, reasoning that the schools were free to communicate their disagreement with the anti-gay policies then followed by the Defense Department and that hosting the recruiters was not necessarily sending a message of agreement with their policies.  Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (2006).  And the Court concluded that a state university law school was not violating the free speech or free exercise rights of conservative Christian students when it required a Christian Legal Society chapter to allow gay students to be members if CLS wanted to be an officially recognized student organization.  Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, 130 S. Ct. 2971 (2010).

It is difficult to follow a consistent thread of reasoning through these cases, each of which presents a slightly different factual context, which is why there is some suspense about how the Supreme Court is going to decide the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.  So far, however, lower courts have been unanimous in ruling that bakers, florists, photographers, videographers, non-religious wedding venues are all required to comply with public accommodations laws (in states where they exist) and provide their services and goods to same-sex couples celebrating their unions.

Judge Lampe, the first to depart from this consensus, accepted Miller’s compelled speech argument.  “No public commentator in the marketplace of ideas may be forced by law to publish any opinion with which he disagrees in the name of equal access,” wrote the judge.  “No baker may place their wares in a public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification.”

But, he wrote, this case is different. “The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked.  The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake.  The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids.  For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment.”

Judge Lampe acknowledged that there was a clash of rights here, and no matter which way he ruled, somebody would feel insulted. “The court finds that any harm here is equal to either complainants or defendant Miller, one way or the other. If anything, the harm to Miller is the greater, because it carries significant economic consequences.  When one feels injured, insulted, or angered by the words or expressive conduct of others, the harm is many times self-inflicted.  The most effective Free Speech in the family of our nation is when we speak and listen with respect.  In any case, the court cannot guarantee that no one will be harmed when the law is enforced.  Quite the contrary, when the law is enforced, someone necessarily loses.  Nevertheless, the court’s duty is to the law.  Whenever anyone exercises the right of Free Speech, someone else may be angered or hurt.  This is the nature of a free society under our Constitution.”

The judge acknowledged that the case is more difficult if it is treated as a free exercise of religion case, because the Supreme Court has ruled that neutral state laws of general application do not include within them a constitutional exemption for religious dissenters. “Whether the application of the Unruh Act in these circumstances violates the Free Exercise clause is an open question,” he wrote, “and the court does not address it because the case is sufficiently resolved upon Free Speech grounds.”

Interestingly, the judge’s approach mirrors that of U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case before the Supreme Court. In briefing and argument, the Solicitor General placed the government’s support for Jack Phillips’ right to refuse to make the wedding cake entirely on Free Speech grounds, and disclaimed taking any position on his right of free exercise of religion – despite the Trump Administration’s more general position, expressed in a “religious freedom” memorandum by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, that religious free exercise rights should be treated as superior to just about any other legal claim.

Perhaps Judge Lampe’s decision is truly an outlier in the ongoing controversies stemming from the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2015 that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, but on the other hand it may be an accurate prediction of how the Supreme Court will deal with the issue, at least in cases where the goods or services at issue could be plausibly described in terms of expressive content.

New York Appellate Division Revives Gay Police Officer’s Discrimination & Retaliation Case Against NYPD

Posted on: February 4th, 2018 by Art Leonard No Comments

While hesitant to accuse the New York City Police Department, New York City Law Department, and a Supreme Court Justice of bizarre thinking, that is the only conclusion we can draw from Harrington v. City of New York, 2018 WL 503144, 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 392 (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dept., Jan. 23, 2018), where a unanimous five-judge panel of the Manhattan-based Appellate Division, 1st Department, reversed a decision by Justice James E. d’Auguste from October 13, 2016, in which he reiterated a prior decision entered on November 12, 2015, to dismiss sexual orientation discrimination and retaliation claims by Michael Harrington, a former NYPD auxiliary police officer.

Harrington worked as an auxiliary police officer from 2002 until 2009, then resigned to take a police officer position in California. Evidently unhappy away from NYC, he sought to be reinstated as a police officer with NYPD in June 2009, passing a psychological exam. After his request for reinstatement was denied, he filed a new application, passing the written exam in 2010.  While his application was pending, he accepted law enforcement positions with sheriff’s departments in Arizona and Missouri, passing a psychological evaluation for both of those positions.  In September 2013, he began working as a corrections officer for the NYC Department of Correction, passing yet another psych evaluation, and he continues to serve in that position while pursuing his goal of joining the NYPD.

While employed as an auxiliary, he filed a sexual orientation discrimination complaint with the Department in 2007, which was eventually settled at the end of 2013 with a payment to him of $185,000. Assuming the City does not throw large sums of money at discrimination grievances if it believes there is no merit to their claims, one can reasonably infer that he had a decent case.  After he had signed the settlement agreement and waiver of claims on December 12, 2013, he was instructed to proceed with his then-pending 2010 application to join the NYPD, submitted to another psychological evaluation, and waited.

He was told that his application was “being held on a psychological review” which lasted more than a year. Finally, he was told that the NYPD found him not psychologically fit to be a police officer, based on the police psychologist’s conclusion that he “relied chiefly on litigation to resolve issues,” citing his 2007 discrimination claim as evidence of his “poor stress tolerance.”  Evidently, in the opinion of this psychologist, implicitly adopted by the Department, police officers who complain about discrimination against them have “poor stress tolerance” and if they pursue their claims in a legal forum, that indicates psychological unfitness to be a cop.  Stated otherwise, the unwritten policy of the NYPD is that police officers who encounter discrimination in the Department should just suck it up, and those who don’t are unfit for the force.  Wow!

Harrington got an independent psychologist to do an evaluation, and this produced the same result as the numerous other evaluations he has gone through, finding him fit to be a police officer. He also found evidence that the Department’s psychologist had omitted from his report the data showing that Harrington “met or exceeded requirements in every area of the ‘Job Suitability Snapshot,’” and omitted the psychologist’s own notes showing that Harrington’s “thought processes were ‘coherent’” and within normal limits.  His internal appeal of this rejection of his application was turned down and he filed this lawsuit, seeking damages and an order that the NYPD hire him.

Justice d’Auguste granted a motion to dismiss Harrington’s sexual orientation discrimination and retaliation claims. Reversing the trial judge, the Appellate Division panel (Justices Gische, Webber, Oing, Singh, and Moulton) concluded that his factual allegations were, rather obviously, sufficient to state claims for discrimination and retaliation.  After reciting the factual allegations now on the record, the court said that “the foregoing, taken together, and affording plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, establishes prima facie that defendants discriminated against plaintiff on account of his sexual orientation in finding him psychologically unfit to serve.”

It was also clear that the basis for the NYPD’s action was sufficient to ground a retaliation claim. “Plaintiff alleges that in retaliation for his having commenced the 2007 action against defendants, they placed a psychological hold on his present application for employment in 2014, and ultimately found him psychologically unfit for the position.”  After finding that the settlement agreement he had signed in 2013 did not bar the present action, because the release he signed applied only to claims arising up to that time, the court stated the obvious: “In finding plaintiff psychologically unfit, defendants’ police psychologist relied on plaintiff’s 2007 action against defendants.  Specifically, the police psychologist’s report stated that plaintiff had ‘poor stress tolerance’ and relied ‘chiefly on litigation to resolve issues.’  The 2007 litigation serving as the psychological disqualifier is sufficient to plead the causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action in this case.”

The court rejected the defendants’ disingenuous argument that the 2007 action was “not sufficiently temporally proximate to the alleged adverse action to support the causal connection” for a retaliation claim. “Plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to permit the inference that the reason plaintiff was found psychologically unfit to serve was because he brought the 2007 action against defendants.  This, along with the extensive history of having been found psychologically fit to serve as a police officer and in similar positions, supports an inference that the disqualification was retaliation for bringing the 2007 action.”  Time for a new settlement offer from the City Law Department?

Harrington is represented by Naved Amed of Amed Marzano & Sediva PLLC.

Divided Mississippi Supreme Court Refuses to Relieve Closeted Gay Doctor from One-Side Divorce Settlement Agreement

Posted on: February 3rd, 2018 by Art Leonard No Comments

Voting 7-2, the Mississippi Supreme Court refused to relieve a closeted gay doctor, who is also HIV-positive, from the terms of a very one-sided divorce settlement agreement which he had signed with his ex-wife more than two years prior to filing an actionto set the agreement aside or modify it as unconscionable and formed under duress. Under the agreement, which was approved by the Hinds County Chancery Court, all but $5,000 a month of his income goes towards support of their one child and alimony for his wife, and obligates him to assume all the expenses of raising the child through college and potential marriage, among other things.  Smith v. Doe, 2018 Miss. LEXIS 39, 2018 WL 549404 (Jan. 25, 2018).  For confidentiality purposes, the court used pseudonyms to refer to the parties, using the names Carl Smith and Lisa Doe.  Both of them are doctors.  Justice James D. Maxwell, II, wrote for the court.  Justices Leslie D. King and James W. Kitchens each wrote dissenting opinions, and Justice Kitchens also joined Justice King’s opinion.

The divorce occurred because Lisa found out that Carl had been engaging in extramarital affairs with known and anonymous same-sex partners. He had lied to her about how he contracted HIV, and about allegations concerning his alleged pedophilic activities (trading nude pictures of underage boys on-line).  Lisa, represented by two lawyers, proposed an extremely one-sided settlement agreement, which included a provision in which Carl, who was not represented by counsel at Lisa’s insistence, acknowledged that the agreement was one that a court would not normally impose in a contested case.  The provision stated: “Nevertheless, Husband is both willing to limit and restrict his rights and expand his obligations regarding child support, alimony, and division of marital property and debt as contained in this agreement.  These limitations and restrictions of rights and expansion of obligations are based, in part, by both Husband and Wife’s mutual understanding of the unique difficulties in which Husband’s behavior has placed the family unit.”  The agreement obligated Carl to pay over about 75% of his income to Lisa on a monthly basis, and although it stated that Carl had been encouraged and free to seek legal advice concerning the agreement, he testified that in fact Lisa threatened to go public with all the detrimental information he uncovered if he hired a lawyer.  Carl testified that he had not seen the agreement until it was presented to him for signature, with no opportunity to review it or seek advice about it.

Carl made all payments for more than two and a half years, but then filed a complaint to set aside, or alternatively to modify, the agreement. He argued coercion, duress, and unconscionability.  Wrote Justice Maxwell, “He suggested his wife had strong-armed him, threatening to disclose his affairs, disease, and alleged malfeasance if he did not sign the agreement.  And he signed the agreement under duress, facing ‘financial ruin, humiliation, loss of his medical license, criminal prosecution, and loss of contact’ with his daughter.  Carl also claims Lisa would not permit him to have an attorney review the agreement’s terms.”

Lisa, while “admitting that she was angry and behaved harshly toward Carl after she had unearthed much of his hidden second life and illicit activities,” argued that “his coercion and duress allegations are not only false but are undermined by his express acknowledgements in the property-settlement agreement.”

The chancellor granted Carl a hearing, but concluded after five days of testimony that a statutory limitation period for contesting a divorce settlement agreement approved by the chancellor barred Carl’s complaint. Rule 60(b)(1) of the state’s Rules of Civil Procedure requires an action to set aside an agreement on grounds of the other party’s misconduct be filed within six months, but he waited more than two years.  Although there are equitable grounds to grant relief from that time limit, the chancellor found that they do not apply in this case, and the Supreme Court backed up the chancellor in the finding that there was “no evidence of good cause in Carl’s delay” and that granting relief “at this late date would cause actual prejudice to Lisa.”  The chancellor had also, alternatively, rejected Carl’s contention that the agreement was unconscionable, noting that both of the parties are educated, licensed professionals and that “Carl was not overly browbeaten or otherwise coerced into signing a procedurally or substantively unconscionable agreement.”  Carl’s complaint that after meeting all monthly financial requirements under the agreement he was left to live on only $5,000.00 a month, was not calculated to carry much weight in Mississippi.  (An on-line check shows that based on 2016 data, an annual income of $60,000 both exceeds the national median family income and far, far, far exceeds the annual  median family income in Mississippi, which is one of the poorest states with one of the lowest costs of living.  No crocodile tears from the majority of the court for the philandering Carl on this account.

Wrote Justice Maxwell, “The chancellor essentially found Carl knew exactly what he was doing and exactly what he was obligating himself to do when he signed the settlement agreement. Indeed, according to the agreement, Carl accepted its strict terms based on ‘the unique difficulties in which his behavior has placed the family unit.’  The chancellor recognized this and noted that ‘Carl was in a place of self-loathing and felt extreme guilt for his choices that had caused the destruction of his marriage and family.’  That his extramarital activities and devious behavior gave Lisa the upper hand in negotiating a favorable settlement did not negate that Carl ‘freely and willingly’ agreed to the settlement’s terms.  Nor did Carl’s ‘self-imposed guilt’ and Lisa’s ‘obvious hostility,’ in the chancellor’s view, amount to an unconscionable disparity of bargaining power.  Based on his advanced education, Carl was certainly aware of the finality of signed legal contracts and judgments.  And the chancellor’s finding and the agreements express acknowledgements undermine Carl’s newly minted procedural unconscionability claim.”

As to the claim of substantive unconscionability, the court noted, as mentioned above, that Carl testified that he is “very stable” financially and can afford to make the payments. The chancellor did not find that any changed circumstances of the parties would themselves justify modifying the terms.  “Here,” wrote Maxwell, “the chancellor ‘expressly determined that no fraud or overreaching existed in this matter.’  Thus, he deemed ‘all provisions of the agreements regarding fixed alimony or a division of property’ unmodifiable.  We there find,” continued Maxwell, “even if Carl’s motion was not snagged on the chancellor’s Rule 60(b)(1) and Rule 60(b)(6) timeliness findings, the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in alternatively rejecting the merits of the unconscionability claims.”

Concluding, Maxwell noted that in light of the evidence presented, “this Court has significant public health and safety concerns. We therefore remand the chancellor’s order sealing the court file for the trial court to conduct the balancing test set out in Estate of Cole v. Ferrell, 163 So. 3d 921 (Miss. 2012), and determine whether the court file should remain under seal.”  In Estate of Cole, the count observed that confidentiality of settlement agreements by consent of the parties should generally be respected as it effectuates settlement of disputes, but that if there is an overriding public interest, a court can unseal previously sealed court records.

Justice King’s dissent is long, detailed, and vociferous, criticizing the majority opinion on just about every point, and sets out in detail the terms of the agreement and the enormous financial obligations it imposes on Carl, some of which are indeterminate and likely to expand substantially in the future. For example, Carl agrees that when the child is old enough to drive, he will buy her a car with no cap on the price or input on his part to its selection.  He is also obligated for all of the child’s college expenses, including any post-graduate or professional degrees, “to be selected by Carl, Lisa, and the child, by majority rule.”  He was required to make monthly deposits into a designated college fund for the child, provide all insurance and cover all deductibles, maintain a life insurance policy on the child with Lisa as trustee until the child completes her education, making Lisa the primary beneficiary of all his pension plans and retirement savings with the child as secondary beneficiary, bear full liability for all his own debts and for all Lisa’s medical school debts. . .  It goes on and on, including that, contrary to usual custom, his alimony obligation would continue even if Lisa remarried and would be an asset of her estate if she died before he did.  She got the marital house and almost everything in it, and sole custody of the child; if Lisa died before the child’s majority, custody would go to Lisa’s parents.  “The contract provisions wholly deprive Carl of seeing his daughter but require him to almost completely financially support his daughter,” wrote King.  In other words, Lisa really took Carl to the cleaners, getting him to agree to things that went far beyond what a court was likely to order in a litigated divorce case.

Justice King commented, “The circumstances of this case by definition are extraordinary and compelling. Carl clearly has demonstrated good cause for not filing his motion sooner.  At the time of his divorce, Carl had HIV, was homosexual without the knowledge of his family, had not disclosed his HIV-positive status to the state [medical] licensing board, had engaged in homosexual extramarital affairs, and was in a precarious situation of possibly losing his means to support himself and also losing complete contact with his child.  Given the totality of the circumstances in this case, Carl’s hesitation to contest the property-settlement agreement was reasonable and was for good cause.  Thus, I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that the chancellor had not erred in finding that Carl’s filing was untimely.  I also cannot agree that Carl’s motion lacked merit.”

Justice King noted facts conveniently left out of Justice Maxwell’s opinion for the court, bearing on the unconscionability issue beyond just the content of the agreement. “Even though Carl admitted feeling guilty for his actions,” wrote King, “I cannot find that mere guilt coerced Carl into signing an agreement that gave complete custody and decision-making authority over Carl’s minor child to Lisa, along with extraordinary and oppressive financial obligations.  Lisa had access to Carl’s email accounts and forwarded Carl emails that were private as well as potentially detrimental to his future medical career.  Carl alleged that Lisa had threatened to reveal his homosexuality and had threatened not only criminal prosecution, but medical licensure revocation or suspension, disclosure of his HIV diagnosis, embarrassment, and humiliation.  Carl testified that Lisa had threatened exposure if he hired an attorney to represent him in the divorce or told any family members or friends about what was occurring.  Yet Lisa had two attorneys and drafted the agreement to provide Carl only with the minimal amount he would need to live on per month.  He had not been able to see or read the contract until minutes immediately before he signed it.  In addition, Carl stated that Lisa had threatened exposure if he rented an apartment or hotel room before the divorce was finalized.  Consequently, Carl had lived in his car for several months.  Carl had no bargaining power, had a lack of opportunity to study the contract, and had no input in drafting the agreement.  Accordingly, I would find that the contract, too, was procedurally unconscionable.”

Chiding his colleagues in the majority, King wrote: “The majority makes much of the clearness of the agreement’s terms. With respect, I believe that the majority downplays the totality of Carl’s position.  Lisa did not have the upper hand; she had the only hand.”  He also objected to the court’s decision to remand to the chancellor on the issue of sealing the record.  “If this Court has public health and safety concerns,” he wrote, “I believe the appropriate method to allay those concerns would be to report to the relevant governmental authority.  Those relevant authorities must pursue the matter as they see fit.  The trial court in this case agreed with the parties that the record should be sealed.  Because unsealing the record would do little to remedy any public health and safety concerns, I fail to see the public benefit gained by unsealing the record.”

In a separate brief dissent, Justice Kitchens quotes from some of the incriminating emails, and implies that the majority is biased against Carl because he is gay. Or at least, that seems to be the import of his closing remarks: “Carl’s position is further supported by the majority’s use of the word ‘salacious’ to describe his extramarital affairs. The word salacious connotes indecency, obscenity, or lewdness.  I dare say that the majority would not have chosen that particular term had Carl chosen to engage in heterosexual affairs.  A search of the term ‘salacious’ in opinions reveals the term’s use in criminal cases involving pedophilia,” citing Shaffer v. State, 72 So. 3d 1090, 1098 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010); Wade v. State, 583 So. 2d 965, 968 (Miss. 1991).  Notably, there are no allegations that Carl actually engaged in sexual conduct with minors, just that some of the emails he exchanged with other men referred to the subject

“Carl” is represented on appeal by William Abram Orlansky and Susan Latham Steffey.

1st Circuit Affirms Jury Verdict for Lesbian Firefighter in Title VII “Sex-Plus” Case

Posted on: January 29th, 2018 by Art Leonard No Comments

A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Title VII jury verdict for Lori Franchina, a lesbian firefighter who won her claim of hostile environment sexual harassment and retaliation against the Providence, Rhode Island, fire department.  The January 25 decision harshly condemned the Providence Fire Department for its treatment of Franchina, concluding, “The abuse Lori Franchina suffered at the hands of the Providence Fire Department is nothing short of abhorrent and, as this case demonstrates, employers should be cautioned that turning a blind eye to blatant discrimination does not generally fare well under anti-discrimination laws like Title VII.”  Franchina v. City of Providence, 2018 WL 550511, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 1919 (1st Cir., Jan. 25, 2018).

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits workplace discrimination because of the sex of an individual. Whether Title VII forbids discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity is one of the hot questions in employment discrimination law, but the Supreme Court’s recent decision not to review a negative answer to that question by a three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit has put off a definitive answer.  In the meanwhile, gay people encountering discrimination continue to file claims and sometimes, given the nature of the problems they encounter, have been able to win victories, even in federal circuits where the courts officially do not allow sexual orientation discrimination claims.

The 1st Circuit has a twenty-year old precedent barring sexual orientation claims, but this case shows that they can be brought of the sexual orientation issues mingle with more traditional sex discrimination issues.  Courts refer to such cases as “sex-plus” cases.  The opinion by Circuit Judge Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson explained that Franchina’s evidence clearly supported liability under the sex-plus theory.

Franchina joined the Fire Department in 2002, assigned to the North Main Street Fire Station, where she experienced neither discrimination nor harassment and quickly advanced to a leadership position, eventually becoming a Rescue Lieutenant in charge of a rescue vehicle squad. Her problems began in 2006 when she was assigned to work a shift with Andre Ferro, “a firefighter with a history of sexually harassing female colleagues,” under her supervision.

On his first day under Franchina’s command, Ferro bluntly asked if she was a lesbian. When she said this was none of his business, he said, “I don’t normally like to work with women; but, you know, we like the same thing, so I think we’re going to get along.”  She told him not to say such things, and immediately went into her office to avoid him, but soon an emergency call came in and their squad was dispatched to respond.  During the run, Ferro “continued with his inappropriate prattle” and sexually charged talk, including suggesting that if Franchina wanted to have a child, “I could help you with that.”  Franchina found his chattering so distracting that she asked him several times to stop talking and she refused to engage with him.  In a subsequent run that day, he embarrassed her in front of nurses, doctors, patients, and patient families in a hospital holding room, as he “began rubbing his nipples in a circular fashion, leapt up in the air, and screamed at Franchina, ‘My lesbian lover!  How are you doing?’”  Franchina testified that she was “horrified and felt belittled,” and other firefighters present were “similarly appalled.”

The court’s opinion goes on in detail about Ferro’s continued misbehavior, which became the talk of the Department. As a result, Chief Curt Varone initiated a complaint against Ferro, and when word of the resulting disciplinary proceeding got around, other male firefighters at that station “began to treat Franchina with contempt and disdain.”  The court’s opinion documents in detail a litany of slights, insubordination, and even an attempt by a firefighter serving as a cook for the company to cause her food poisoning.  Co-workers took to referring to Franchina by epithets such as “Frangina” (a play on her name and vagina), “bitch,” and “lesbo.”  Some of the insubordination resulted in danger to patients her squad was assigned to rescue.

Even after she was transferred to a different station, the harassment continued when one of her persecutors from North Main Street showed up at the new station on an assignment and quickly spread the word about her. Franchina sought an obtained a state court injunction against one of her persecutors, but the Department failed to effectively execute an order that he not be assigned in any stations that had a rescue unit.

Although some disciplinary steps were eventually taken against individual employees, the Department never effectively put an end to the harassment, and “the constant ridicule and harassment Franchian experienced caused her to be placed on injured-on-duty (IOD) status, where she performed administrative tasks and eventually was requested not to come to the fire station.

At her discrimination trial, other women in the Department testified to a culture of discrimination, supporting Franchina’s claim that the hostile environment she encountered was due to her sex as well as her sexual orientation. This led the court to conclude that her Title VII sex discrimination claim could go forward.  The jury, resolving all issues against the Department, awarded her substantial damages, including “front-pay” which was adjusted by the trial judge to over half a million dollars and punitive damages (which the trial judge removed from the award).

Providence appealed the verdict and substantial damage award, claiming that most of Franchina’s allegations were barred by the statute of limitations and that the trial judge had erred in allowing certain objectionable evidence to be shown to the jury, but the court of appeals rejected these arguments.

Most significantly, the court rejected Providence’s argument that this was really a sexual orientation discrimination case that should have been dismissed by the trial judge under the circuit’s precedent. Judge Thompson responded that this was a “sex-plus” case, which she described as “a flavor of gender discrimination claims where ‘an employer classifies employees on the basis of sex plus another characteristic.”  The city argued that Franchina could not bring such a claim unless she could present evidence at trial of a comparative class of gay male firefighters who were not discriminated against.  The city argued that absent such evidence, she could not establish the treatment she suffered was due to her sex.

The court rejected this argument, quoting earlier decisions holding that “the effect of Title VII is not to be diluted because discrimination adversely affects only a portion of the protected class.” Thompson pointed out that the city’s position conflicts with the text of Title VII as amended in 1991 to provide that if there are more than one causative factors for discrimination, some covered by Title VII and some not, as long as the plaintiff shows a factor covered by Title VII, they can establish a sex discrimination claim under the statute.  Thus, “the sex-plus label is no more than a heuristic, a judicial convenience developed in the context of Title VII to affirm that plaintiffs can, under certain circumstances, survive summary judgment and obtain a favorable verdict at trial even when not all members of a disfavored class are discriminated against” because another factor in addition to sex contributed to the discrimination – in this case, Franchina’s sexual orientation.

The court found that the jury had a sufficient evidentiary basis to conclude that the Department violated Title VII in Franchina’s case, because there was plenty of evidence to suggest that her sex as well as her sexual orientation were involved. The court pointed out that Franchina was not attempting to overturn the circuit’s precedent against sexual orientation claims, and in fact the trial judge had dismissed a count of her complaint specifically based on sexual orientation, so that claim was not part of the trial.

The court upheld the trial judge’s charge to the jury, which told them that Franchina “did not have to prove that all women were discriminated against or were harassed, but she must prove that she was harassed, at least in part, because she is a woman. In other words, she may meet this element by proving that she was harassed because she is part of a subclass of women, in this case lesbians, if she also proves that this harassment was at least in part because of her sex or gender.”

The court also rejected the city’s argument that an award of front-pay was inappropriate where the plaintiff did not present an expert witness to discuss how to determine the present value of future pay, which should be taken account of in the final damage award. The court pointed out that the trial judge had adjusted the jury award to take account of this factor, and that 1st Circuit precedents did not, strictly speaking, forbid awarding front-pay in the absence of expert testimony.

Franchina is represented by John Martin, Benjamin H. Duggan, and Kathy Jo Cook and KJC Law Firm LLC. The court received a joint amicus brief from GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the ACLU.

Two Lawsuits Challenge State Department’s Refusal to Recognize Same-Sex Marriages

Posted on: January 25th, 2018 by Art Leonard No Comments

 

Immigration Equality and cooperating attorneys from Sullivan & Cromwell LLP have filed two lawsuits against the U.S. State Department, challenging the Department’s refusal to recognize the birthright citizenship of two youngsters who are children of dual-nation married same-sex couples. The complicated cases turn on interpretation of a federal statute, Section 301(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (referred to as the INA), which establishes the citizenship status of persons born abroad to married U.S. citizens.  Blixt v. U.S. Department of State, Case 1:18-cv-00124 (D.D.C., filed Jan. 22, 2018); Dvash-Banks v. U.S. Department of State, Case 2:18-cv-00523 (C.D. Cal., filed Jan. 22, 2018).

The Constitution provides in the 14th Amendment that every person born in the United States is a citizen of the U.S.A. and of the state in which they were born. In the INA, Congress addressed the question whether people born overseas would also be treated as citizens if their parents are U.S. citizens.  The statute provides that a person born abroad will be treated as a U.S. citizen at birth if at least one of the person’s married parents is a U.S. citizen, and  as long as the U.S. citizen parent had been “physically present” in the U.S. for at least 5 years after their 14th birthday.

One of the lawsuits, filed in a U.S. District Court in the Central District of California (whose main courthouse is in Los Angeles), concerns Andrew Mason Dvash-Banks and Elad Dvash-Banks, a married couple, and their twin children, Ethan and Aiden. Andrew is a U.S. citizen, born in California in 1981, who lived continuously in the U.S. until 2005, when he moved to Israel and subsequently enrolled in a graduate program at Tel Aviv University.  There he met Elad Dvash in 2008.  Elad was born in Israel in 1985 and had lived there his entire life before meeting Andrew.  The two men went to Toronto, Canada, and were married there in a civil ceremony on August 19, 2010.

An act of the Canadian parliament, responding to rulings by various Canadian courts, established same-sex marriage in that country several years earlier. After marrying, Andrew and Elad moved to California, where they decided to raise a family. Because the federal Defense of Marriage Act precluded any recognition of their marriage by the U.S. government, Elad could not obtain permanent residence in the U.S. as Andrew’s legally recognized spouse, so they decided to move back to Toronto, where they could live together as a legally recognized married couple and start their family.

They decided to have twins using one surrogate who carried two embryos through to delivery of their sons. Each of the men is the biological father of one of the twins, who were born in Ontario in September, 2016.  Their Canadian birth certificates list both men as the fathers of each of the children, Ethan and Aidan.  The U.S. Defense of Marriage Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2013, so at the time the twins were born there was no legal impediment to their Canadian marriage being recognized by the U.S. government in the same way any other legally valid marriage between a U.S. citizen and a non-citizen conducted abroad would normally be recognized.

After the children were born, their parents took them to the U.S. Consulate in Toronto to apply for their “Consular Reports of Birth Abroad” and to obtain U.S. passports for them. Because Andrew is a U.S. citizen and the children were born in 2016 within his legal marriage to Elad, he contends, both boys are entitled under Section 301(g) to be treated as U.S. citizens at birth.  But the officials with whom they dealt in Toronto didn’t see things that way.  They insisted that only Aiden, who was conceived using Andrew’s sperm, would be considered a U.S. citizen.  Ethan, who was conceived using Elad’s sperm, would not, because as far as the State Department was concerned, he had no genetic tie to a U.S. citizen, which the State Department decided was necessary for him to be treated as a U.S. citizen, relying on a different section of the law dealing with children born outside the United States out of wedlock.

In effect, the State Department was treating the marriage of Andrew and Elad as having no legal significance in determining Ethan’s citizenship.

This appears, on its face, inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decisions in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) and Pavan v. Smith (2017), which make clear that same-sex marriages are to be treated the same as different-sex marriages for all purposes of U.S. law. It also seems inconsistent with U.S. v. Windsor, which ruled that the U.S. government is required to recognize lawfully contracted same-sex marriages.

The other lawsuit, filed in Washington, D.C., presents a variation on the same story, involving Allison Dawn Blixt, who was born and raised in the United States, and her Italian wife, Stefania Zaccari, and their two sons, Lucas and Massi.

Alison lived in the U.S. continuously from her birth until 2008. She is a lawyer who began practicing at a law firm in New York beginning in 2005.  Stefania, born in Italy, met Allison in 2006 when Stefania was visiting New York on vacation.  After Stefania returned home, the women’s relationship continued at a distance.  Wanting to live together as a married couple, they moved to London, where Allison worked in the London office of her law firm and Stefania could freely relocate from Italy because of the freedom of movement within the European Union.  The women entered a civil partnership in England in 2009.  After the U.K. legislated for marriage equality, they took the necessary steps to convert their civil partnership into a legal marriage in 2015, retroactive to 2009 as allowed under British law.

Meanwhile, they decided to have children. Stefania gave birth to their first son, Lucas, conceived with sperm from an anonymous donor, in January 2015, a few weeks after they had converted their civil partnership into a marriage, and both women were listed on the birth certificate as parents.  They had another child in 2017, Massi, with Allison as the birth mother using sperm from the same anonymous donor, so that the boys would be biological half-brothers.  Massi’s birth certificate lists both women as his parents.  Both sons were born when their mothers were legally married, and at a time when under U.S. law their British marriage would be entitled to recognition.

After each child was born, they went to the U.S. Embassy in London to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and a U.S. passport for their sons. In 2015 they were told they couldn’t apply for Lucas, the first-born, because he was not biologically related to Allison, the U.S. citizen of the couple.

They returned to the Embassy after Massi was born in 2017, seeking to apply on behalf of both boys. Massi’s application was granted based on Allison’s U.S. citizenship, but Lucas’s application was denied.  In a letter communicating the denial, the State Department said: “It has been determined that there is not a biological relationship between the U.S. citizen mother and child, through either a genetic parental relationship or a gestational relationship, as required under the provisions of Section 309(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.”  Section 309(c) is, however, irrelevant, because it deals with children born “out of wedlock,” that is, to unmarried parents.  But Allison and Stefania are married, and they have a constitutional right to recognition of their marriage by the U.S. government.

In essence, the State Department is flouting the Supreme Court’s decisions. Pavan v. Smith was a dispute about Arkansas’s refusal to issue birth certificates showing both mothers of children born to married lesbian couples who conceived their children using donated sperm.  The Court said that Arkansas had to apply the same rule it used when different-sex married couples had children through donor insemination.  Although the father in such a case is not biologically related to the child, nonetheless he is entitled to be listed on the birth certificate and treated as the child’s legal father.  The Supreme Court, quoting from its early decision in Obergefell, said that married same-sex couples are entitled to the same “constellation” of rights as married different-sex couples.  And, of course, in U.S. v. Windsor, the Court made clear that legally married same-sex couples are entitled to have their marriages recognized on the same basis as the marriages of different-sex couples by the U.S. government.

That includes, these two new lawsuits argue, having their marriages recognized under Section 301(g), and thus conferring on their children U.S. citizenship, regardless which of the parents is their biological father or mother.

This is not just a new Trump Administration move. The Dvash-Banks family encountered their problem with the State Department in 2016, during the last year of the Obama Administration, and the Blixt family’s attempt to get a passport for Lucas was rebuffed in 2015.  What these cases will require is for the courts to be faithful to the broad rulings in Obergefell, Pavan and Windsor, and to treat these boys as U.S. citizens since they were born to married couples, each of which included one spouse who is a U.S. citizen and who clearly fulfills the residency requirements established in Section 301(g).  Treating them as children born “out of wedlock” is a failure of their rights to equal protection and due process of law under the 5th Amendment, argues the complaint.

Both complaints seek a declaratory judgment stating that the State Department’s application of its policies in these cases is unconstitutional and that each of the boys in question is a U.S. citizen. The complaints seek injunctions ordering the State Department to cease discriminating against married same-sex couples by classifying their children as being “born out of wedlock.” Of course, if the courts grant the requested relief, the plaintiffs are also seeking an award of attorneys’ fees and reasonable litigation costs.

N.Y. Appellate Division Rules against Sperm Donor Seeking Paternity Determination and Custody

Posted on: January 25th, 2018 by Art Leonard No Comments

 

In a case showing the pressing need for revision and updating of New York’s Domestic Relations Law to reflect modern-day family realities and effectively take account of the existence of the N.Y. Marriage Equality Act, the Appellate Division, 3rd Department, ruled on January 25 that a sperm donor to a lesbian married couple was “equitably estopped” from seeking a paternity determination regarding the child conceived using his sperm, and countermanded a ruling by Chemung County Family Court Judge Mary Tarantelli that genetic testing be done to confirm the plaintiff’s biological fatherhood.  Christopher YY v. Jessica ZZ and Nichole ZZ, 2018 WL 541768.  There was no dispute between the parties that the child in question was conceived using his sperm.

Jessica and Nichole, the respondents in this case, were married before Jessica gave birth to their child in August 2014. Justice Robert C. Mulvey described the circumstances of the child’s conception: “It is undisputed that the child was conceived, on the second attempt, through an informal artificial insemination process performed in respondents’ home using sperm donated by petitioner.  The parties, who had known one another for a short time through family, had discussed respondents’ desire to have a child together, and petitioner volunteered to donate his sperm for this purpose.  The parties agree that petitioner, with his partner present, knowingly provided his sperm to assist respondents in having a child, and that the wife performed the insemination.  Prior to the insemination, the parties had entered into a written agreement drafted by petitioner that was signed by respondents and petitioner in the presence of his partner.  Pursuant to that written agreement, which was entered into without formalities or the benefit of legal advice, petitioner volunteered to donate his sperm so that respondents could have a child together, expressly waived any claims to paternity with regard to any child conceived from his donated sperm and further waived any right to custody or visitation, and respondents, in turn, waived any claim for child support from petitioner.”  The court noted that Christopher, the petitioner, denied the existence of such a written agreement, but the court found that the testimony by respondents and petitioner’s partner provided a basis for the Family Court’s determination that it did exist.

After the child was born, the parties “disagreed on petitioner’s access to the child, and his partner subsequently admitted in sworn testimony that she had destroyed the only copy of that agreement,” but the court decided that the agreement was only being considered for the purpose of determining the parties’ “understanding, intent and expectations at the time that petitioner donated his sperm and the wife impregnated the mother,” and not as a legally enforceable contract, so its destruction was not critical in this case. The court stated that the respondents lived together with the child as a family, and the petitioner did not see the child until she was one or two months old.

Family Court Judge Tarantelli rejected the mother’s motion to dismiss the proceeding, and, over opposition, granted the petitioner’s request for genetic testing, but agreed to stay the testing order while the mother appealed the ruling. The Appellate Division allowed a direct appeal of the Family Court’s order.

Justice Mulvey reviewed the basic family law principles under which the spouse of a woman who bears a child is presumed to be the child’s legal parent, the child being characterized as a “product of the marriage.” The statutes provide that this presumption can be rebutted through a proceeding establishing that another man than the mother’s husband is the biological father of the child, so that the child is not, literally speaking, a “product of the marriage.”   But, he pointed out, the tests in our antiquated statutes don’t really account for the modern phenomenon of same-sex couples having children through donor insemination, as the donor insemination statute focuses on the legal parental status of a husband who gives written permission for his wife to receive a sperm donation from another man.

“Application of existing case law involving different-gender spouses,” Mulvey wrote, “addressing whether the presumption has been rebutted, to a child born to a same-gender married couple is inherently problematic, as it is not currently scientifically possible for same-gender couples to produce a child that is biologically ‘the product of the marriage.’ . . . If the presumption of legitimacy turns primarily upon biology, as some earlier cases indicate, rather than legal status, it may be automatically rebutted in cases involving same-gender married parents.  This result would seem to conflict with this state’s ‘strong policy in favor of legitimacy,’ which has been described as ‘one of the strongest and most persuasive known to the law.’  Summarily extinguishing the presumption of legitimacy for children born to same-gender married parents would seem to violate the dictates of the Marriage Equality Act,” noting that law’s requirement that married same-sex couples have the same “legal status, effect, right, benefit, privilege, protection or responsibility relating to marriage” as different-sex couples have.  “As the common-law and statutory presumptions of legitimacy predate the Marriage Equality Act,” Mulvey commented, “they will need to be reconsidered.”

While pointing out that “a workable rubric has not yet been developed to afford children the same protection regardless of the gender composition of their parents’ marriage, and the Legislature has not addressed this dilemma, we believe that it must be true that a child born to a same-gender married couple is presumed to be their child and, further, that the presumption of parentage is not defeated solely with proof of the biological fact that, at present, a child cannot be the product of same-gender parents.” The court decided, biology aside, that the petition in this case has not “established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the child is not entitled to the legal status as ‘the product of the marriage,” and thus the presumption is not rebutted and, even if it was because there was no disagreement that petitioner was the only sperm donor, “we find, for reasons to be explained, that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies to the circumstances here and that it is not in the child’s best interests to grant petitioner’s request for a paternity test.”

The court rejected any argument that because the respondents had proceeded informally and not complied with statutory provisions governing donor insemination in New York, they were precluded from achieving legal recognition for their family. Actually, in past cases the New York courts have not formalistically insisted that parental presumptions don’t apply if the parties failed to follow the donor insemination law to the letter.  As to the application of equitable estoppel to block Christopher’s paternity action, the court cited earlier cases holding that the doctrine “is a defense in a paternity proceeding which, among other applications, precludes a man from asserting his paternity when he acquiesced in the establishment of a strong parent-child bond between the child and another [person].”  This is done to “protect the status interests of a child in an already recognized and operative parent-child relationship.”  In other words, the court is not going to let Christopher interfere in the established relationship that Nichole has with the child her wife bore.

Relating this back to the facts of the case, Mulvey found that the conduct of the parties support blocking Christopher from the paternity action. “He was not involved in the child’s prenatal care or present at her birth, “wrote Mulvey,” did not know her birth date, never attended doctor appointments and did not see her for at least one or two months after her birth.  He was employed, but never paid child support, and provided no financial support…  By his own admission, he donated sperm as a ‘humanitarian’ gesture, to give respondents ‘the gift of life’ and expected only ‘contact’ with the child as a ‘godparent’ by providing her mothers with ‘a break’ or ‘help.’  He never signed an acknowledgement of paternity or asked to do so, and no aspect of his testimony or conduct supports the conclusion that he donated sperm with the expectation that he would have a parental role of any kind in the child’s life, and he never had or attempted to assert such a role.”  On the other hand, the testimony fully supported Nichole’s role as a mother to the child.  The court also pointed out that Christopher didn’t file his petition until the child was seven months old, and was “in an already recognized and operative parent-child relationship” with her birth mother, Jessica, and with her other mother, Nichole.

The court concluded that authorizing genetic testing and allowing the case to proceed was not in the child’s best interest, in light of the existing relationship of the child and her parents.

The court related that a new attorney had been appointed to represent the child in this appeal. She had favored the genetic testing, mainly because of events that have occurred since the Family Court hearing. It seems that the child has been in foster care, and there are neglect petitions pending against the mothers, although the lawyers appearing at the hearing in the Appellate Division did not know the details.  “However,” wrote Mulvey, “we find that the subsequent events, on which we take no position, do not alter our conclusion that respondents established at the [Family Court] hearing that petitioner should be equitably estopped from asserting paternity under the circumstances known to the Family Court at the time of the hearing,” and allowing new matters to be raised at this point “should not be permitted.  Doing so would continue to invite challenges to the then-established family unit into which the child was born, creating instability and uncertainty.”

Jessica is represented by Ouida F. Binnie-Francis of Elmira, N.Y., and Nicholde is represented by Lisa A. Natoli of Norwich. The child is represented by Michelle E. Stone of Vestal.  Christopher is represented by Pamela B. Bleiwas of Ithaca.

Foreign and International Courts Issue a Burst of LGBT Rights Rulings

Posted on: January 11th, 2018 by Art Leonard No Comments

 

Over the course of just four days, January 8 through 11, 2018, major courts on three continents have issued rulings that will affect the rights of tens of millions of LGBT people. On January 8, the Supreme Court of India ordered reconsideration of the 2014 decision that had restored the country’s law against gay sex, in an Order that quoted extensively from prior rulings critical of the 2014 decision.  On January 9, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights advised Costa Rica – and thus also sixteen other countries in Central and South America that are bound by the American Convention of Human Rights and do not yet have marriage equality – that same-sex couples are entitled to marry and that transgender people are entitled to get legal name changes without having to undergo sex reassignment surgery.  And on January 11, one of the Advocates General of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), responding to a request for a preliminary ruling from the Constitutional Court of Romania, advised the ECJ that same-sex spouses of the citizens of member nations must be treated the same as different-sex spouses under the European Union Directive governing movement between states.

 

India has the second largest population of any country, over 1.3 billion people by the latest estimate. The European Union member countries have more than 500 million residents, and the combined countries within the Inter-American Union have close to a billion people, although some large countries, including Canada and the United States, are not subject to the Inter-American court’s ruling.  But, of course, both Canada and the United States have marriage equality and don’t criminalize consensual gay sex among adults.   This means that within the space of four days courts have potentially expanded LGBTQ rights to an extraordinary proportion of the world’s population, which is currently estimated at about 7.6 billion people, and marriage equality may soon become the norm throughout the Western Hemisphere, with only a few holdouts among states that do not recognize the jurisdiction of the Inter-American court.

 

The India ruling is yet another step in a complicated and long-running story. In 1860, under British Administration, the Indian Penal Code was adopted including what is now Section 377, providing, “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”  This colonial enactment was carried over into national law when India became independent and self-governing after World War II.  It has been interpreted to outlaw all same-sex oral and anal intercourse. Although infrequently enforced, it has had the same stigmatizing effect as anti-sodomy laws in western societies before the slow process of decriminalization got under way during the second half of the 20th century.

 

Many LGBTQ people in India rejoiced and went heavily public in celebratory demonstrations in 2009 when the Delhi High Court, responding to a lawsuit filed by the NAZ Foundation, an HIV/AIDS advocacy non-governmental agency, ruled that Section 377 was unconstitutional as applied to private consensual adult same-sex intercourse. NAZ Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi, 111 DRJ 1 (2009). As the government did not initiate an appeal, many saw the lengthy, scholarly ruling as final and definitive.

 

However, Indian jurisprudence allows for anybody who is offended by a court ruling to ask the nation’s Supreme Court to review it, and a group of religious and social conservatives, led by Suresh Kumar Koushal, a Hindu astrologist, brought their case to the Supreme Court, where a two-judge bench reversed the High Court ruling in 2014, holding that the Constitution of India did not impede the government from maintaining the existing law, and rejecting the High Court’s citation of decisions from other countries (such as the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling) to support its decision. Koushal v. NAZ Foundation, 1 SCC 1 (2014).  The Supreme Court panel minimized the significance of the issue, claiming that because there were very few homosexuals as a proportion of the population, it was not a matter of great importance.  It also opined that the question of what sexual conduct to outlaw was for the legislature, not the courts, to decide.

 

Obtaining further review from a larger panel of the Court (which has 26 judges overall) is a time-consuming process, requiring filing “corrective petitions” and persuading a panel of the Court that the issue should be taken up anew. This process has been ongoing at the instance of NAZ Foundation and its supporters, but a new group of plaintiffs emerged in 2016 and initiated a petition directly with the Supreme Court, arguing that recent rulings in other cases by the Court, most notably a later 2014 ruling on the rights of transgender people, National Legal Service Authority v. Union of India 5 SCC 438 (2014), had cast significant doubt on the reasoning of the Koushal decision.  This argument was bolstered last year when a nine-member panel of the Court, ruling on a challenge to a new national genetic identification system, Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 10 SCC 1 (2017), specifically discussed and disparaged the Koushal decision’s treatment of constitutional privacy and the rights of LGBTQ people.

 

The Court’s January 8 Order in Johar v. Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice, Writ Petition No. 76/2016, by a three-judge panel including Chief Justice Dipak Misra, provided an extensive summary of the arguments against the constitutionality of Section 377, quoting extensively from the 2014 transgender and 2017 privacy rulings, particularly those passages critical of the Koushal decision, and granted the petitioners’ request that a larger panel of the Court be convened to reconsider that decision. Interestingly, only the Petitioners were present at the Court’s hearing on January 8, with the argument being presented by Senior Advocate Arvind Datar.  Nobody appeared from the government to oppose the request for reconsideration.  The Order emerged immediately after the hearing.

 

While the Order does not specifically state that all of the Petitioners’ arguments are correct, after concluding its summary of the arguments and what the Petitioners are seeking, the Court stated, “Taking all the aspects in a cumulative manner, we are of the view, the decision in Suresh Kumar Koushal’s case requires re-consideration. As the question relates to constitutional issues, we think it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench.”

 

A different Bench of the Court is presently considering the curative petition that was filed by the NAZ Foundation, so there was some speculation in the Indian press that the two cases could be combined before that larger panel. “In the meantime,” wrote the Court, “a copy of the petition be served on the Central Agency so that the Union of India can be represented in the instant matter.  Let the matter be placed before Honorable the Chief Justice of India, on the administrative side, for consideration of the appropriate larger Bench.”

 

Indian jurisprudence is famous for its slow motion, but there was some optimistic speculation that an opinion from a larger Bench of the Court may emerge later this year. In light of the serious criticisms of the Koushal decision by other Benches of the Court, commentators were optimistic that the Delhi High Court’s original ruling striking down criminalization of consensual gay sex will ultimately prevail, and gay sex will become legal in the world’s second largest country.

 

The Inter-American Court’s ruling on January 9 came in response to a petition submitted two years ago by Luis Guillermo Solis, the President of Costa Rica, who had run for office on a pledge to expand LGBTQ rights in his Central American country. Opinion Consultiva, OC-24/17 (2017). In the face of legislative intransigence, Solis inquired whether Costa Rica was obligated under the American Convention on Human Rights to let same-sex couples marry.  He also inquired about transgender rights.  The Court, which actually sits in Costa Rica’s capital city, came back with a strong affirmation for LGBTQ rights.  The opinion is initially available only in Spanish. According to translations published in English-language media sources, the court said that governments subject to the Convention “must recognize and guarantee all the rights that are derived from a family bond between people of the same sex,” and that establishing a separate institution for same-sex couples, such as civil unions, was not adequate from the point of view of legal equality.  The governments must “guarantee access to all existing forms of domestic legal systems, including the right to marriage, in order to ensure the protection of all rights of families formed by same-sex couples without discrimination.”

 

However, recognizing the kind of legislative intransigence encountered in Costa Rica and many other Central and South American countries, where the Roman Catholic Church has a heavy influence on social policy, the court recommended that government pass “temporary decrees” while new legislation is considered.

 

The Inter-American Court, in common with the European Court of Human Rights, is not empowered directly to order a government to do anything. Compliance requires acquiescence, and sometimes the court has resorted to demanding that governments explain why they have not complied with its rulings.  For example, it took Costa Rica several years to come into compliance with a ruling by the Inter-American Court against bans on the use of in vitro fertilization.

 

President Solis reacted to the decision by calling for full compliance by the countries of the Inter-American Union. The Tico Times reported on January 10 that he told reporters, “Costa Rica and the other countries that have accepted the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court must fully comply with the court’s opinion, respecting each country’s processing time, jurisdictional and administrative spaces.  Solis pointed out that Costa Rica’s compliance would require a “gradual process,” requiring consultation between the various branches of government and the political parties.

 

The Court also addressed a question of transgender rights, recognizing as a human right that transgender people should be able to register themselves using the name and sex with which they identify, thus lining up with those countries that have in recent years moved towards recognizing self-declared gender identity without interposing a requirement that the individual document surgical gender confirmation procedures.

 

Commented Solis, “The court’s opinion ratifies our commitment to guaranteeing people access to the rights they acquire through their personal relations, without any sort of discrimination.” In a formal press release, the government stated: “Love is a human condition that should be respected, without discrimination of any kind.  The State confirms its commitment to comply.”

 

The countries that are legally bound by rulings of the court include Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Surinam and Uruguay. Some of those countries still penalize gay sex, while others already have marriage equality: Colombia, Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina.  Litigation over marriage equality is pending in the Supreme Court of Panama.  In Mexico, same-sex couples can marry in several states and the capital district, and all of the states are required to recognize those marriages, while a Supreme Court ruling mandates that lower courts issue orders, called “amparos,” requiring local officials to allow particular same-sex couples (or groups of couples) who obtain the orders to marry.  The Inter-American Court’s ruling may hasten the spread of marriage equality to the remaining Mexican states.

 

Meanwhile, back in the European Union, Advocate General Melchior Wathelet’s preliminary ruling in the case of Relu Adrian Coman, a Romanian citizen who married Robert Clabourn Hamilton, an American citizen, in Brussels, Belgium, while Coman was living there and working for a European Union agency, may portend a significant advance for marriage equality in Europe. Coman v. Inspectorate General for Immigration, Case C-673/16 (January 11, 2018).  Coman sought to bring his spouse back home to Romania, but the Romanian government was unwilling to issue the kind of spousal visa that is routinely granted when Romanians contract different-sex marriages elsewhere in Europe.  Coman brought his case to the Constitutional Court of Romania, which referred the issue to the European Court of Justice for a determination of what obligation the country might have as a member of the Union.

 

Such matters are first presented to the office of the Advocate General (of which there are several), for an opinion advising the Court.  If the Court decides to follow the Advocate General’s recommendation, its ruling becomes law throughout the European Union.

 

In some respects, Wathelet’s opinion is narrow and technical, because it doesn’t address a broad question of rights, but rather the narrower question of interpreting the Directive that guarantees freedom of movement within the European Union, with an eye to breaking down nationality barriers that would inhibit the movement of labor across national lines.   Directive 2004/38 describes the “free movement of persons” as “one of the fundamental freedoms of the internal market.”  The Directive supports such freedom by requiring member states to grant freedom of movement to family members of their citizens, and of course a “spouse” is a family member, but the term “spouse” is not generally defined.  When the Directive was adopted in 2004, only two countries in Europe allowed same-sex marriage, but many others had registered partnerships for same-sex couples, so the Directive provides for free movement rights for such partners, but only “if the legislation of the host Member State treats registered partnerships as equivalent to marriage.”

 

In the case of Romania, not only is marriage defined as the union of a man and a woman, but the country’s marriage law specifies that same-sex couples may not marry, and the county provides no registered partnership status for same-sex couples. Thus, the question under EU law is whether the protection for family life and for spousal relationships would extend to same-sex spouses, overriding national law on the question of who is entitled to a residence visa (as opposed to the short-term entry visa of up to three months for tourists and business visitors).  The key to this, it proved, was the established practice both in this Court and the European Court of Human Rights to adjust the definitions of terms in reaction to social developments.

 

Wathelet quoted an earlier decision stating that “EU law must be interpreted ‘in the light of present day circumstances,’ that is to say, taking the ‘modern reality’ of the Union into account.” This is to avoid the law become static and placing a drag on economic and social development.  Wathelet noted that in a 2001 ruling, reflecting “present day circumstances” at that time, the Court had considered marriage to be “a union between persons of the opposite sex.”  But this does not reflect the “modern reality.”

 

“In fact,” he wrote, “while at the end of the year 2004 only two Member States allowed marriage between persons of the same sex, 11 more Member States have since amended their legislation to that effect and same-sex marriage will be possible in Austria, too, by 1 January 2019 at the latest. That legal recognition of same-sex marriage does no more than reflect a general development in society with regard to the question.  Statistical investigations confirm it; the authorization of marriage between persons of the same sex in a referendum in Ireland also serves as an illustration.  While different perspectives on the matter still remain, including within the Union, the development nonetheless forms part of a general movement.  In fact, this kind of marriage is now recognized in all continents.  It is not something associated with a specific culture or history; on the contrary, it corresponds to a universal recognition of the diversity of families.”

 

Wathelet also referred to decisions by the European Court of Human Rights, including those protecting the right of a national of a signatory state to the European Convention on Human Rights to bring a same-sex partner into the country. He also noted that European law now includes a ban on sexual orientation discrimination by Member States, and strong protection both under the European Union’s Charter and under the Human Rights Convention for “family life.”

 

He also contended that adopting a gender-neutral concept of spouse was consistent with the objective of the Directive, “to facilitate that primary and individual right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States which is directly conferred on citizens of the Union.” Freedom of movement would be impeded if lawfully married individuals could not bring the legal spouses with whom they have established a family relationship with them to return to live in their home country.

 

Thus, he recommended that the Court answer the questions posed by the Romanian Constitutional Court as follows: that “the term ‘spouse’ applies to a national of a third State of the same sex as the citizen of the European Union to whom he or she is married” for purposes of complying with Directive 2004/38 on freedom of movement.  As applied directly to Mr. Coman’s case, it means that his marriage to an American citizen while Coman was living in Belgium, a European Union country that allows same-sex marriages, gives his spouse a derivative right under the Directive to obtain, automatically, the same kind of spousal visa to enter and live in Romania that would be provided to a different-sex spouse.  Since Hamilton is not a citizen of any European Union Member State, his right is not direct and must be derived from the right of his husband to have Romania respect his marriage and family life, at least to the extent of allowing him to live together with his husband in his home country.

 

Reflecting the social divisions within the Union, several Eastern European nations – Latvia, Hungary, Poland and Romania – opposed this conclusion, while it was supported by submissions from the Netherlands and the European Commission.

 

 

 

TWO MORE LGBTQ-RELATED CONTROVERSIES DROP OFF THE SUPREME COURT DOCKET

Posted on: January 10th, 2018 by Art Leonard No Comments

As the Supreme Court’s 2017-18 Term began in October, it looked like a banner term for LGBTQ-related cases at the nation’s highest court. Petitions were pending asking the Court to address a wide range of issues, including whether LGBTQ people are protected against discrimination under federal sex discrimination laws covering employment (from Georgia) and educational opportunity (from Wisconsin), whether LGBTQ people in Mississippi had standing to seek a federal order to prevent a viciously anti-gay religiously-motivated law from going into effect, and whether the Texas Supreme Court erred in holding that Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), did not necessarily require a municipal employer to treat same-sex married couples the same as different-sex married couples in their employee benefits plans.  The Court had already granted review in a “gay wedding cake” case from Colorado (Masterpiece Cakeshop, which was argued on December 5), and another petition involving a Washington State florist who refused to provide floral decorations for a same-sex wedding was waiting in the wings.

 

But the hopes for a blockbuster term have rapidly faded. In December, the Court declined to hear the employee benefits case and the Title VII employment discrimination case.  And now in January, the Court has declined to hear the Mississippi cases, Barber v. Bryant and Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant, and the Wisconsin case, Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District, has settled, with the school district agreeing to withdraw its Supreme Court petition.   It may be that the only LGBTQ-related issue that the Court decides this term is the one it heard argued in December: whether a business owner’s religious objections to same-sex marriage or his right to freedom of speech would privilege him to refuse to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  An opinion expected sometime in the coming months.

On January 8, the Supreme Court refused to review a ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barber v. Bryant, 860 F.3d 345 (5th Cir.), petition for rehearing en banc denied, 872 F.3d 671 (2017), which had dismissed a constitutional challenge to Mississippi’s infamous H.B. 1523, a law enacted in 2016 that protects people who discriminate against LGBTQ people because of their religious or moral convictions.  The 5th Circuit had ruled that none of the plaintiffs – either organizations or individuals – in two cases challenging the Mississippi law had “standing” to bring the lawsuits in federal court.

H.B. 1523, which was scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2016, identifies three “religious beliefs or moral convictions” and protects against “discrimination” by the state anybody who acts in accord with those beliefs in a wide range of circumstances. The beliefs, as stated in the statute, are: “(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman; (b) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and (c) male (man) or female (woman) refers to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.”  Among other things, the law would protect government officials who rely on these beliefs to deny services to individuals, and would preempt the handful of local municipal laws in the state that ban discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity, so that victims of discrimination would have no local law remedy.  Mississippi does not have a state law banning sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination, so H.B. 1523 in relation to private businesses and institutions was mainly symbolic when it came to activity taking place outside of the cities of Jackson, Hattiesburg and Oxford, or off the campus of the University of Southern Mississippi.

Two groups of plaintiffs brought constitutional challenges against the law in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, where the case came before Judge Carlton W. Reeves, the same judge who ruled for plaintiffs in a case challenging Mississippi’s ban on same-sex marriage a few years earlier. He issued a preliminary injunction against implementation of H.B. 1523 on June 30, 2016, the day before it was to go into effect, finding that it would violate the 1st Amendment by establishing particular religious beliefs as part of the state’s law.  The plaintiffs also challenged it on Equal Protection grounds. Judge Reeves refused to stay his preliminary injunction, and so did the 5th Circuit.

The state appealed the grant of preliminary injunction to the 5th Circuit, where a unanimous three-judge panel ruled on June 22, 2017, that the district court did not have jurisdiction to issue the injunction because, according to the opinion by Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, none of the plaintiffs could show that they had suffered or were imminently likely to suffer a “concrete and particularized injury in fact,” which was necessary to confer the necessary “standing” to challenge the law in federal court.  In the absence of standing, he wrote, the preliminary injunction must be dissolved and the case dismissed.

The plaintiffs asked the full 5th Circuit to reconsider the ruling en banc, but the circuit judges voted 12-2 not to do so, announcing that result on September 29.  The dissenters, in an opinion by Judge James L. Dennis, bluntly stated that “the panel decision is wrong” and “misconstrues and misapplies the Establishment Clause precedent.”  Indeed, wrote Judge Dennis, “its analysis creates a conflict between our circuit and our sister circuits on the issue of Establishment Clause standing.”

Judge Dennis pressed home the point by citing numerous cases from other circuits which, he held, would support allowing the plaintiffs in this case to seek a preliminary injunction blocking the law from going into effect.  This gave hope to the plaintiffs that they might be able to get the Supreme Court to take the case and reverse the 5th Circuit, since one of the main criteria for the Supreme Court granting review is to resolve a split in authority between the circuit courts on important points of federal law.

However, on January 8 the Court denied the petitions the two plaintiff groups had filed, without any explanation or open dissent, leaving unresolved important questions about how and when people can mount a federal court challenge to a law of this sort. In the meantime, shortly after the 5th Circuit had denied reconsideration, H.B. 1523 went into effect on October 10.

A challenge to H.B. 1523 continues in the District Court before Judge Reeves, as new allegations by the plaintiffs require reconsideration of their standing and place in question, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s June 2017 ruling, Pavan v. Smith, 137 S. Ct. 2075, whether the law imposes unconstitutional burdens on LGBTQ people seeking to exercise their fundamental constitutional rights.

Two days after the Court announced it would not review the 5th Circuit ruling, the parties in Whitaker, 858 F. 3d 1034 (7th Cir. 2017), involving the legal rights of transgender students under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, announced a settlement.  Under their agreement the school district will withdraw its cert petition.

The Supreme Court had been scheduled to hear a similar transgender student case last March, Gloucester County School Bd. v. G. G. ex rel. Grimm, but that case was dropped from the docket after the Trump Administration withdrew a Guidance on Title IX compliance that had been issued by the Obama Administration.  Since the 4th Circuit’s decision in Gavin Grimm’s case had been based on that Guidance rather than on a direct judicial interpretation of the statute, the Supreme Court vacated the 4th Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back to the 4th Circuit for reconsideration. See 137 S. Ct. 1239 (Mar. 6, 2017). That court, in turn, sent it back to the district court, which dismissed the case as moot since Grimm had graduated in the interim.

Ashton Whitaker is a transgender boy who graduated from Tremper High School in the Kenosha School District last June. His case would have given the Supreme Court a second chance to address the Title IX issue.  Whitaker transitioned while in high school and asked to be allowed to use the boys’ restroom facilities, but district officials told him that there was an unwritten policy restricting bathroom use based on biological sex.  He sued the district under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.  U.S. District Judge Panela Pepper (E.D. Wisconsin) issued a preliminary injunction on Whitaker’s behalf in September 2016, and refused to stay it pending appeal.  See 2016 WL 5239829 (Sept. 22, 2016).

On May 30, 2017, the 7th Circuit upheld Judge Pepper’s ruling, finding that even though the Trump Administration had withdrawn the prior Title IX Guidance, both Title IX and the 14th Amendment require the school to recognize Whitaker as a boy and to allow him to use boys’ restroom facilities.  The school district petitioned the Supreme Court on August 25 to review the 7th Circuit’s decision, even though Whitaker had graduated in June.

In the meantime, Judge Pepper ordered the parties to mediation to attempt a settlement. Whitaker’s graduation in June undoubtedly contributed to the pressure to settle, and the parties asked the Supreme Court several times to extend the deadline for Whitaker to file a formal response to the petition as the negotiations continued.  According to press reports on January 10, the case settled for $800,000 and an agreement that the district would withdraw its petition.

The settlement and withdrawal of the petition leaves the 7th Circuit’s opinion standing as the first federal circuit court ruling to hold on the merits that Title IX and the 14th Amendment require public schools to respect the gender identity of their students and to allow students to use sex-designated facilities consistent with their gender identity.  However, lacking a Supreme Court ruling on the point this decision is only binding in the three states of the 7th Circuit: Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana, the same three states bound by another 7th Circuit last year holding that employment discrimination because of sexual orientation violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

Federal District Court Denies Preliminary Injunction Requiring School District to Segregate Restroom and Locker Facilities by Biological Sex of Students

Posted on: December 31st, 2017 by Art Leonard No Comments

 

Accepting a report and recommendation from U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert, U.S. District Judge Jorge L. Alonso ruled on December 29, 2017, that a group of parents and cisgender students are not entitled to a preliminary injunction blocking Illinois’s Township High School District 211 from allowing transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. Students and Parents for Privacy v. United States Department of Education, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213091 (N.D. Ill., E.D.).

The dispute grew out of prior legal action by a transgender girl at William Fremd High School in Palatine, Illinios, a suburb of Chicago, seeking to use the girls’ facilities. During the Obama Administration, the U.S. Education Department responded to the student’s complaint by negotiating a settlement agreement with the school district under which Student A, as she was identified, would be allowed to use these facilities.  The school district’s willingness to settle turned on a formal Guidance issued by the U.S. Education and Justice Departments construing Title IX to require such a policy.

Reacting to the settlement, an ad hoc group of parents of students at Fremd High School, together with some girls who attend the high school, brought this suit in May 2016, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, asserting that the girls had a constitutional and statutory right not to have “biological boys” present in their restroom and locker room facilities where they could see girls in a state of undress. The lawsuit targeted the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice for issuing the Guidance and negotiating the settlement.  The school district was also named as a defendant.  Student A, together with two other transgender students in the district and their parents, were granted intervenor status as defendants.

Magistrate Judge Gilbert, to whom the motion for preliminary injunction had been referred by Judge Alonso, issued his report on October 18, 2006, concluding that plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on their claims, and recommending that the motion be denied. Plaintiffs filed objections with Judge Alonso.

While the objections were pending there were several developments significantly affecting the case. Donald J. Trump was elected president a few weeks after the Magistrate Report was issued, and he then appointed new leadership to the two Departments after his term began on January 20, 2017.  The two Departments then jointly withdrew the Obama Administration Title IX Guidance, opining that it had not been properly issued and that the matter required more study, but not taking any position on whether transgender students had such protection under Title IX, commenting that these issues should be decided at the local level.  Thus, the Trump Administration was, at least as of then, “neutral” on the question, although since then Attorney General Sessions and the Justice Department have gone on record as opposing an expansive interpretation of Title IX to embrace gender identity (and sexual orientation) discrimination claims.

However, shortly after the withdrawal of the Guidance, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a similar case, Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District No. 1 Board of Education, 858 F.3d 1034 (7th Cir. 2017) (petition for certiorari pending), that Title IX does extend to gender identity discrimination claims, and upheld an injunction ordering a Wisconsin school district to allow a transgender boy to use the boys’ restroom facilities at a public high school.

The Trump Administration actions mooted the part of the lawsuit against the federal government defendants, as the policy the plaintiffs are challenging was no longer federal executive branch policy. Thus, the plaintiffs agreed to drop the federal defendants from the case.  Also, because Student A has graduated, the plaintiffs’ specific objection to District 211’s agreement with the Education Department concerning facilities access for that student was mooted as well.  However, Intervenor Students B and C and their parents, and possibly other transgender students in District 211, would present the same access issues, so the plaintiffs’ claims against the District under Title IX and the Constitution continue so long as the District does not disavow the access policy to which it had agreed.

In essence, Plaintiffs’ Title IX complaint relies on a long-standing Title IX regulation that authorizes schools to maintain sex-separate restroom and locker room facilities, provided that the facilities are comparable in scope and quality. Plaintiffs argue that this authorization of sex-segregated facilities recognizes the privacy concerns of the students (and their parents), and that requiring students to have to share such facilities with transgender students of a different “biological” sex contradicts those privacy concerns.  The Magistrate had rejected this argument in October 2016, and the 7th Circuit’s Whitaker decision subsequently confirmed the Magistrate’s understanding of this issue.

Wrote Judge Alonso, “Discrimination against transgender individuals is sex discrimination under Price Waterhouse, the 7th Circuit explained, because ‘by definition, a transgender individual does not conform to the sex-based stereotypes of the sex that he or she was assigned at birth.’  Following Price Waterhouse and its progeny, the Court reasoned that a ‘policy that requires an individual to use a restroom that does not conform with his or her gender identity punishes that individual for his or her gender non-conformance which in turn violates Title IX.  Providing a gender-neutral alternative was insufficient to relieve the school district from liability under Title IX, the Seventh Circuit explained, because it was ‘the policy itself which violates the Act.”

The plaintiffs tried to distinguish the Whitaker case because it addressed only restrooms, not locker rooms, and because, they insisted, the decision was so “astonishingly wrong” that its reasoning undercuts its “worth even as persuasive authority.”  The problem with that, of course, is that Illinois is in the same 7th Circuit as Wisconsin, so Whitaker is not just persuasive authority; it is binding on Judge Alonso.

The judge insisted that nothing in Whitaker “suggests that restrooms and locker rooms should be treated differently under Title IX or that the presence of a transgendered student in either, especially given additional privacy protections like single stalls or privacy screens, implicates the constitutional privacy rights of others with whom such facilities are shared.  Plaintiffs’ critiques notwithstanding,” he continued, “Whitaker reflects a straightforward application of the long-standing line of sex stereotyping decisions, fully in line with the Supreme Court’s guidance on sex discrimination claims.”  Thus, under Whitaker, plaintiffs could not meet the first test for preliminary injunctive relief: showing the probability that they would prevail on the merits of their claim.  Judge Alonso devoted several paragraphs to explaining why the plaintiffs’ attempts to distinguish or disparage Whitaker were unavailing in meeting their burden under the motion.

“Furthermore,” he wrote, “even if Plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on the merits, they would still not be entitled to a preliminary injunction because they have not shown they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, or that they lack an adequate remedy at law in the event that they ultimately succeed on their claims.” Indeed, as far as demonstrating harm goes, “the only specific harm to which they point is the risk of running late to class by using alternate restrooms to avoid sharing with a transgender student and the ‘embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, fear, apprehension, stress, degradation , and loss of dignity’ allegedly felt by Student Plaintiffs arising from such sharing.”  The Magistrate [Judge Gilbert] had found that these were insufficient to establish irreparable injury, because courts routinely award monetary damages for emotional distress, and “the risk of being late to class has not been shown to have any meaningful impact on Student Plaintiffs’ education.”

Judge Alonso considered it worth nothing that the District’s practice of letting transgender students use appropriate facilities had been going on for nearly three years when this lawsuit was filed, but “either Student Plaintiffs did not notice that transgender students were using restrooms consistent with their gender identity, or they knew and tolerated it for several years,” as no examples of actual incidents were proffered in support of their motion. “The passage of time therefore further undermines Plaintiffs’ claim of irreparable harm,” wrote Alonso.  “This Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s assessment, ‘there is no indication that anything has negatively impacted Girl Plaintiffs’ education.”  Judge Alonso overruled the objections, and accepted the Magistrate’s recommendation to deny the preliminary injunction.

Now that pretrial motions have been disposed of, the court gave the defendants until January 30, 2018, to file an answer to the complaint, and set a status hearing for February 8. In light of the Whitaker case and Judge Alonso’s strongly-worded opinion, one would expect the school district to promptly file a motion for summary judgment, if ADF does not decide within the next few weeks to fold up its tent and steal away.  Of course, what could change the situation dramatically would be a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court of the school district’s petition in the 7th Circuit Whitaker case.  But the parties in that case were reportedly close to a settlement and had asked the Supreme Court to extend the time for Whitaker’s counsel to file a response to the cert petition, so it appears likely that a cert grant will not be forthcoming during the month of January leading up to School District 211’s court-imposed deadline to respond to the complaint in this case.

The transgender student Intervenors are represented by the ACLU of Illinois and the national ACLU Foundation, with pro bono attorneys from Mayer Brown LLP.

Oregon Court of Appeals Rules against Baker in “Gay Wedding Cake” Case

Posted on: December 31st, 2017 by Art Leonard No Comments

A unanimous three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals of Oregon affirmed a ruling by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) that Melissa and Aaron Klein, doing business as Sweetcakes by Melissa, violated the state’s public accommodations law by refusing to provide a wedding cake for Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer.  The ruling upheld an award of $135,000 in damages, rejecting the Kleins’ argument that this application of the state law to them violates their 1st Amendment rights.  However, the court overruled the BOLI’s determination that the Kleins’ public remarks in connection with this case had also violated a separate section of the law forbidding businesses to announce in advance that they will discriminate in the future.  Judge Chris Garrett wrote for the panel.

This case is, for all practical purposes, a virtual clone of the Colorado case, Masterpiece Cakeshop, which was argued at the U.S. Supreme Court on December 5, 2017.

Rachel and Laurel first met in 2004 and decided to marry in 2012. Rachel and her mother, Cheryl, went to a Portland bridal show as part of their wedding planning, and visited Melissa Klein’s booth at the show.  Sweetcakes by Melissa had designed, created and decorated a wedding cake for Cheryl’s wedding two years before, and Rachel and Cheryl told Melissa that they would like to order a cake from her.  A cake-testing appointment was set up for January 17, 2013.  Rachel and Cheryl visited the bakery shop, in Gresham, for their appointment.  Melissa was at home performing child care, so the appointment was with her husband and co-proprietor, Aaron.  During the tasting, Aaron asked for the names of the bride and groom, and was told there were two brides, Rachel and Laurel.  “At that point,” wrote Judge Garrett, “Aaron stated that he was sorry, but that Sweetcakes did not make wedding cakes for same-sex ceremonies because of his and Melissa’s religious convictions.  Rachel began crying, and Cheryl took her by the arm and walked her out of the shop.  On the way to their car, Rachel became ‘hysterical’ and kept apologizing to her mother, feeling that she had humiliated her.”

In their car, Cheryl assured Rachel that they would find somebody else to make the cake. After driving a short distance, Cheryl turned back and re-entered the bakery by herself to talk with Aaron.  “During their conversation,” wrote Judge Garrett, “Cheryl told Aaron that she had previously shared his thinking about homosexuality, but that her ‘truth had changed’ as a result of having ‘two gay children.’  In response, Aaron quoted a Bible passage from the Book of Leviticus, stating, ‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.’  Cheryl left and returned to the car, where Rachel had remained, ‘holding [her] head in her hands, just bawling.”  Cheryl telling Rachel that Aaron had called her an “abomination” didn’t make things any better.  Rachel later stated that “it made me feel like they were saying God made a mistake when he made me, that I wasn’t supposed to be, that I wasn’t supposed to love or be loved or have a family or live a good life and one day go to heaven.”  When they got home and told Laurel what had happened, she recognized the “abomination” reference from Leviticus and “felt shame and anger.  Rachel was inconsolable, which made Laurel even angrier.”  It was Laurel who filed an online complaint with the Oregon Department of Justice, but later she filed a complaint with BOLI, as did Rachel.

News of the complaints generated a wave of media attention, which resulted in death threats and adverse attention to Rachel and Laurel as well as to the Kleins. Ultimately, BOLI’s investigation concluded that the Kleins violated two sections of the public accommodations law, one forbidding discrimination by businesses in providing goods and services because of the sexual orientation of customers, the other, based on statements that the Kleins had made about the case, as well as a sign they posted in their bakery, that they violated a provision making it unlawful for a business to announce its intent to discriminate against customers because of their sexual orientation.  An administrative law judge (ALJ) sustained the first but not the second, finding that the comments in question related to the Klein’s position on this case and was not a general announcement of intent to discriminate in the future.  At the agency level, however, BOLI, disagreeing with the ALJ on this point, ruled that both provisions had been violated, and the Kleins appealed to the Court of Appeals.  The ALJ and BOLI agreed on an award of $135,000 in damages to Rachel and Laurel, to compensate them for the mental, emotional or physical suffering sustained because of the discrimination.  The agency rejected a claim for additional damages for mental, emotional or physical suffering stemming from the media and public response to their filing of the discrimination charges against the Kleins.

The first issue for the court was to determine whether the Kleins were correct in arguing that they had not violated the statute because, as they contended, their business does not discriminate against people because of their status as gay, but rather, in this instance, was declining to “facilitate the celebration of a union that conveys a message about marriage to which they do not subscribe and that contravenes their religious beliefs.” The court rejected this attempt to skirt the issue, commenting that “there is no reason to believe that the legislature intended a ‘status/conduct’ distinction specifically with regard to the subject of ‘sexual orientation.’”
Judge Garrett pointed to the state’s passage of the Oregon Family Fairness Act, which specifically provides that same-sex couples should be entitled to the same rights and privileges of different-sex couples. “The Kleins have not provided us with any persuasive explanation for why the legislature would have intended to grant equal privileges and immunities to individuals in same-sex relationships while simultaneously excepting those committed relationships from the protections of” the public accommodations law. The court pointed out that “under the distinction proposed by the Kleins, owners and operators of businesses could continue to oppress and humiliate black people simply by recasting their bias in terms of conduct rather than race.  For instance, a restaurant could refuse to serve an interracial couple, not on account of the race of either customer, but on account of the conduct – interracial dating – to which the proprietor objected.  In the absence of any textual or contextual support, or legislative history on that point, we decline to construe [the law] in a way that would so fundamentally undermine its purpose.”

Indeed, wrote the court, “The Kleins refused to make a wedding cake for the complainants precisely and expressly because of the relationship between sexual orientation and the conduct at issue (a wedding).  And, where a close relationship between status and conduct exists, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the type of distinction urged by the Kleins.”  Judge Garrett cited the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling, upholding the University of California-Hasting’s refusal to extend official recognition to a Christian Legal Society chapter whose membership policies excluded gay people, in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the Court, made this point, as well as Lawrence v. Texas, the Texas sodomy law case, where Justice Kennedy wrote for the Court that making gay conduct a crime was “an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.”

Turning to the constitutional challenges, the court rejected both the free speech and free exercise of religion arguments. For one thing, the court found, while conceding there would be an element of artistic expression and creativity in the process of making a wedding cake, this did not present the type of free speech issues that would merit strict scrutiny from the court.  Rather, the court found, the Supreme Court’s public accommodations jurisprudence treated such laws as neutral laws intended to achieve a legitimate purpose of extending equal rights to participate in the community, and not specifically targeted on particular political or religious views held by a particular business person.  The Kleins premised their arguments largely on the Supreme Court’s Hurley (St. Patrick’s Day Parade) and Dale (Boy Scouts) cases, in which the Supreme Court held that application of a public accommodations law to require an organization or association to include gay people would have to yield to the free expression rights of an organization that has a particularly expressive purpose.  They also focused on the famous flag salute cases from World War II and other cases in which the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot compel private individuals to express a message dictated by the government.

Wrote Judge Garrett, “We must decide whether the Kleins’ cake-making activity is sufficiently expressive, communicative, or artistic so as to implicate the First Amendment, and, if it is, whether BOLI’s final order compelling the creation of such expression in a particular circumstance survives First Amendment scrutiny.” Reviewing the way the Kleins produced customized wedding cakes for their customers, the court found, “the Kleins’ argument that their products entail artistic expression is entitled to be taken seriously.  That being said, we are not persuaded that the Kleins’ wedding cakes are entitled to the same level of constitutional protection as pure speech or traditional forms of artistic expression.  In order to establish that their wedding cakes are fundamentally pieces of art, it is not enough that the Kleins %believe% them to be pieces of art.  For First Amendment purposes, the expressive character of a thing must turn not only on how it is subjectively perceived by its maker, but also on how it will be perceived and experienced by others.  Here, although we accept that the Kleins imbue each wedding cake with their own aesthetic choices, they have made no showing that other people will necessarily experience %any% wedding cake that the Kleins create predominantly as ‘expression’ rather than as food.”

Further, the court found that it would be a different case “if BOLI’s order had awarded damages against the Kleins for refusing to decorate a cake with a specific message requested by a customer (‘God Bless This Marriage,’ for example) that they found offensive or contrary to their beliefs.” Then an articulated message would be conveyed, and the First Amendment issue would be much stronger.  Responding to the Kleins’ concern that the wedding cake communicates a “celebratory message” about the wedding, which they did not wish to communicate, the court pointed out that “the Kleins have not raised a nonspeculative possibility that anyone attending the wedding will impute that message to the Kleins.”  In short, wedding guests will not respond to seeing the cake at the reception by thinking that the baker is “celebrating” or “approving” this wedding.  There is nothing in the law that requires the Kleins to formally endorse same-sex marriages.

However, having found that there is at least some First Amendment free speech interest involved, the court applied “intermediate scrutiny” and found that the state had a compelling interest “both in ensuring equal access to publicly available goods and services and in preventing the dignitary harm that results from discriminatory denials of service. That interest is no less compelling with respect to the provision of services for same-sex weddings,” wrote Garrett.  “Indeed, that interest is particularly acute when the state seeks to prevent the dignitary harms that result from the unequal treatment of same-sex couples who choose to exercise their fundamental right to marry,” as established in Obergefell, the Supreme Court’s marriage equality decision.

The court concluded that “any burden imposed on the Kleins’ expression is no greater than essential to further the state’s interest,” pointing out that “BOLI’s order does not compel the Kleins to express an articulable message with which they disagree. … Given that the state’s interest is to avoid the ‘evil of unequal treatment, which is the injury to an individual’s sense of self-worth and personal integrity,’” wrote Garrett, quoting from a prior Oregon Supreme Court case, “there is no doubt that interest would be undermined if businesses that market their goods and services to the ‘public’ are given a special privilege to exclude certain groups from the meaning of that word.”

Turning to the free exercise of religion point, the court noted that the Supreme Court held in Employment Division v. Smith that “the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a ‘valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribed (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).”  The “incidental effect” on religion of such laws does not violate the 1st Amendment.

The court devoted most of its analysis on this point to distinguishing cases offered by the Kleins as exceptions to this rule. All of those cases involved special circumstances where it could be shown that although the laws in question were neutral on their face, they had been intended by the legislature to apply to particular religious practices and were thus not really “neutral to religion.”  The Kleins also pushed a “hybrid rights” theory, mentioned in passing in the Smith case, under which when a party’s claim arises under two different constitutional rights guarantees (in this case speech and religious exercise) the burden of justification on the state should be raised to strict scrutiny.  The court observed that apart from the passing mention in Smith, that concept had not been developed by the Supreme Court, had been rejected by many other courts, and specifically had never been adopted by the Oregon Supreme Court in construing the state’s constitution.

The court rejected the Kleins’ arguments that recognizing a limited or narrow exception for businesses whose owners had religious objections to same-sex marriage would have only a “minimal” effect on “the state’s antidiscrimination objectives,” pointing out that “those with sincere religious objections to marriage between people of different races, ethnicities, or faiths could just as readily demand the same exemption. The Kleins do not offer a principled basis for limiting their requested exemption in the manner that they propose, except to argue that there are ‘decent and honorable’ reasons, grounded in religious faith, for opposing same-sex marriage, as recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Obergefell.  That is not in dispute.  But neither the sincerity, nor the religious basis, nor the historical pedigree of a particular belief has been held to give a special license for discrimination,” wrote Garrett.

The court rejected the Kleins’ claim for free speech and religious exemptions under the Oregon Constitution, pointing out that they had not advanced any additional arguments peculiar to Oregon constitutional jurisprudence that would justify going beyond the federal constitutional analysis in this case. The court also rejected the argument that BOLI’s ruling should be set aside because BOLI’s Commissioner had made public comments about the case before voting to affirm the ALJ’s ruling and award the damages.  The court found that the commissioner’s comments “fall short of the kinds of statements that reflect prejudgment of the facts or an impermissibly closed-minded view of law or policy so as to indicate that he, as a decision maker, cannot be impartial.”  The court rejected the Kleins’ objection to the damage award, finding that the ALJ and BOLI had scrupulously limited the award to damages flowing from the Kleins’ discrimination and had an adequate basis in the trial record to award the amounts in question, which were not out of line with awards in other cases.

However, the court concluded that BOLI erred by failing to affirm the ALJ’s conclusion that the Kleins had not violated a section of the law that forbids any business “to publish, circulate, issue or display… any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of the place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of. . . sexual orientation.” The court, agreeing with the ALJ but not with BOLI, found that the Kleins’ public comments about their determination to defend this case and to adhere to their religious beliefs did not specifically violate this provision.

The Kleins were careful in wording the sign they put up at their bakery and in their comments on Facebook and in the press to avoid stating that they would discriminate because of a customer’s sexual orientation. Their position throughout this case is that they were not engaging in such discrimination.  The court was not willing to interpret this section of the statute as exposing businesses to additional liability for stating publicly their belief that their past action had not violated the law.  Since BOLI’s calculation of damages awarded to Rachel and Laurel did not include any amount for violation of this section, however, the reversal of this part of the decision did not require any reduction in damages.

The Kleins were represented in this appeal by attorneys from several law firms, some specializing in championing socially conservative causes, so it would not be surprising to see them file an appeal with the Oregon Supreme Court. The Oregon attorney general’s office represented BOLI.  Lambda Legal filed an amicus brief on behalf of Rachel and Laurel.  A long list of liberal religious associations and organizations joined in an amicus brief filed by pro bono attorneys in support of BOLI’s ruling, and amicus briefs were also filed by the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.