New York Law School

Art Leonard Observations

Posts Tagged ‘Lambda Legal’

11th Circuit Panel Splinters Over Lesbian’s Appeal of Title VII Dismissal

Posted on: March 12th, 2017 by Art Leonard No Comments

A three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit issued a divided ruling on March 10 holding that a lesbian plaintiff suing for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could file an amended complaint alleging that she suffered discrimination because of sex stereotyping, but upholding the district court’s dismissal of her claim that sexual orientation discrimination violates the statute.  A dissenting judge, agreeing with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which submitted an amicus brief in the case, and Lambda Legal, which was appointed to represent the plaintiff on appeal, argued that the plaintiff should be allowed to pursue her sexual orientation discrimination claim as well.  Lambda Legal, representing the appellant, immediately announced that it would petition for rehearing “en banc” before the entire 11th Circuit bench.

Unsurprisingly, the judges rejecting the sexual orientation claim, Circuit Judge William Pryor and Florida District Judge Jose Martinez, were appointed by President George W. Bush.  The dissenter, Circuit Judge Robin Rosenbaum, was appointed by President Barack Obama.

This case is one of appeals recently argued in three different federal circuits presenting the question whether sexual orientation discrimination claims are covered as “discrimination because of sex” under Title VII.  The Chicago-based 7th Circuit heard argument “en banc” on November 30, and the New York-based 2nd Circuit heard three-judge panel argument in two different appeals in January. So far, no federal circuit court has ruled favorably on such a claim, although many have ruled that gay plaintiffs can sue under Title VII on gender-based sex stereotyping claims, depending on their factual allegations.  There are older court of appeals precedents in most circuits rejecting sexual orientation discrimination claims, as such, under Title VII.  The Supreme Court has never directly ruled on the question.

In this case, Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, plaintiff Jameka Evans claimed that she was discriminated against in her position as a security officer at the hospital because of both gender non-conformity and sexual orientation.  Evans is a “butch” lesbian who claims she was discriminated against because she failed to carry herself in a “traditional womanly manner” and that “it was ‘evident’ that she identified with the male gender, because of how she presented herself – ‘(male uniform, low male haircut, shoes, etc.’),” wrote Judge Martinez.

She filed her case in federal district court in Savanah, Georgia, without a lawyer (“pro se”). The district judge, J. Randal Hall, referred her case to a magistrate judge to rule on procedural issues and “screen” the claim, as is usually done with “pro se” cases.  Magistrate Judge George R. Smith found procedural problems and, applying old circuit precedent, held that the claim of sexual orientation discrimination could not be brought under Title VII.  Smith recommended dismissal of the case. Lambda Legal submitted an amicus brief, urging Judge Hall to reject the Magistrate’s recommendation, but Hall dismissed without reference to Lambda’s arguments.  However, Hall then appointed Lambda to represent Evans on appeal to the 11th Circuit, and Gregory Nevins from Lambda’s Atlanta office argued the appeal.  The hospital never responded to the complaint and was not represented at the one-sided argument before the court of appeals.

At the heart of this appeal and of the other pending cases on the same question is the effect of two Supreme Court rulings, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins and Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services. In the first of these, the Court ruled that an employer’s denial of a partnership to a woman because of her failure to conform to the employer’s stereotyped view of how women should behave and present themselves was evidence of discrimination “because of sex” in violation of Title VII.  In the second, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s dismissal of a same-sex harassment case in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia holding that the interpretation of discrimination “because of sex” was not limited based on the intentions of Congress when it enacted the statute in 1964.  Scalia commented that “comparable evils” to those that Congress sought to address might be covered by the statute, and that we are governed by the language of our statutes as adopted by Congress, not by the presumed intentions expressed by individual legislators or committees as reflected in the legislative history.  Thus, a claim by a man that he was subjected to sexual harassment by male co-workers could be dealt with under Title VII, even if members of Congress did not anticipate or intend that such cases could be brought under Title VII.

LGBT rights advocates have used these two Supreme Court cases to argue that gay and transgender plaintiffs who suffer discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity should be able to bring sex discrimination claims under Title VII. Sex stereotyping is arguably present to some extent in all such cases and, at a more fundamental level, anti-gay and anti-trans discrimination is “necessarily” because of sex.  These arguments persuaded the EEOC during the Obama Administration, resulting in administrative rulings in cases raised by LGBT federal employees, and have also persuaded some federal district judges.  Several federal courts of appeals have accepted the sex stereotyping argument, but only to a limited extent, according to the extensive concurring opinion in Evans’s case by Judge Pryor.  So far, no federal circuit court has accepted the argument that an otherwise gender-conforming gay person can bring a sex discrimination claim under Title VII.

Judge Martinez premised his vote to reject the sexual orientation discrimination claim on a 1979 decision by the 5th Circuit, Blum v. Gulf Oil Corporation, 597 F.2d 936, in which that court said that “discharge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII” as an alternative basis for its ruling.  Effective on September 30, 1981, a statute divided the old 5th Circuit in half, assigning Georgia to the newly-created 11th Circuit. At that time, the 11th Circuit ruled that former 5th Circuit cases would be treated as precedent in the new 11th Circuit, so this case counts as a binding circuit precedent.  Lambda argued that the 1979 ruling is no longer valid in light of the 1989 Price Waterhouse decision and the 1999 Oncale decision.  Martinez and Pryor both rejected that argument, but dissenting Judge Rosenbaum embraced it.  At the oral argument, Judge Pryor had observed that in light of the Blum precedent, the three judge panel most likely could not rule in favor of Evans on this point, as only an en banc panel could reverse circuit precedents.

As to the sex stereotyping claim, Martinez asserted that Evans’ pro se complaint “failed to plead facts sufficient to create a plausible inference that she suffered discrimination. In other words, Evans did not provide enough factual matter to plausibly suggest that her decision to present herself in a masculine manner led to the alleged adverse employment actions.”  However, he wrote, it was inappropriate for the district judge to dismiss her case outright rather than allowing her to file an amended complaint, since her theory of sex stereotyping discrimination was a theory accepted in the 11th Circuit and it was possible that, in light of the court’s discussion of her claim, she might be able to meet these pleading deficiencies in an amended complaint.  It is customary in pro se cases to allow the plaintiff to file an amended complaint if she is asserting a claim under a valid legal theory and there is a possibility that a better framed complaint could survive screening.

Pryor’s concurring opinion agreed that the magistrate erred in asserting that a sex stereotyping argument by a lesbian plaintiff was just “another way to claim discrimination based on sexual orientation,” and thus Evans should get a second chance to frame a complaint that might survive review. However, he argued at length to refute the arguments by the EEOC and Judge Rosenbaum that sexual orientation discrimination claims were “necessarily” sex discrimination claims.  Pryor insisted on a strict distinction between “status” and “conduct,” arguing that sex stereotyping claims were tied to the plaintiff’s conduct in failing to conform to gender stereotypes.  Thus, a claim of sexual orientation discrimination not accompanied by factual allegations about the plaintiff’s gender non-conformity fell short, in his view, of coming within the compass of discrimination “because of sex.”  He was not willing to accept the argument that being sexually attracted to members of the same-sex would suffice to constitute non-conformity with sexual stereotypes.

Judge Rosenbaum took a diametrically opposite approach, embracing a theoretical description of how Price Waterhouse had changed Title VII law by extending prior sex stereotyping cases to adopt a “prescriptive stereotyping” model. In prior cases, the Supreme Court had condemned “ascriptive stereotyping,” situations where an employer discriminated against a class of employees because of a stereotype about the class.  For example, an employer required women to contribute more to its pension plan than men in order to get the same monthly benefits upon retirement, based on the stereotype that women live longer than men so it would all “even out” in the end.  The Supreme Court condemned this practice as sex discrimination, finding that the statute protects individuals from being treated based on class-based stereotypes.  In Price Waterhouse, the Court for the first time condemned “prescriptive stereotyping,” where an employer discriminated against an employee because she failed to conform to a sexual stereotype, presenting a demeanor which was not traditionally feminine.

Applying this to the sexual orientation case, Rosenbaum accepted the argument that in such cases the employer was discriminating because the employee violated the stereotypical view that men are supposed to be attracted to women, not to men, and vice versa. Furthermore, she found that it was clearly sex discrimination to treat a woman differently based on whether she was attracted to men or women.

Judge Rosenbaum argued that Pryor’s opinion was “at war” with his vote a decade ago that allowed a sex discrimination claim under the Equal Protection Clause by a transgender employee of the Georgia legislature. Indeed, Pryor’s vote in the former case, Glenn v. Brumby, had given the plaintiff hope in this case that the panel might rule in her favor.  Pryor devoted considerable effort in his concurring opinion to explaining why he found this case to be different, once again relying on the “status” and “conduct” distinction.  Cross-dressing and announcing plans to transition were “conduct,” in his view, while having a sexual orientation was “status.”  He argued that sex stereotyping theory was concerned with conduct, not status, in its focus on gender non-conformity.

The sharp division among the judges may lead the 11th Circuit to agree to hear the case en banc, especially noting that one member of the panel was a district judge.  The federal judiciary is so short-handed as a result of the Republican-controlled Senate’s stonewalling of President Obama’s court of appeals nominees during his second term that it has become increasingly common for some particularly short-staffed circuits to fill-out three-judge panels by “designating” district court judges to provide the third member to make up a panel.  These district judges do not participate if the case is reargued en banc.  Furthermore, with the 7th Circuit having held en banc argument on this question recently, it seems clear that many federal judges believe it is time to reconsider the issue.  Meanwhile, decisions from the 7th and 2nd Circuits are eagerly awaited, especially if they create a “circuit split” that would entice the Supreme Court to agree to take up the issue.

9th Circuit En Banc Panel Revives Gay Mexican’s Asylum Claim

Posted on: March 12th, 2017 by Art Leonard No Comments

An eleven-judge panel of the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit revived an HIV-positive gay Mexican man’s claim for refugee status to remain in the United States on March 8, reversing rulings by a three-judge panel of the court, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and an Immigration Judge.  The opinion for the court in Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4077, 2017 WL 908546, was written by Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, a Clinton appointee.  One member of the court, Judge Richard R. Clifton, filed a concurring opinion, and two members, Judges Carlos T. Bea and Diarmuid O’Scannlain, dissented in an opinion by Judge Bea.  Bea, appointed by George W. Bush, and O’Scannlain, appointed by Ronald Reagan, are among the most conservative judges on the 9th Circuit.  The reversed three-judge panel consisted of two George W. Bush appointees and a dissenting Clinton appointee, William Fletcher.

Carlos Alberto Bringas-Rodriguez, born in Tres Valles, Veracruz State, was, according to Judge Wardlaw’s summary of his testimony, which was deemed credible by the Immigration Judge, “horrifically abused by his father, an uncle, cousins, and a neighbor, all of whom perceived him to be gay or to exhibit effeminate characteristics.”  Bringas testified that his uncle raped him when he was four, and that three of his cousins and a male neighbor “physically and sexually abused him on a regular basis while he lived in Mexico.”  He also suffered regular beatings from his father, who told him, “Act like a boy.  You are not a woman.”  He claims his uncle told him when he was eight that he was being abused because he was gay.  “His uncle, cousins, and neighbor never called him by his name,” wrote Wardlaw, “referring to him only as ‘fag, fucking faggot, queer,’ and they ‘laughed about it.’”

Bringas lived briefly with his mother in the U.S. when he was twelve, but he returned to Mexico because he missed his grandmother, who had been raising him since he was nine.  The abuse intensified when he returned.  “On one occasion, when Bringas refused to comply with his neighbor’s demand for oral copulation, the neighbor beat and raped him, leaving Bringas with black eyes and bruises,” and his abusers “also threatened to hurt his grandmother, with whom he was close, if he ever reported what was happening,” wrote Wardlaw.  “Fearing that they would follow through on their threats, Bringas did not tell his mother, teachers, or anyone else about the sexual abuse.”  He fled back to the U.S. in 2004 when he was fourteen.

Entering the country illegally at El Paso, he made his way to Kansas where he lived with his mother for the next three years.  Then he moved out of his mother’s home, living elsewhere in Kansas and in Colorado, holding several jobs.  In August 2010 he pled guilty to “attempted contributing to the delinquency of a minor” in Colorado.  According to his account, as related by Wardlaw, “he had been at home drinking with some friends when another friend brought over a minor who became drunk.”  Bringas served 90 days in jail, “during which time he attempted suicide and was hospitalized, which precipitated his finally telling a doctor and then his mother about his childhood abused.”  His conviction triggered a notice to the Department of Homeland Security, which immediately issued him a “Notice to Appear.”

The next year, at age 20, he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention against Torture (CAT).  Asylum claims normally have to be filed within a year of arrival in the U.S., but he claimed he had been “unaware” at age 14 that he could apply for asylum, and only learned of this when he “spoke with an ICE officer in Colorado in September 2010” when he responded to the Notice to Appear.  In his application, he described the abuse he had suffered in Mexico and “explained that he feared persecution if he returned because he was gay and that the Mexican police would not protect him.  Bringas also credibly testified about his gay friends’ experiences with police in Veracruz.  Those friends went to the police to report that they had been raped, but the officers ignored their reports and ‘laughed [on] their faces.’”  He also submitted State Department country human rights reports on Mexico from 2009 and 2010, as well as newspaper articles documenting violence against gays in Mexico, which showed that violence was rising even as “Mexican laws were becoming increasingly tolerant of gay rights.”  In a footnote, Judge Wardlaw cited guidelines issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, explaining that “legal improvements and widespread persecution are not mutually exclusive.”

An Immigration Judge found Bringas’ factual testimony to be credible, but denied his application, as did the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) on his appeal.  The IJ found that his asylum claim was untimely under the one-year rule, a point that the BIA ignored, treating his asylum claim on the merits.  Next, the IJ found, and the BIA recognized, that although Bringas had suffered “serious abuse” as a child, he did not show that the “abuse was inflicted by government actors or that the government was unwilling or unable to control his abusers.”  This was a critical finding, because the basis for establishing refugee status is to show persecution at the hands of the government or private actors whom the government is unwilling or unable to control.  Purely private abuse, as such, is not considered to be “persecution” under relevant statutes and treaties.  Having found that Bringas had not established “past persecution,” the BIA approved the IJ’s finding that there was no presumption that he had a reasonable fear of future persecution in Mexico, because he had “failed to show a pattern or practice of persecution of gay men in Mexico.”  The BIA wrote that “the record did not demonstrate widespread brutality against homosexuals or that there was any criminalization of homosexual conduct in Mexico.”  Indeed, the BIA found that the Mexican government “has taken numerous positive steps to address the rights of homosexuals.”  The IJ and BIA found no evidence that Bringas was likely to be tortured by the government if he were removed back to Mexico.

The three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit considering his appeal focused on a prior circuit ruling, Castro-Martinez v. Holder, 674 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2011), concerning cases where the applicant’s abusers were all private citizens, which held that in order to establish that the government was unwilling or unable to control the abusers, the victim had to have reported the abuse to the government.  Wrote Wardlow, “the panel majority reasoned that where a victim fails to report abuse, even as a child, ‘there is a “gap in proof about how the government would have responded,”’ and that petitioner bears the burden to ‘fill in the gaps’ by showing how the government would have responded had he reported the abuse.”  The 3-judge panel emphasized the part of the State Department country reports that discussed how Mexican law had improved for gay people, including the government’s establish of a “specialized hate crimes prosecution unit” and the proclamation of a “national day against homophobia.”  The panel found “insufficient” Bringas’s testimony about the comments by his gay friends in the U.S. about how the police had failed to respond to their reports of abuse.  “Even if the friends’ reports were credited, the panel majority explained, those reports failed to establish that police practices in the city or state of Veracruz could be linked to police practices in Tres Valles, Bringas’s hometown.”

The panel majority, in common with the IJ in this case, also suggested that the issue here was not narrowly sexual abuse because of homosexuality, but rather the more general phenomenon of sexual abuse of children, and suggested that there was no evidence that the Mexican law enforcement authorities would be indifferent to reports of child sexual abuse.  In this connection, they noted that Bringas’s testimony did not specify how old his friends were when they unsuccessfully reported their abuse to the police.

Judge William Fletcher, the dissenting member of the 3-judge panel, expressed growing discomfort about the prior precedent upon which the majority of that panel was relying, pointing to the circuit’s “ample precedent that does not require victims of private persecution, especially child victims, to contemporaneously report their abuse to government authorities in order to become eligible for asylum in the United States.”

The en banc panel majority, reversing the 3-judge panel, embraced Judge Fletcher’s criticism, citing extensive evidence about the psychological and practical problems a child victim of sexual abuse would have in reporting the abuse to authorities, especially if they or their loved ones were threatened with retribution if they made any report, as had happened in Bringas’s case with threats to harm his grandmother.  Going further, the en banc panel overruled the prior precedent to the extent that it had been relied on as requiring reporting to the authorities in a case founded on abuse by non-governmental actors in order to establish “persecution” for purposes of asylum or withholding of removal.

While it was clear in this case that the asylum claim was filed too late, the court determined that Bringas’s claims for withholding of removal and protection under the CAT must be reconsidered by the Board.  The court found Bringas’ testimony, which had been deemed credible by the IJ and the BIA, sufficient to establish that he had been subjected to past persecution, and based on that testimony he was entitled to a presumption of further persecution.  Sending the case back to the BIA, the court said the remaining issue was whether that presumption had been rebutted by the government’s evidence of changed conditions in Mexico.

Furthermore, while this case was in progress, but after the BIA issued its opinion, Bringas learned for the first time that he was HIV-positive.  He had asked to reopen the case in order for the BIA to take this new information into account, but the BIA refused his request, observing that he had failed to show “how his status as an HIV positive homosexual changes the outcome of his case.”  The court ordered that BIA allow Bringas to supplement the record and to take account of new evidence about his HIV diagnosis.

Judge Clifton concurred on narrower grounds.  He felt, along with Judge Bea’s dissent, that the court’s opinion was insufficiently deferential to the BIA, which as a matter of administrative law is entitled to substantial deference by the courts and should not be reversed unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary based on evidence in the record.”  To Clifton, the evidence presented by Bringas about the unwillingness or inability of the government to address sexual abuse of gay children was not overwhelming, relying on “an unspecific hearsay report by Bringas of what he was told by one or two other persons about what had happened when a report was made to police in a different town.  That evidence would have been sufficient to support a conclusion that a report by a child to the police would have been futile, but it was not so powerful that no reasonable adjudicator could have found to the contrary,” he wrote.  He also noted that much of Bringas’ evidence was rather general and did not necessarily compel the conclusions reached by the majority of the court as to his persecution case.

On the other hand, Clifton found that the BIA “appeared to disregard the evidence that Bringas offered on the subject,” so it was appropriate to remand for reconsideration.  The IJ had written that there “was ‘no evidence whatsoever’ to support Bringas’s contention that a police report would have been futile, and it did not reflect any awareness of the evidence to that effect,” and the BIA’s opinion did not correct that misstatement.  While Clifton agreed the case should be sent back, he, unlike the majority, “would not dictate the answer to that past persecution question” but rather allow the BIA to reweigh the evidence.

Judge Bea’s dissent, as mentioned by Judge Clifton, focused on the court’s failure to accord sufficient deference to the BIA’s decision, emphasized the weak points in Bringas’s testimony, and accused the majority of mischaracterizing the precedent that it was overruling.  He also argued that the situation facing Bringas at age 14 was very different from the situation he would face today as an adult if returned to Mexico, pointing out further that the record showed that conditions for gay men in Mexico varied.  If returned to Mexico, Bringas would not have to live in Veracruz, but could instead locate in Mexico City, a jurisdiction that has legislated for same-sex marriage, supports gay pride marches, and is notably gay-friendly.

It will be interesting to see whether the government will seek Supreme Court review of this en banc ruling from the 9th Circuit.  The new Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, was substituted as Respondent for his predecessor, Loretta Lynch, upon taking office.  As this ruling may make it easier for Mexican asylum applicants to win the right to remain in the United States, the Trump Administration may seize upon it as a vehicle to tighten up on the asylum process by winning a reversal.  Certainly the Administration would have an interest in establishing deference for the BIA, given the ability of the President and Attorney General to influence the policies of that agency through appoints to the Board. In light of the timing, any review would take place after Trump’s nominee to fill the vacant seat on the Court takes the bench, re-establishing a majority of Republican appointees on the Court.

This en banc reconsideration of Bringas’s case was considered a big deal by the immigrants’ rights and civil liberties communities.  Dean Erwin Chemerinsky of the University of California (Irving) School of Law argued the appeal, with the Appellate Litigation Clinic at his school representing Bringas together with pro bono attorneys from major California law firms.  The government’s case was argued by relatively high level attorneys from the Justice Department in Washington.  Several amicus briefs were filed in support of Bringas’s appeal, including a wide variety of public interest groups, including Lambda Legal, National Center for Lesbian Rigths, the National Immigrant Justice Center, the HIV Law Project, the Transgender Law Center.  An amicus brief was submitted on behalf of Alice Farmer, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, by Williams & Connolly LLP, a major national law firm that frequently appears before the Supreme Court.

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

Posted on: November 23rd, 2016 by Art Leonard No Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

District Judge Enjoins Enforcement of H.B. 2 against Transgender Plaintiffs by the University of North Carolina

Posted on: August 29th, 2016 by Art Leonard No Comments

U.S. District Judge Thomas D. Schroeder granted a motion for preliminary injunction brought by attorneys for three transgender plaintiffs asserting a Title IX challenge to North Carolina’s bathroom bill, H.B.2. Carcano v. McCrory, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114605 (M.D. N.C., August 26, 2016).  Finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their Title IX challenge in his district court because he was bound by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board, 822 F.3d 709 (2016), to defer to the Department of Education’s interpretation of Title IX as banning gender identity discrimination and requiring restroom access consistent with gender identity by transgender students, Judge Schroeder concluded that satisfaction of the first test for preliminary injunctive relief, likelihood of success on the merits under 4th Circuit case law, was easily satisfied.  Judge Schroeder noted that the Supreme Court has stayed a preliminary injunction that was issued in the G.G. case while the school district petitions the Supreme Court to review the 4th Circuit’s ruling, but observed that the stay did not vacate the 4th Circuit’s decision, so the requirement for deferral remains the “law of the circuit,” binding on the district court.

Lambda Legal announced on August 29 that it would attempt to get the court to broaden the injunction so as to protect all transgender people in North Carolina from enforcement of the bathroom provision of H.B. 2.

This case arose after the North Carolina legislature held a special session on March 23, 2016, for the specific purpose of enacting legislation to prevent portions of a recently-passed Charlotte civil rights ordinance from going into effect on April 1. Most of the legislative comment was directed to the city’s ban on gender identity discrimination in places of public accommodation, which – according to some interpretations of the ordinance – would require businesses and state agencies to allow persons to use whichever restroom or locker room facilities they desired, regardless of their “biological sex.” (This was a distortion of the ordinance which, properly construed, would require public accommodations offering restroom facilities to make them available to transgender individuals without discrimination.)  Proponents of the “emergency” bill, stressing their concern to protection the privacy and safety of women and children from male predators who might declare themselves female in order to get access to female-designated facilities for nefarious purposes, secured passage of Section 1 of H.B. 2, the “bathroom bill” provision, which states that any restroom or similar single-sex designated facility operated by the state government (including subsidiary establishments such as public schools and the state university campuses) must designate multiple-user facilities as male or female and limit access according to the sex indicated on individuals’ birth certificates, labeled “biological sex” in the statute.

Another provision of the law preempted local civil rights legislation on categories not covered by state law, and prohibited lawsuits to enforce the state’s civil rights law. This would effectively supersede local ordinances, such as the recently-enacted Charlotte ordinance, wiping out its ban on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination as well as several other categories covered by Charlotte but not by the rather narrow state civil rights law, such as veteran status. This had the effect of lifting Charlotte’s mandate that places of public accommodation not discriminate in their restroom facilities based on gender identity or sexual orientation, and limited the ordinance’s sex discrimination prohibition to distinctions based on “biological sex.”  Although private sector facilities could, if their owners desired, adopt policies accommodating transgender individuals, they would not have to do so.

A furious round of litigation ensued, with cases brought in two of the three North Carolina federal districts by a variety of plaintiffs, including the three individuals in Carcano (represented by the ACLU of North Carolina and Lambda Legal), who are all transgender people covered by Title IX by virtue of being students or employees of the University of North Carolina. Equality North Carolina, a statewide lobbying group, is co-plaintiff in the case.  Governor McCrory and state Republican legislative leaders sued the federal government, seeking declaratory judgments that H.B. 2 did not violate federal sex discrimination laws, while the Justice Department sued the state officials, seeking a declaration that H.B. 2 did violate federal sex discrimination laws and the Constitution.  A religiously-oriented firm, Alliance Defending Freedom, sued on behalf of parents and students challenging the validity of the Justice Department’s adoption of its Guidelines on Title IX compliance.  There has been some consolidation of the lawsuits, which are at various stages of pretrial maneuvering, discovery and motion practice.  Judge Schroeder’s ruling responded solely to a motion for preliminary relief on behalf of the three plaintiffs in the case against UNC, Governor McCrory and other state officials, including Attorney General Roy Cooper, the Democratic candidate for governor against McCrory.  Cooper is refusing to defend H.B. 2, requiring McCrory to resort to other defense counsel.

The University of North Carolina’s reaction to the passage of H.B. 2 has been curious to watch. At first University President Margaret Spellings announced that UNC was bound by the state law and would comply with it.  Then, after a storm of criticism and the filing of lawsuits, Spellings pointed out that H.B. 2 had no enforcement provisions and that the University would not actively enforce it.  Indeed, in the context of this preliminary injunction motion, the state argued that there was no need for an injunction because the University was not interfering with the three plaintiffs’ use of restroom facilities consistent with their gender identity.  Thus, they argued, there was no harm to the plaintiffs and no reason to issue an order compelling the University not to enforce the bathroom provisions.  Judge Schroeder rejected this argument, pointing out that “UNC’s pronouncements are sufficient to establish a justiciable case or controversy.  The university has repeatedly indicated that it will – indeed, it must – comply with state law.  Although UNC has not changed the words and symbols on its sex-segregated facilities, the meaning of those words and symbols has changed as a result of [the bathroom provisions], and UNC has no legal authority to tell its students or employees otherwise.” In light of those provisions, he wrote, “the sex-segregated signs deny permission to those whose birth certificates fail to identify them as a match.  UNC can avoid this result only by either (1) openly defying the law, which it has no legal authority to do, or (2) ordering that all bathrooms, showers, and other similar facilities on its campuses be designated as single occupancy, gender-neutral facilities.  Understandably, UNC has chosen to do neither.”  Since UNC has not expressly given transgender students and staff permission to use gender-identity-consistent facilities and has acknowledged that H.B. 2 is “the law of the state,” there is a live legal controversy and a basis to rule on the preliminary injunction motion.

Perhaps the key factual finding of Judge Schroeder’s very lengthy written opinion was that the state had failed to show that allowing transgender people to use restroom facilities consistent with their gender identity posed any significant risk of harm to other users of those facilities, and he also found little support for the state’s privacy claims, although he did not dispute the sincerity with which those claims were put forward by legislators. Indeed, as described by the judge, the state has been rather lax in providing any factual basis for its safety and privacy claims in litigating on this motion, and had even failed until rather late in the process to provide a transcript of the legislative proceedings, leaving the court pretty much in the dark as to the articulated purposes for passing the bathroom provision. According to the judge, the only factual submission by the state consisted of some newspaper clippings about men in other states who had recently intruded into women’s restrooms in order to make a political point. This, of course, had nothing to do with transgender people or North Carolina. The judge also pointed out that North Carolina has long had criminal laws in place that would protect the safety and privacy interests of people using public restroom facilities.  In reality, these “justifications” showed that the bathroom provision was unnecessary.  For purposes of balancing the interests of the parties in deciding whether a preliminary injunction should be issued, Schroeder concluded that the harm to plaintiffs in deterring them from using appropriate restroom facilities was greater than any harm to defendants in granting the requested injunction, and that the public interest weighed in favor of allowing these three plaintiffs to use restroom facilities consistent with their gender identities without any fear of prosecution for trespassing.  (Since the bathroom provision has no explicit enforcement mechanism, Judge Schroeder found, its limited effect is to back up the criminal trespassing law by, for example, designating a “men’s room” as being off-limits to a transgender man.)

However, Judge Schroeder, commenting that the constitutional equal protection and due process claims asserted by the plaintiffs were less well developed in the motion papers before him, refused to premise his preliminary injunction on a finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving that H.B. 2’s bathroom provision violates the 14th Amendment.  Accepting for purposes of analysis that the plaintiffs were asserting a sex discrimination claim that invoked “heightened scrutiny” of the state’s justification for the bathroom provision, he concluded that it was not clear that the state could not meet that test, referring to 4th Circuit precedents on individual privacy and the state’s interest in protecting the individual privacy of users of public restroom facilities.  He reached a similar conclusion regarding the due process arguments, putting off any ruling on them to the fall when he will hold a hearing on the merits.  There will be pre-trial motions to decide in the other cases that were consolidated with this one for purposes of judicial efficiency, so this ruling was not the last word on preliminary relief or on the constitutional claims.

Judge Schroeder explained that his injunction directly protects only the three plaintiffs and not all transgender students and staff at UNC. “The Title IX claim currently before the court is brought by the individual transgender Plaintiffs on their own behalf,” he wrote; “the current complaint asserts no claim for class relief or any Title IX claim by ACLU-NC on behalf of its members.  Consequently, the relief granted now is as to the individual transgender Plaintiffs.”  Despite that technicality, of course, this preliminary injunction puts the University on notice that any action to exclude transgender students or staff from restroom facilities consistent with their gender identity has already been determined by the district court to be a likely violation of Title IX, which could deter enforcement more broadly.  Given the University’s position in arguing this motion that it was not undertaking enforcement activity under the bathroom bill anyway, there was no immediate need for a broader preliminary injunction in any event.

Judge Schroeder was appointed to the court in 2007 by President George W. Bush.

A Flood of New Litigation on LGBT Rights

Posted on: May 10th, 2016 by Art Leonard No Comments

May has brought a flood of litigation over LGBT rights in the federal courts. During the first few days of the month, half a dozen federal lawsuits were filed addressing either the transgender bathroom issue or continuing state-level resistance to marriage equality.

First out of the box was a lawsuit filed in federal court in Chicago on May 4 by two right-wing litigation groups – The Thomas More Society and the Alliance Defending Freedom – challenging the U.S. Department of Education’s agreement with Township School District 211 that settled a lawsuit about transgender restroom access.   Under the settlement agreement the school district will allow transgender students to use restrooms and other facilities consistent with their gender identity.  The case stirred considerable local controversy, and the litigation groups were able to recruit five students and their parents, banding together as “Students and Parents for Privacy,” to challenge the settlement.  They argue that the students have a fundamental constitutional right of “bodily privacy” that is violated when transgender students show up in the restroom, that the settlement violates the parents’ fundamental right to direct the education and upbringing of their children by exposing the children to such shocking things, and, perhaps most importantly, that the Education Department’s position that gender identity discrimination violates Title IX of the Education Amendments Act, a federal law that bans sex discrimination in schools that receive federal money, is a misinterpretation of that statute and was not validly adopted.

This last argument rests on a plausible reading of the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal statute that specifies procedures that federal agencies must follow when they adopt new regulations. While the Education Department has not adopted a regulation on the subject, the plaintiffs make a strong argument that its enforcement of its interpretation is tantamount to a regulation.  The plaintiffs argue that the Department is not free to take such a position without going through the formalities of the Administrative Procedure Act, because the Department is enforcing its view as if it was a regulation and because the position it is taking was consistently rejected for the first several decades of Title IX’s existence.  (The statute dates from the early 1970s.)  If the courts agree, the Department would have to go through a time-consuming process that could stretch out over many months in order to adopt a valid regulation, and then the regulation would be subject to challenge in the federal appeals courts, which could tie it up in litigation for years.

On the other hand, many of the plaintiffs’ arguments have already been rejected by the Richmond-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, when it ruled on April 19 that a federal court in Virginia should have deferred to the Education Department’s interpretation of Title IX in a case brought by a transgender boy seeking appropriate restroom access in his Virginia high school.  That ruling turned on the court’s agreement with the Education Department that existing statutory provisions and regulations (which allow schools to maintain separate restrooms for males and females) were ambiguous as to how to treat transgender people, justifying the Department in adopting a position consistent with its view of the purpose of the law to provide equal educational opportunity.  The 4th Circuit held that the district court should defer to the Department’s judgment, since it was not a clearly erroneous interpretation of the statute and the existing regulations.  In the Chicago lawsuit, the plaintiffs argue that the statute and regulations are not ambiguous, but this rests on their assertion that the Congress that passed Title IX so long ago could not have intended any meaning for the term “sex” other than “biological sex” as determined at birth.  The 4th Circuit, by contrast, found that the term “sex” without any explanatory statutory definition could have a variety of meanings depend upon the context in which it was used, and is thus inherently ambiguous.

Chicago is in the 7th Circuit, so the 4th Circuit’s ruling is not binding on the lawsuit filed there.  More than thirty years ago, the 7th Circuit ruled in a case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that discrimination because of gender identity did not violate the sex discrimination provision and the federal court in Chicago may find itself constrained, if not directly bound, by that precedent under a different but parallel statute, although thirty years of developments in the courts have arguably rendered it obsolete.  Federal courts have generally held that the term “sex” in Title VII and Title IX should be given the same meaning, and that cases construing one of those statutes can be consulted when construing the other.

Just five days later, on May 9, there was a flurry of new litigation in the U.S. District Courts of North Carolina, focused on the bathroom provisions of H.B. 2. H.B. 2 was introduced in the state legislature, approved by both houses and signed by Governor Pat McCrory in one day, March 23.  It wiped out local government bans on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination, quashed the right of North Carolinians to sue for any kind of discrimination in state courts, and prohibited localities from adopting their own rules on government contracting and minimum wages.  Most controversially, however, it provided that in all public facilities with restrooms, changing rooms, locker rooms and the like, multi-occupancy facilities must be segregated by biological sex, defined as the sex recorded on a person’s birth certificate.  The state’s attorney general, Roy Cooper, denounced the measure as discriminatory and said his office would not defend it.

Lambda Legal and the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit in the Middle District of North Carolina on March 28, challenging portions of H.B. 2 under the 14th Amendment and Title IX, and subsequently one of the transgender plaintiffs in the case also filed charges of discrimination under Title VII with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (which had ruled last year that Title VII requires employers to allow transgender employees to use restrooms consistent with their gender identity).  Within a few weeks, the 4th Circuit’s April 19 ruling in the Virginia Title IX case placed the legality of the bathroom provisions in doubt.  The controversy surrounding H.B. 2, especially the bathroom provision and the preemption of local anti-discrimination ordinances, caused adverse reactions that echoed throughout the country as governors and mayors prohibited official travel to North Carolina, some major employers announced reconsideration of plans to locate facilities there, and conventions and major musical performers cancelled activities in the state.  But Governor McCrory and the Republican state legislative leaders rejected calls to rescind the statute.

The Justice Department weighed in early in May, when the Civil Rights Division sent a letter to Governor McCrory, who had been vigorously defending the law in national media, informing him that the Justice Department considered the bathroom provision to violate federal sex discrimination laws and demanding a response by May 9. Governor McCrory’s response was to file a lawsuit on May 9, seeking a declaration from the federal district court in the Eastern District of North Carolina that the bathroom provisions did not violate federal civil rights laws.  U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch then held a press conference at which she unveiled a new lawsuit by the federal government against North Carolina, filed in the Middle District of North Carolina, seeking a declaration that the bathroom provision violates federal law.  Lynch’s statement, which quickly went viral on the internet, promised transgender people that the federal government recognized them and was standing behind them, thus putting the full weight of the Justice Department on the line backing the Education Department and the EEOC in their interpretations of “sex discrimination” under their respective statutes.

Since North Carolina Attorney General Cooper was refusing to defend H.B. 2, Governor McCrory retained a private lawyer, Karl S. Bowers, Jr., of Columbia, South Carolina, who filed the complaint co-signed by the governor’s General Counsel, Robert C. Stephens, and local North Carolina attorneys from the Raleigh firm of Millberg Gordon Stewart PLLC.  Presumably they will also be conducting the defense in the Justice Department’s case.  Their argument, consistent with McCrory’s public statements, was that the state was not discriminating against transgender people, merely requiring them to use alternative facilities in order to protect the privacy rights of others.  The complaint echoed the governor’s “common sense privacy policy” argument, and insisted that federal courts have “consistently” found that Title VII “does not protect transgender or transsexuality per se.”  While the complaint lists half a dozen federal court rulings supporting that position, it conveniently fails to note numerous court decisions holding to the contrary, including decisions by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Cincinnati, and district courts in many different states.

The Justice Department will probably move to transfer McCrory’s case to the Middle District of North Carolina, where it can be consolidated with the Justice Department’s lawsuit and perhaps the pending Lambda/ACLU lawsuit. There was another lawsuit defending H.B. 2 filed on May 9 in the Eastern District court by North Carolina Senate Leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) and House Speaker Tim Moore (R-Cleveland), but it is hard to conceive how they could have standing to bring a federal lawsuit on their own, so it is likely to be dismissed if the government makes a motion to that effect.

Meanwhile, there were also new litigation developments in Mississippi, challenging House Bill 1523, the so-called “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act.” HB 1523 was passed in response to the Supreme Court’s Obergefell marriage equality decision of last June 26.  Subsequent to Obergefell, the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal district court injunction against the state of Mississippi’s enforcement of its anti-gay marriage ban, and marriage equality came to the state.  State legislators quickly went to work undermining this by devising H.B. 1523, which essentially gives government officials, businesses, and religious believers permission to discriminate against same-sex couples, provided that the discriminators have a sincere religious belief that marriage should only involve one man and one woman.  The measure is scheduled to go into effect on July 1.

The ACLU lawsuit filed on May 9 in the federal court in Jackson, Mississippi, charges that H.B. 1523 violates the 14th Amendment “by subjecting the lawful marriages of same-sex couples to different terms and conditions than those accorded to different-sex couples.”  In effect, Mississippi has set up a “separate but equal” framework, which “imposes a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all married same-sex couples in Mississippi.”  The lawsuit names as defendant the Mississippi State Registrar of Vital Records, Judy Moulder.

Among its many discriminatory provisions, H.B. 1523 provides that government employees “who wish to recuse themselves from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples” will be required to Moulder, and she will be required to maintain a list of officials who have recused themselves from providing same-sex couples with the services that are routinely provided to different-sex couples, and they will be excused from providing these services to same-sex couples. These recusant officials are also charged by the statute with a requirement to make arrangements to insure that same-sex couples do receive the services to which they are entitled, but the statute does not establish any mechanism to ensure compliance with this provision.

The ACLU lawsuit seeks a declaration from the court that H.B. 1523 is unconstitutional “on its face” and an injunction against it going into effect.   It was immediately followed by more court action, as New York attorney Roberta Kaplan, who represents the plaintiffs in the Mississippi marriage equality case, filed a motion in federal district court on May 10, asking Judge Carlton Reeves to reopen the case so they can name Judy Moulder as an additional defendant and modify his injunction to require the state to come up with the necessary procedures to ensure that same-sex couples who seek to marry will not encounter any delays due to recusals on religious grounds by state officials.  Indeed, she argues, anyone recusing themselves from serving same-sex couples should be disqualified from serving different-sex couples as well, as failure to do so would violate the obligations of all state officials to provide non-discriminatory service. The motion also asks that the list of recusant officials be posted on the website of the Registrar of Vital Records so that couples won’t have to subject themselves to the indignity of being turned away when they seek marriage licenses.

 

New Judge Rules for Plaintiffs in Puerto Rico Marriage Equality Case

Posted on: April 8th, 2016 by Art Leonard No Comments

On April 7, U.S. District Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi issued an order declaring the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s statutory ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional in the case of Conde-Vidal v. Padilla.  This was a bit of an anti-climax, since the state government had been complying with the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling since last summer while awaiting some action in the lawsuit pending in federal court, but the pathway to the April 7 Order was not easy.

Lambda Legal represented a group of Puerto Rico residents who filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the statutory ban, Article 68 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, title 31, section 221, after the Supreme Court had declared DOMA unconstitutional.   At a time when federal trial judges around the country seemed to be competing with each other to see how fast they could strike down state bans on same-sex marriage, District Judge Juan M. Perez-Gimenez was determined to be an outlier.  On October 21, 2014, he granted the Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss the case, relying on the Supreme Court’s decades-old Baker v. Nelson ruling and the lack of any marriage equality ruling by the federal courts in the First Circuit.  (The First Circuit comprises most of the New England states, where marriage equality was achieved through state court litigation, referenda and state legislative action, without any assistance from the federal courts.)

This dismissal seemed particularly odd because it came just a few weeks after the Supreme Court refused to review the pro-marriage equality rulings by federal appeals courts in the 4th, 7th and 10th Circuits, and those circuit courts had all ruled that Baker v. Nelson was no longer a controlling precedent.

Lambda filed an appeal to the 1st Circuit, which then put the appeal on hold when the Supreme Court announced early in 2015 that it would review an anti-marriage equality decision that had been issued by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

Shortly after the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015 that state bans on same-sex marriage violate the 14th Amendment, Puerto Rico Governor Alejandro Padilla, the lead defendant in Lambda’s case, issued an order that the state government comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling, and the Commonwealth agreed to file a joint motion with Lambda in the 1st Circuit, informing that court that all parties to the case agreed that the Puerto Rico ban was unconstitutional.  The 1st Circuit agreed as well, vacated Judge Perez-Gimenez’s decision on July 8, 2015, and sent the case back to him “for further consideration in light of Obergefell.”  At that time, the 1st Circuit stated, “We agree with the parties’ joint position that the ban is unconstitutional.  Mandate to issue forthwith.”

But Judge Perez-Gimenez did not take action “forthwith.”  Instead, he pondered for eight months, and then issued a peculiar decision on March 8, 2016, stating that the Supreme Court’s decision did not necessarily apply to Puerto Rico because of its commonwealth status.  This was nonsense, because a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1976 had ruled that the residents of Puerto Rico are entitled to the rights protected under the 14th Amendment, which was the provision underlying the marriage equality ruling.

Once again Lambda Legal petitioned the 1st Circuit, which responded on April 7: “The district court’s ruling errs in so many respects,” said the court, “that it is hard to know where to begin.” After pointing out the 1976 Supreme Court ruling, the court observed that its own mandate from July 8 was clear, and the federal district court was obligated to follow it.

The appeals court ordered that the clerk of the district court randomly assign the case to a different judge “to enter judgment in favor of the Petitioners promptly, and to conduct any further proceedings necessary in this action.”

Acting with alacrity, the clerk reassigned the case immediately to Judge Gelpi, who quickly issued his Order the same afternoon. As part of the Order, Gelpi scheduled a conference of the lawyers in the case in his chambers on April 11, by which time he hoped they would have drafted a joint stipulation for him to endorse as the final judgment in the case.  Once that is done, presumably, the plaintiffs can file a motion for attorney fees and costs as the prevailing parties.

North Carolina H.B. 2 Draws ACLU/Lambda Lawsuit and Numerous Protest Actions

Posted on: March 31st, 2016 by Art Leonard No Comments

 

Within days of Governor Pat McCrory, a Republican, signing into law H.B. 2, an “emergency measure” that passed with unanimous support of the Republicans in the North Carolina legislature to restrict public restroom access for transgender people and preempt localities from legislating on LGBT rights, the ACLU’s national LGBT Rights Project and its North Carolina affiliate in collaboration with the Atlanta office of Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, attacking the constitutionality of the measure. %Caracano v. McCrory%, No. 1:16-cv-236 (filed March 28, 2016).  The case was assigned to District Judge Thomas D. Schroeder.  North Carolina’s attorney general, Roy Cooper III, one of the named defendants in his official capacity, soon announced that he agreed with the plaintiffs that H.B. 2 was unconstitutional and so his office would not defend it.  Cooper is planning to run for governor against McCrory.

Social and political fallout responding to the new statute was swift. Governors from three states and mayors from several major cities had banned official travel by their employees to North Carolina within a week after the bill was signed, scores of corporate executives, including many from the state’s largest employers, signed letters to the governor deploring the measure, and talk had begun about professional sports leagues possibly shifting championship games out of the state.  Particular attention was focused on a large furniture trade fair held annually in North Carolina, organized by a gay couple, with the organizers reporting that many of the usual participants had indicated that they would not come this year due to passage of the law.  Efforts to put pressure on the state legislature through a tourism and business boycott were soon well under way. Governor McCrory dug in his heels, claiming that the law was not “discriminatory” and was intended to protect the private of public restroom users, charging that Attorney General Cooper’s announced refusal to defend the measure was a violation of his oath of office, a point that Cooper hotly disputed.  McCrory’s position was quickly undermined as Governor Nathan Deal, a fellow Republican, vetoed an anti-gay “religious freedom” measure in Georgia just days later, to be followed shortly by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe.

Passage of H.B. 2 was provoked by a majority vote of the Charlotte City Council to add sexual orientation and gender identity to its local civil rights ordinance effective April 1, over protests by opponents that this would allow men pretending to be women to invade women’s restroom facilities, thus violating the privacy of their female users and posing a danger of sexual assaults. The claim was bizarre on its face, since scores of municipalities and counties, and many states, have banned gender identity discrimination in places of public accommodation, some for a decade or more, without any such incidents being reported.  Furthermore, somebody identified as male at birth but asserting a female gender identity would not likely attempt to use a woman’s restroom or locker room facility if they were not expressing their gender identity as female through dress and grooming and taking female hormones through a prescription written by a doctor who has diagnosed gender dysphoria, and such is the experience under such laws in other jurisdictions.  But Governor McCrory, running for re-election and seeking to energize his conservative (and presumably transphobic) base, had warned even before the Council voted that passage of the measure in the city where he had previously served as mayor would require a response from the state government.  Although McCrory did not call for the special session, which was initiated by Republican leaders in both houses, he signed the resulting bill with alacrity, probably setting speed records for a controversial measure being introduced, passing both houses, and being signed into law in a single legislative day.  Some state legislators protested that they did not even receive the text of the bill prior to the day’s floor debates.

Although the “provocation” focused on restrooms, the legislative response ran far beyond a simple overturning of the gender identity provision of the local ordinance as it pertains to public accommodations or more narrowly to specific kinds of facilities. Instead, the legislature affirmatively enacted a %requirement% that the public schools and other government facilities throughout the state restrict access to any “multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility” by designating each such facility as being for the exclusive use of males or females and providing that only persons identified on their birth certificates as male could use male-designated facilities and analogously  for women.  Since North Carolina requires proof of sex reassignment surgery before issuing new birth certificates to applicants seeking a change to reflect their gender identity, and many transgender people don’t undergo complete reassignment surgery for a variety of reasons, including the expense of a procedure not covered by their health insurance, many transgender people would be left in effect without ready access to appropriate restroom facilities.  Use of facilities consistent with their birth certificates could subject them to violent reactions, especially noting the gun culture of southern states like North Carolina.  (Imagine the danger to a transgender man coming into a female-designated restroom occupied by women with pistols!)  The legislature apparently gave no thought to how its restroom restrictions would be enforced in practice, an issue not addressed in the statute.  Indeed, the statute directs its mandate to “local boards of education” and government “agencies” to “establish” single-sex facilities and restrict their use, but does not explicitly impose penalties for failure to do so, and says nothing specifically about penalties, if any, imposed on persons apprehended using the “wrong” restrooms.  We are waiting for somebody to confront Gov. McCrory in a men’s restroom in the state capitol to demand that he prove his “biological sex,” presumably by exposing his penis to inspection.  But we digress. . . .

The legislature went even further. Not contenting itself with addressing the “bathroom” issue, it also passed a provision preempting local governments from forbidding discrimination in employment and public accommodations by declaring such issues as properly reserved to statewide resolution.  Just to drive the point home and to avoid arguments about broadly defining bans on sex discrimination, the preempting statute bans discrimination on the basis of “biological sex,” which is defined according to the individual’s sex as designated on their birth certificate.  The measure also eschews creating any private right of action for discrimination in employment or public accommodations, instead limiting enforcement to complaints to the Human Relations Commission, which is authorized to “investigate and conciliate” but not to legislate, the goal being to resolve all complaints from “amicable resolution.”  This effectively preempted and wiped out all local civil rights laws, and because of the limited list of categories covered in H.B. 2, incidentally eliminated some local protections for veterans.  While they were at it, the legislators threw into the bill a totally unrelated prohibition on local governments legislating on public contracting, wages and hours, child labor, and other subjects dealt with by the state’s wage and hours law, including prohibiting localities from establishing a minimum wage higher than the state’s rather low minimum.  The thread tying these provisions together was a purported bid for “statewide consistency” in employment regulation, contracting, and anti-discrimination policies, the “theory” being that allowing localities to legislate would make life too difficult for businesses and confusing for everybody else.

The lawsuit was brought in the name of two state university employees, Joaquin Carcano (a transgender man at UNC Chapel Hill) and Angela Gilmore (a lesbian at Northern Carolina Central University Law School) and a current student, Payton Grey McGarry (a transgender man at UNC Greensboro), as well as the ACLU of North Carolina (a legal membership organization) and Equality North Carolina (a political membership organization). The named defendants are Governor Patrick McCrory, Attorney General Roy Cooper III, the University of North Carolina and its Board of Governors, and the UNC Board’s chair, W. Louis Bissette, Jr.

The complaint proceeds along several lines, constitutional and statutory. The constitutional claim was that H.B. 2 violates the 14th Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, by imposing harms on transgender and lesbian/gay/bisexual residents of the state without sufficient justification to meet constitutional requirements.  The complaint asserts that heightened scrutiny judicial review applies to these sorts of discrimination, a point not yet expressly embraced by the Supreme Court but starting to make its way in the lower federal courts.  (For example, the 11th Circuit, in %Glenn v. Brumby%, 663 F.3d 1312 (2011), found that gender identity discrimination by a public employer was sex discrimination subject to heightened scrutiny.  The Obama Administration argued in the %Windsor% case that sexual orientation discrimination was subject to heightened scrutiny, a point embraced by the 2nd Circuit in that litigation.)  The Due Process Clause claim includes a privacy claim, arguing that the bathroom restrictions will require transgender people to “out” themselves, thus exposing themselves to danger, and that in light of the state’s demanding criteria for issuing new birth certificates, in effect dictating to transgender people that they must undergo surgical procedures to attain equal access to appropriate public facilities for their gender, another imposition upon individual choice and autonomy.  The complaint also asserts violations of Title IX of the federal Education Act Amendments, which forbid sex discrimination by educational institutions that get federal money.  This relies on recent decisions by the U.S. Department of Education that this provision requires educational institutions to allow transgender people to access restroom and locker room facilities consistent with their gender identity.

The complaint also attacks the preemption of local laws protective of LGBT rights, summoning an argument based on the Supreme Court’s 1996 decision in %Romer v. Evans%, which struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment prohibiting the state or its political subdivisions from outlawing anti-gay discrimination.  Unlike the Colorado amendment, H.B. 2 does not single out LGBT people for exclusion from protection on its face, excluding them instead by %not% mentioning them sexual orientation or gender identity as prohibited grounds of discrimination and preempting local governments from legislating on discrimination.  But the rationale of %Romer% seems to apply, in that the measure was adopted for the proclaimed purpose of excluding LGBT people from the protections afforded to other groups that suffer discrimination, with no rational basis articulated other than a desire to exclude.  Another argument that seems relevant here would be derived from the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in %U.S. v. Windsor% striking down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.  The government sought to defend the refusal to recognize same-sex marriages contracted under state law by advancing the need for a national unified definition of marriage for purposes of federal rights and programs, similar to North Carolina’s argument for “statewide consistency” in anti-discrimination law.  The Supreme Court did not even find that justification significant enough to dignify it with discussion.

Since Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans sex discrimination in employment, applies to state and local government workplaces, the restroom provisions likely violate Title VII consistent with the views of the EEOC, as expressed in %Lusardi v. McHugh%, Appeal No. 0120133395, 2015 WL 1607756 (EEOC, April 1, 2015, holding that the Department of the Army violated Title VII by refusing by restricting restroom access of a transgender civilian employee.  Title VII claims must be filed initially with the EEOC or designated state civil rights agencies, subject to an “exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement,” before they can be brought in federal court, so no Title VII claim was asserted in this challenge to H.B. 2.  However, it is possible that transgender state and local government employees will file such complaints, generating additional litigation as the %Carcano% case works its way through the federal courts. EEOC is busy litigating, directly and through amicus briefs in private litigation, to establish its position on the interpretation of “sex” under Title VII in non-federal employment cases in the courts, and a private “bathroom” case under Title IX is pending before the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, %G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board%, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124905, 2015 WL 5560190 (E.D. Va. September 17, 2015). (Federal courts generally consider Title VII sex discrimination and Title IX cases under the same doctrinal rubric and freely refer to court decisions under both statutes.)  Indeed, the %G.G.% appeal has been argued before a circuit panel and a ruling is imminent. Such a ruling would be direct binding precedent on the district court in the case challenging H.B. 2.

The legal team representing plaintiffs includes Christopher A. Brook for the North Carolina Legal Foundation of the ACLU, Elizabeth O. Gill and Chase B. Strangio of the ACLU’s national LGBT Rights Project, and Tara L. Borelli, Peter C. Renn, and Kyle A. Palazzolo of Lambda Legal’s Atlanta office.

[Government officials from other states taking official action to ban state-funded employee trips to North Carolina included New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (Executive Order No. 155), New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin, Washington State Governor Jay Inslee, Seattle Mayor Edward Murray (Executive Order 2016-03), San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.]

Federal Judge in Puerto Rico Claims Obergefell v. Hodges Does Not Apply There

Posted on: March 9th, 2016 by Art Leonard No Comments

In an astonishing departure from established precedents, U.S. District Judge Juan M. Perez-Gimenez of the U.S. District Court in Puerto Rico, who had dismissed a marriage equality lawsuit on October 21, 2014, has issued a new decision on March 8, 2016, Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29651, asserting that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on June 26, 2015 in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry in the United States, does not necessarily apply to Puerto Rico.

Lambda Legal represents the plaintiffs in that marriage equality case.  Lambda appealed the court’s 2014 ruling to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over federal cases arising in Puerto Rico.  That court held up ruling on the appeal until after the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell.  On July 8, 2015, the 1st Circuit vacated Judge Perez-Gimenez’s decision and sent the case back to the district court “for further consideration in light of Obergefell v. Hodges.”  In its brief order, the 1st Circuit also stated that it “agrees with the parties’ joint position that the ban [on same-sex marriage] is unconstitutional.”  A week later, the parties filed a “Joint Motion for Entry of Judgment” with the district court, asking for a declaration that Puerto Rico’s statutory ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, and an injunction ordering the commonwealth government not to enforce the ban.

In a  footnote to his opinion, Judge Perez-Gimenez observed that Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla had signed an Executive Order “just hours after the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell” directing Puerto Rico government officials to comply with that ruling, an action that provoked some members of the Puerto Rico legislature to file a lawsuit in the local courts challenging his action.  That case has apparently gone nowhere, and the government of Puerto Rico has been issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognizing their marriages performed elsewhere.

Perez-Gimenez explained that in Obergefell the Supreme Court invoked the 14th Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses to hold that the same-sex marriage bans in the four states within the jurisdiction of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee) were unconstitutional because they deprived same-sex couples of a fundamental right to marry, thus abridging their liberty and denying equal protection of the laws.  He also noted that some lower federal courts have acknowledged that Obergefell v. Hodges was technically ruling on the state constitutions and laws of those four states, and thus had not automatically mooted cases pending in the 5th, 8th and 11th Circuit Courts of Appeals involving same-sex marriage bans in other states, although those courts quickly issued rulings applying Obergefell as a precedent to the marriage equality cases arising from states under their jurisdiction.

More significantly, Judge Perez-Gimenez claimed that because Puerto Rico is neither a “state” nor an “incorporated territory,” but rather an “unincorporated territory” with extensive self-government rights under a federal statute making it a “commonwealth,” there is some question whether the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell is a binding precedent in Puerto Rico.  He pointed out, that the 14th Amendment provides expressly that “no state” may deprive a person of due process or equal protection, and that because Puerto Rico is not a state, the 14th Amendment’s applicability is not clear.  He cited a variety of older Supreme Court decisions making the general point that all provisions of the U.S. Constitution do not necessarily apply to Puerto Rico in all circumstances.

What he neglected to cite, however, was a case pointed out by Joshua Block, an ACLU attorney who spoke with Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed.com shortly after Perez-Gimenez issue his ruling: a 1976 Supreme Court decision, Examining Board of Engineers v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572 (1976), in which the Court stated, in an opinion by Justice Harry Blackmun, “The Court’s decisions respecting the rights of the inhabitants of Puerto Rico have been neither unambiguous nor exactly uniform.  The nature of this country’s relationship to Puerto Rico was vigorously debated within the Court as well as within the Congress.  It is clear now, however, that the protections accorded either by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment or the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment apply to residents of Puerto Rico.”

In that case, the Court was considering the constitutionality of a local Puerto Rican statute imposing a citizenship requirement before somebody could be licensed to practice as a civil engineer.  The Court held that the requirement violated equal protection, based on its precedents interpreting both the 5th and 14th Amendments, under which the Court imposes “strict scrutiny” on federal or state laws that discriminate based on alienage.  That is, the government must have a compelling justification before it can deny a right or benefit to somebody because they are not a U.S. citizen.  In a prior case, Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663 (1974), the Court had specifically held that the due process requirements of the 5th and 14th Amendment also applied to Puerto Rico, limiting the right of the government to restrict the rights of property-owners.

Thus, Judge Perez-Gimenez’s insistence that the Supreme Court’s holding concerning the rights of same-sex couples under the 14th Amendment does not apply to persons present in Puerto Rico appears contrary to a Supreme Court precedent.

Nonetheless, Perez-Gimenez, without acknowledging these Supreme Court decisions, held that “the right to same-sex marriage in Puerto Rico requires: (a) further judicial expression by the U.S. Supreme Court; or (b) the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico; (c) incorporation through legislation enacted by Congress, in the exercise of the powers conferred by the Territorial Clause; or (d) by virtue of any act or statute adopted by the Puerto Rico Legislature that amends or repeals Article 68 [the local law banning same-sex marriage].”

Had there been any doubt that the Obergefell ruling applies to Puerto Rico, the 1st Circuit would have expressed that doubt as part of its consideration of the appeal from Perez-Gimenez’s prior ruling in the case.  Instead, that court expressly stated its agreement with the joint position stated by the parties in that case that the Puerto Rico ban was unconstitutional.  Lambda Legal will promptly appeal this ruling to the 1st Circuit.  In the meantime, presumably the governor’s executive order remains in effect.

Lambda Legal’s Wisconsin Birth Certificate Litigation Hits Speed Bump

Posted on: January 1st, 2016 by Art Leonard No Comments

Lambda Legal’s federal lawsuit seeking to compel Wisconsin officials to issue appropriate birth certificates for children of married same-sex couples hit a speed bump on December 16 when U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb denied Lambda’s motion for class certification and summary judgment in Torres v. Rhoades, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169965, 2015 WL 9304584 (W.D. Wis.).  Lambda sued on behalf of plaintiffs Chelsea Torres and Jessamy Torres and their minor child, A.T.   A.T. was born as a result of donor insemination performed in compliance with Wisconsin statutes, and the women were legally married before A.T. was born, but Wisconsin officials refused to issue a birth certificate listing both women as mothers of A.T., asserting that the non-birth mother would have to go through an adoption proceeding to get her name on an amended birth certificate.

Under Wisconsin statutes a birth certificate lists the woman who gave birth to the child and her legal husband.  Furthermore, the statute governing birth certificates provides that if a child was conceived through donor insemination in compliance with a Wisconsin statute that requires that a licensed physician supervise the process and that the woman’s husband give written consent to the procedure, then the wife and husband are both listed on the birth certificate.  If the husband does not give written consent, he is not listed on the birth certificate, even though he is married to the birth mother.  Furthermore, if the donor insemination is not carried out in compliance with the statute, only the birth mother is listed on the birth certificate, even though she is married.  Chelsea and Jessamy Torres complied with the statute, having a doctor supervise the insemination procedure and the non-birth mother giving written consent, with the sperm donor waiving all claim to parental rights.

The motion seeking class certification proposed a class consisting of “all same-sex couples who legally married in Wisconsin or in another jurisdiction, at least one member of whom gave birth to a child or children in Wisconsin on or after June 6, 2014, and who request birth certificates for such children listing both spouses as parents, regardless of whether they have already received birth certificates listing only one spouse as a parent; and all children born to such couples on or after June 6, 2014.”  The date is significant because it is the date on which Judge Crabb declared Wisconsin’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional in Wolf v. Walker, 986 F. Supp. 2d 982 (W.D. Wis. 2014).  Wisconsin Department of Health Secretary Kitty Rhoades opposed the proposed class by arguing that the proposed class representatives, the Torres couple and their child, could not properly represent the interests of all proposed class members, since the class as described would take in people who conceived their children in different ways, and thus would present different issues regarding entitlement to placing a name on a birth certificate as a parent.

The proposed class would not, as a matter of fact, including same-sex male couples, just female couples, but Secretary Rhoades pointed out that women can become pregnant in at least three ways relevant to the issues presented to the court.  A female couple could conceive through donor insemination carried out in compliance with the state’s assisted conception statute, involving supervision by a physician and written consent by the non-birth parent; or, they could conceive through donor insemination that does not comply with the statute; or, in presumably the rare case, they could conceive by the birth mother having sex with a man to whom she presumably was not married.  (This is not so far-fetched; there is at least one case from another state in which a woman became pregnant through sex with a male friend while her relationship with her same-sex partner was “on hiatus” and the women resumed their partnership before the child was born. . .)  Rhoades argued that because the proposed class representatives fit into only the first category, they could not represent the second and third categories, whose cases would present different legal issues when viewed from the perspective of equal protection of the laws and due process under the 14th Amendment, which were the constitutional grounds cited by Lambda for the lawsuit.

Judge Crabb agreed with Rhoades that “subclasses” would be needed and new plaintiffs would have to be joined as class representatives in order to give the court jurisdiction to deal with the birth certificate issues that would be raised by the other two classes.  “The general rule in this circuit is that a plaintiff cannot be an adequate representative of the class if she is not subject to the same defenses as other members of the class, at least if the defense is central to the litigation,” wrote Judge Crabb.  In this case, while the state is essentially conceding that after Obergefell v. Hodges it doesn’t have a good defense to the claims of married same-sex couples who complied with the donor insemination statute, it could oppose the claims of those who didn’t comply, or of those who conceived by a member of the couple having sexual intercourse with a man to whom she was not married.  Judge Crabb found that the circuit’s rule applies to this case.

She agreed with Lambda that the claims regarding birth certificates would be appropriate for class treatment, but she could not certify Lambda’s plaintiff couple and their child as representatives for the broad class described in the motion.  In light of her decision that the proposed class could not be certified, Judge Crabb held that it would be premature to grant Lambda’s motion for summary judgment.  She pointed out that the state has actually conceded that the first subclass of same-sex couples who followed the requirements of the donor insemination statute should be entitled to get both names on the birth certificate without the non-birth mother going through an adoption, and had offered to amend the birth certificates of all couples who had complied with that statute, but plaintiffs had declined the offer in order to maintain this class action.

Judge Crabb also opined that Lambda’s request for a declaration that various Wisconsin statutes unconstitutionally discriminate against same-sex married couples seemed overbroad in light of the subject matter of the litigation.  Lambda was attacking not only the birth certificate statute and the donor insemination statute to the extent that their application discriminates against same-sex couples, but also the paternal presumption statute, for failing to address the legal status of the non-birth parent in a same-sex married couple.  That statute as worded provides that “a man is presumed to be the natural father of a child” who is born to his wife, but that the presumption could be rebutted by showing through genetic testing that another man is the actual natural father of the child.  Crabb commented, “Plaintiffs do not explain how that presumption relates to birth certificates, which is the only issue plaintiffs raise in this case.”  She pointed out that the paternal presumption statute “seems to involve issues that arise later,” such as obligations for child support or inheritance rights.  “Plaintiffs do not include any allegations in their amended complaint showing how they are being injured by [the paternal presumption statute], which raises the question whether they have standing to challenge that statute.  Standing is a jurisdictional issue, so I cannot ignore it even if defendant does not raise an objection.  Thus, if plaintiffs plan to continue to seek a ruling regarding the constitutionality of [the paternal presumption statute], they will have to show that one or more plaintiffs meet all the requirements for standing.”

The judge specified that her ruling denying Lambda’s motions was “without prejudice,” and she gave Lambda until February 1, 2016, to file a new class certification motion.  Either they will have to narrow their proposed class to same-sex married couples who complied with the donor insemination statute, or they will have to recruit additional plaintiffs and seek certification of several subclasses.  In addition, if they want to attack the paternal presumption statute as part of this case, they will need to recruit plaintiffs who can show some sort of concrete harm due to the failure to that statute to take on a gender-neutral parental presumption approach that would apply to same-sex couples.  In light of these rulings, Judge Crabb also struck the contemplated trial date of February 10, 2016, observing that after a new class certification is ruled upon, the court will set a new trial date, but that if the plaintiffs do not file a renewed class certification by February 1, the court would set a new trial date with the case proceeding on behalf of the named plaintiffs without class certification (in which case, by implication, the court’s ruling on the merits would only deal with the claims of married same-sex couples who complied with the donor insemination statute).

In an earlier ruling on December 16, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167977, Judge Crabb pointed out that ordinarily a summary judgment motion would not be ruled upon in a class action case until after the class is certified and notice is sent to class members so they can opt out or opt in as the case may be.  “Presumably the parties do not believe that the class is entitled to notice in this case because neither side mentions notice in their filings,” wrote Crabb, but she pointed out that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that notice should be given “to enable class members to challenge the class representatives or otherwise intervene in the suit, rather than to allow them to opt out.”  Crabb asserted that it was difficult for her to decide whether notice should be required in this case without any input from the parties, so she gave the parties until December 30, 2015, “to show cause why the class should not receive notice in the event that the court grants the motion for class certification.  In addition, the parties should address the question of how notice would be provided if that is what the court orders.”  Judge Crabb’s December 21 ruling mentioned the December 16 order in passing, but did not indicate whether the time for response would be extended in light of the denial of class certification.

Counsel for plaintiffs include Camilla Taylor, Christopher Clark and Kyle Palazzolo from Lambda’s Chicago office, and local counsel Clearesia Lovell-Lepak and Tamara Beth Packard, both of Madison, Wisconsin.