Get Your New Connecticut Birth Certificate

Transsexuals Can Sue Under Disability Laws

Hillary Clinton says "NO" to the Trans-Communities

Six Year Old Trans Child Removed from Supportive Parents

A recent change to state law, effective October, 2001, allows transgender people with birth certificates issued in Connecticut to get those certificates reissued With individuals current, rather than assigned-at-birth, sex. According to the new law, upon filing of proof of gender change, a new birth certificate will be issued and the original will remain under permanent seal reviewable by no one other than select public officials and the person to whom the certificate is issued. Unlike the old law, the new one provides for the issuance of a new certificate with the currently designated gender. The new certificate should give no indication regarding the originally designated gender.

A word of caution to transgender people traveling: In light of the new security mechanisms currently in place, particularly at airports and border crossings, transgender people are strongly advised, wherever possible, to ensure that their identification documents match their gender expression. Obviously, this will not be possible for all people in light of government office's and agency's refusal in some cases to cooperate. In the alternative, it is probably helpful to carry medical documentation if official documents are inconsistent with gender expression. This notice is not, in any way, intended to create undue alarm. It is just a friendly reminder that we are living in some crazy times.

index

While there is no explicit protection in the law for transsexual or transgendered persons in Connecticut, in a pathbreaking ruling, the CHRO ruled in November, 2000, that transgendered people may be protected under the law's existing prohibitions of sex discrimination. The case involved a transsexual and the CHRO ruled in part,

"Unlike several federal enactments, Connecticut law does not contain any exclusion, express or implied, of transsexuals from the general prohibitions against sex discrimination. . . . [T]his CHRO declares that transsexuals may pursue claims of sex discrimination [under Connecticut statutes]."

Declaratory Ruling on Behalf of John/Jane Doe, November 9, 2000.

In some cases, an individual's gender identity may be regarded as "a gay issue" by some entities and therefore allow a person to bring a sexual orientation claim. More to the point, however, in some cases a transsexual person or transgendered person may have a claim of sex discrimination if he or she is adversely treated at work or in housing. If the adverse action is triggered by the sense that the individual does not meet the expectations of or act like a "real man" or "real woman," then this can be the basis for a sex-stereotyping claim. See Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 251 (1989); Rosa v. Park West Bank, 214 F.3d 213 (1st Cir. 2000).

You may file in person or in writing at the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) www.state.ct.us/chro/. The main office of the CHRO is at 21 Grand St., Hartford, CT 06106. You should call them because they will want you to file your case in the appropriate regional office. Their number is (800) 477-5737 and you can reach their website at www.state.ct.us/chro.

The complaint must be under oath, state the name and address of the individual making the complaint as well as the entity he or she is complaining against (called the "respondent"). The complaint must set out the particulars of the alleged unlawful acts and it is advisable also to state the times they occurred. Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 46a-82.

If you are a state employee, you may file your case directly in court. State employees can skip over the CHRO process entirely.

No. The process is designed to allow people to represent themselves. However, GLAD strongly encourages people to find lawyers to represent them throughout the process. Not only are there many legal rules governing the CHRO process, but also employers and other defendants are likely to have legal representation.

For most people, a complaint must be filed with the CHRO within 180 days of the last discriminatory act or acts. Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 46a-82(e). There are extremely limited exceptions for lateness, and GLAD encourages people to move promptly in filing claims.

Yes. The state non-discrimination laws for employment forbid taking an action against someone because of sexual orientation as well as race, color, religion, creed, age, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, present or past history of mental disorder, mental retardation, learning disability or physical disability. Conn. Gen. Stat. 46a-60. In housing, the criteria include most of the above as well as "lawful source of income or familial status." Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 46a-64c. Public accommodations are also broad, but do not include a few of the above characteristics. Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 46a-64.

When you file a complaint with the CHRO, you will be given a packet of information explaining the CHRO procedures and deadlines. Please review these and follow the deadlines.

After filing your complaint, and within 90 days of receiving the answer of the respondent, the CHRO will review the complaint and answer to determine if any further investigation is necessary. This is called a merit assessment review. Since many cases are dismissed at this stage of the proceedings, it is important that you reply to the respondent's answer within 15 days of receiving it.

After the merit assessment review, if the CHRO believes there is "reasonable cause" to believe discrimination occurred, it requires the parties to explore the possibilities of settling their differences. If negotiations fail to produce a settlement agreeable to all parties, the case proceeds further. At that point, the parties may engage in limited "discovery" -- a legal process which allows the other side to examine the basis of your claim and allows you to examine their justifications and defenses. This is conducted through written questions (interrogatories) and document requests. Ultimately, if the case is not dismissed for technical reasons, a Hearing Officer will decide the merits of the case in a trial-type hearing.

Note that in housing discrimination cases, the CHRO must complete both its investigation and final disposition within 100 days of when the complaint is filed, unless it is impracticable to do so. Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 46a-81e(e).

Employment: may include hiring, reinstatement or upgrading, backpay, restoration in a labor organization, cease and desist orders, and other relief that would fulfill the purposes of the anti-discrimination laws (e.g. training programs, posting of notices). Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 46a-86 (a - c).

(Note that when cases are filed in court, emotional distress damages and attorneys' fees are also available to a successful complainant. These are not available from the CHRO See Bridgeport Hospital v. CHRO, 232 Conn. 91 (1995); Delvecchio v. Griggs & Browne Co., Inc., 2000 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1149 (April 17, 2000)("The CHRO is without authority to award a prevailing party attorneys' fees, punitive or compensatory damages or damages for emotional distress").

Housing: damages (expenses actually incurred because of unlawful action related to moving, storage, obtaining alternate housing); cease and desist orders, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and other relief that would fulfill the purposes of the anti-discrimination laws. Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 46a-86 (a, c). The CHRO may also order civil fines to be paid to the state. Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 46a-81e(f).

Public Accommodations: cease and desist orders, and other relief that would fulfill the purposes of the anti-discrimination laws. The CHRO may also order civil fines to be paid to the state. Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 46a-86 (a); sec. 46a-64 (c).

Credit: cease and desist orders, and other relief that would fulfill the purposes of the anti-discrimination laws (e.g. allowing person to apply for credit on non-discriminatory terms). Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 46a-86 (a); sec. 46a-98 (outlining additional damages available for cases filed in Superior Court within one year of discriminatory act).

This is a decision you should make with your lawyer. Greater damages are available to you in state court than at the CHRO, including emotional distress damages and attorney's fees.

To sue an entity in state court as opposed to the CHRO, you must follow several steps and meet various deadlines. Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 46a-101 to 46a-102.

1. Your complaint must have been filed on time at the CHRO (i.e., within 180 days of the last act of discrimination);

2. Your complaint must have been pending with the CHRO more than 210 days (although if you and your employer agree to request the case's removal to court, you may do so before the 210 days elapse);

3. You must request a release of your complaint from the CHRO for the purpose of filing a court action (which the CHRO must grant except when the case is scheduled for public hearing or they believe the complaint can be resolved within 30 days);

4. You must file your court action within 2 years of the date of filing your complaint with the CHRO; and

5. You must file your court action within 90 days after you receive a release from the CHRO to file your case in court.

Depending on the facts of your particular situation, you may be able to file your complaint of discrimination with other agencies. This outline concerns only Connecticut non-discrimination law, and you may well have other rights.

Union: If you are a member of a union, your contract (collective bargaining agreement) may provide additional rights to you in the event of discipline, discharge or other job-related actions. If you obtain relief under your contract, you may even decide not to pursue other remedies. Get and read a copy of your contract and contact a union steward about filing a complaint. Deadlines in contracts are strict. Bear in mind that if your union refuses to assist you with a complaint, you may have a discrimination action against them for their failure to work with you, or for failure of their duty of fair representation.

Federal Agencies: Sometimes an action states a claim for a violation of federal law in addition to state law. For example, federal law forbids discrimination based on race, sex, age, religion and disability, but not on the basis of sexual orientation. Thus, a gay person with HIV who is fired from a job can file with the CHRO as well as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. To file claims under federal law, the employer must have at least 15 employees. (People who work for federal agencies are beyond the scope of this publication.).

State or Federal Court: After filing with the CHRO or EEOC, or both, as discussed above, a person may decide to remove his or her discrimination case from those agencies and file in court. There are rules about when and how this must be done as discussed above. In addition, a person may file a court case to address other claims which are not appropriately handled by discrimination agencies. For example, if a person is fired in violation of a contract, or fired without the progressive discipline promised in a handbook, or fired for doing something the employer doesn't like but which the law requires, then these matters are beyond the scope of what the agencies can investigate and the matter should be pursued in court. If a person has a claim for a violation of constitutional rights, such as a teacher who believes his or her free speech or equal protection rights were violated, then those matters must be heard in court.

It is illegal to retaliate in these circumstances, and the employee could file an additional complaint against the employer for retaliation. "Retaliation" protections cover those who oppose any discriminatory employment practice, as well as those who participate in certain other proceedings. Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 46a-60. If the employer takes action against an employee because of that conduct, then the employee should be able to state a claim of retaliation. Compare Provencher v. CVS Pharmacy, 76 F.E.P. Cases (BNA) 1569 (1st Cir. 1998)(upholding federal retaliation claim of gay man).

Call the GLAD hotline hotline.html at 800-455-4523 (GLAD) any weekday between 1:30 and 4:30 p.m. to talk about options.

As a general matter, people who are still working with or residing under discriminatory conditions have to evaluate how filing a case will affect their job or housing, and if they are willing to assume those possible consequences. Of course, even if a person has been fired, or evicted, he or she may decide it is not worth it to pursue a discrimination claim. This is an individual choice which should be made after gathering information to make an informed decision.

Some people prefer to meet with an attorney to evaluate the strength of their claims. It is always helpful if you bring an outline of what happened on the job that you are complaining about, organized by date and with an explanation of who the various players are (and how to get in touch with them). Try to have on hand copies of your employee handbooks or personnel manuals, any contracts, job evaluations, memos, discharge letters and the like. If you are concerned about a housing matter, bring a copy of your lease, along with any notices and letters you have received from your landlord.

index

For the first time Massachusetts antidiscrimination and disability laws have been interpreted by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination to grant protections to transsexuals. The rights of transsexuals under those statutes have never been explicitly addressed by the legislature, and some say the decisions required contortions of state laws. But advocates for transsexuals hailed the rulings as an important step forward. ''They're fantastic decisions,'' said Jennifer Levi, an attorney with Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders. ''There's no principled reason to exclude transsexual people from the laws' protections.'' The MCAD decisions, both dated October 10, did not determine the guilt or innocence of the defendants but cleared the way for an MCAD investigation to determine probable cause in each case. The MCAD is authorized by the state to interpret antidiscrimination laws.

In one case, first filed in 1995, a transsexual woman named Rachel Jette claimed that her boss at a Honey Farms convenience store in Worcester County harassed her by forcing her to use her birth name, Raymond, and wear men's clothes to work. She later amended her complaint, charging that she was discriminated against because of a ''handicap or perceived handicap.'' The MCAD ruled that though transsexuality isn't defined as a disability or covered under disability discrimination laws, it's not specifically excluded either, even though the laws were modeled after federal statutes that excluded transsexuality. ''Since the legislature was aware of the exemptions for coverage of transsexuals and did not include such...it must have intended to include such coverage,'' the commission wrote.

The other case involved a transsexual named Charlegne Millett, who alleged in December 1998 that her supervisor at Tutco Inc. in Worcester disciplined her because of her transsexuality and threatened to fire her after she complained. The MCAD said sex discrimination laws could apply in Millett's case because she says she was harassed ''because of the kind of man she is--one who wanted to be a woman.'' In general, transsexuals are protected by the law because they're often discriminated against for failing to conform with society's expectations for each sex, the MCAD said. Tutco attorney James W. Bucking said the MCAD decision is a "leap" that creates laws about transsexuals where none exist. Current laws protect men and women who are discriminated against solely because of their sex, not because of any desire to change their sex, he said. ''They're basically saying sex is an elastic concept, not concrete,'' Bucking said. ''But sex is not an elastic concept.'' MCAD chairwoman Dorca Gomez said there's limited case law on the issue, but the commission based its decision on those laws. ''The statute specifically says interpretations must be made broadly,'' she said.

index

An excerpt from her interview w/Paul Schindler the rest can be read at http: //www.lgny.com/issue_142/pages_142/interview.html

lgny: One of the challenges that the gay community faces today as we try to get a hate crimes bill passed, and the employment nondiscrimination act, is a challenge from other members of our community, transgender people and people with gender variations, pushing to try to make some of the language in these proposals more inclusive, so we're not strictly talking about a gay person or a lesbian, but a range of people. In your campaign you've had a lot of contact with gay leaders throughout the state. Have you the opportunity to get feedback from members of the transgender community?

Rodham Clinton: Yes, we have. Not as much or as frequently but some. I have a few transgendered contributors of some significance. So yes, we have gotten feedback.

lgny: Do you think the goal of broadening the language for ENDA or broadening language in the hate crimes protection act to include gender expression and gender identity, do you think that's a practical goal at this point politically?

Rodham Clinton: I think we need to try to move ENDA forward. I think ENDA is such an important legislative goal. I think it's within reach and I think it's a vehicle for widening the circle of rights and freedoms and responsibilities and I would really focus on trying to get that passed.

lgny: In other words, no effort at this point at amending?

Rodham Clinton: I don't see at this point that that would be in the best interest of moving the agenda forward.

lgny: What I understand your answer to be is that laudable as that goal might be it might slow the political process down.

Rodham Clinton: Well I think that's probably accurate. It may not be the answer people want to hear, but I think it's accurate. We should do everything we can to get ENDA to pass. Legislation is often imperfect at best, and not as inclusive as it needs to be, but you have to build on your victories. Right now we don't have ENDA. I think about the fact that we don't have the hate crimes legislation.

lgny: One of the things that the transgender community points to is that, for example, on hate crimes in New York State, the entire coalition for hate crimes held out to have gays and lesbians included in it. We would have had a hate crimes bill in New York long ago if it had only been for religion and so forth. But everyone hung tough on that. But what the transgender community is saying now is "Wouldn't that approach be appropriate for them as well?" In other words, don't do it piecemeal, include everybody and then move forward.

Rodham Clinton: Well no one who's a leader in the gay and lesbian community has asked me to do that. I think there's an understood recognition of the political reality. So for me it's a priority to try to get ENDA passed, which is what I will work on.

index

OHIO - Parents Paul and Sherry Lipscomb are in the fight of their lives: An attempt to keep custody of their 6- year-old daughter, Aurora. A Franklin County Magistrate ruled against them August 23rd, awarding temporary custody of Aurora to Franklin County Children's Services (FCCS).

When Aurora was approximately two years old, Sherry and Paul began to notice that she, then their son, had a preference for feminine toys, clothes, shoes, and activities. By the time she entered pre-school, Aurora was emphatically stating that she was a girl. She had also announced her choice of name and insisted that she be addressed by it.

The Lipscombs initially viewed Aurora's behavior as just a phase of her development and assumed that she would outgrow it. As Aurora grew older, however, society around her began exerting increasing pressure on her to conform to social gender-role expectations. Accordingly, Aurora began exhibiting emotional problems in response to those pressures.

The Lipscombs sought therapy for Aurora, which included several in-patient hospitalizations. In the course of Aurora's treatment she was diagnosed with both Gender Identity Disorder (GID) and Aspergers Syndrome (a mild form of autism similar to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). The parents discontinued therapy and sought legal representation after they discovered that therapists were using behavior modification techniques in an attempt to force the child to identify and behave as a male.

It was prior to the fourth and final period of hospitalization that the Lipscombs had told the doctors and Aurora's school that they were planning support Aurora's gender identity, including having her ears pierced and home schooling her.

But then the problems started. "On the fourth in-patient stay the physicians totally flipped the diagnosis as strictly being psychological," said Paul Lipscomb, [Telling us] we had to make a child conform."

Children's Services in Franklin and Hamilton counties stated that Aurora should be kept in a male role against her and her family's wishes.

FCCS filed a petition in Franklin County Court, suggesting residential care for Aurora, which would remove Paul and Sherry Lipscomb from custody, simply because they have refused to raise Aurora as a male.

Magistrate Sanchez of Franklin County agreed with the FCCS petition, placing Aurora in their custody. The Magistrate also refused to order that FCCS maintain Aurora's female gender identity while in their care, including the use of her name, and allowing her to wear girl's clothing.

Following the hearing, the Lipscombs and their attorneys, Randi Barnabee and Mark Narens, filed an objection to the decision. To the parent's dismay, the objection was not heard until September 12th because the judge to whom the case is assigned, Kay Lias, was on vacation. The Lipscombs have also filed a motion to stay the order granting custody of Aurora to FCCS. Duty Judge James Mason was not willing to stay the order on the day it was issued, because the court-appointed guardian for Aurora was not present.

At this August hearing, Judge Mason also posed the cynical question, "will the child die if I don't do anything tonight?"

At the September hearing, the court tightened the governmental grip on Aurora, leaving Aurora in government custody until a trial scheduled for November.

Planned legal actions by the Lipscombs include filing of a writ of habeas corpus in federal court in the hope that FCCS can be forced to relinquish custody. The Lipscombs also plan to file a federal sex-discrimination lawsuit in federal court against FCCS, the social workers involved, and others for their violations of Aurora's civil right to be whoever she says she is without regard for the gender-role expectations of others. Randi Barnabee noted that social workers do not enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution in civil rights cases, and that federal law permits social workers to be sued for damages in such cases even when they were ostensibly acting under the color of law.

Paul and Sherry Lipscomb just want Aurora back home, simply stating," we love our beautiful and creative daughter."

Donations to their Defense Fund can be sent to 2121 South Green Road, South Euclid, OH 44121. Make checks out to "Aurora's Defense Fund."

index

http: //www.planetout.com/pno/news/article.html

A Texas transwoman can't get the Supreme Court to hear her plea to uphold her marriage, while Britain sends a similar case to the EuroCourt.

The U.S. Supreme Court on October 4 declined to review a Texas ruling voiding a male-to-female transsexual's marriage to a male, while a UK appeals court that same day sent on to the European Court of Justice the question of whether a female-to-male transsexual can benefit from his wife's pension benefits.

The U.S. Supreme Court generally does not give reasons for rejecting cases, but because marriage laws are almost entirely at the discretion of the states, their issues do not often arise in federal courts; therefore there are not currently conflicting views among federal appeals courts on the issue of transsexuals' marriages that the high court might be motivated to resolve. In the case of transwoman Christie Lee Littleton, there was nowhere else to turn after the Texas Supreme Court twice refused to take up her appeal, and now there is nowhere to turn at all. She is stuck with one state appeals court's erasure of her happy seven-year marriage, one which had been recognized by both the federal and state governments -- including the state requiring her to make support payments for her husband's children when he became too ill to work.

It was when Littleton tried to sue her husband's physician for malpractice that the defendant successfully challenged her standing to sue on the grounds that her marriage was a prohibited "same-sex" marriage. Her legal marriage certificate and her legally revised birth certificate meant nothing in the eyes of a court which proclaimed that "chromosomes, not genitalia" forever determine gender in its jurisdiction. This ruling was contrary to the expert testimony the judges heard, and in fact no test was ever made of Littleton's chromosomes. Texas issues marriage certificates without reference to either chromosomes or genitalia, but only to drivers licenses and birth certificates, as has now been shown by two transwomen with female partners who obtained marriage licenses within the jurisdiction.

Littleton's Texas transsexual attorney Phyllis Frye and her Maryland co-counsel Alyson Meiselman were devastated by the high court's denial and its implications. Frye wrote that "everyone in the U.S. who is transsexual or who is intersexed, plus all of our spouses, future spouses, children and future children, have an attackable legal sex, an attackable marital status, and an attackable parental status." The number of people whose chromosomes may not match up with their appearance could run from 2 to 16 million in the U.S. She warned heterosexual crossdressers that, "If the conservative legal gatekeepers can take a twenty-year vagina and make it male, then what legal craziness will they do next to you crossdressers who have children, spouses and jobs to protect? It is just a matter of time." She renewed her call for transmen with gay lovers and transwomen with lesbian lovers to come from all over the country to San Antonio and obtain legal marriage licenses.

There have been only a handful of related cases so far, one of the more notorious involving a transwoman's inheritance being challenged by her late husband's son in Kansas, but their numbers are bound to increase.

Britain's Human Rights Act went into effect this week, incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into British law so that more human rights issues could be settled in British courts. But the issue of whether a marriage requirement for accessing a partner's pension plan survivor benefit is discriminatory -- when UK transsexuals cannot amend their birth certificates and cannot legally marry someone of the sex shown on them -- was something a three-judge appeals panel felt the European Court of Justice must decide.

Seeking the pension benefit for her husband in event of her death is a woman who has worked twenty years as a nurse for the National Health System. Their case maintains that her female-to-male partner is a male, that their marriage by a Church of England priest (with his bishop's knowledge) should be recognized as a marriage, and that the husband should have access to the benefit. Their position is supported by the Equal Opportunity Commission and by the human rights group Justice.

The named defendant in their lawsuit is Health Secretary Alan Milburn, alleged to have practiced sex discrimination and interfered with their right to family life by denying the benefit. Representing the government, Nicholas Paines, QC insisted that the marriage requirement complied with all human rights laws.

First an Employment Tribunal held simply that the legal marriage requirement for the pension benefit is appropriate, and that the couple are not married and therefore not qualified. The couple went on to an Employment Appeal Tribunal, which cited the Southwest Trains ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of a lesbian employee seeking a spousal travel benefit for her partner; in that case the court found no sex discrimination because gay male couples were denied the benefit just as lesbian couples were. That precedent left the Employment Appeal Tribunal feeling it could not find for the nurse regarding the pension benefit, but the tribunal also saw the human rights issues in the particular limitations faced by British transsexuals regarding marriage. It was because of the human rights issues involved that the Employment Appeal Tribunal in turn sent the case on to the Court of Appeal to decide.

The inability of British transsexuals to revise their birth certificates has been considered in Europe, but Britain was not ordered to change its policy as a result. (The British government maintained that the birth certificate is an historical record of what occurred at the time of birth.) However, the couple's attorney Laura Cox, QC said that the European Court of Human Rights has expressly acknowledged how serious the resulting problems are for transsexuals. The Southwest Trains precedent would not apply if the husband were viewed as a man allowed to marry a woman, and there would be no problem accessing the death benefit. Cox said, "There is direct discrimination here. The decision to exclude him is unlawful and contrary to European law. The need for a marriage certificate to qualify for a pension has a disproportionate effect on transsexuals." With Cox detailing what the husband had gone through in gender reassignment and how he lives his life presenting as male, one appellate justice remarked aloud that, "In reality this person is a man."

The Court of Appeal declined to make a ruling, deciding instead to send both the facts of the case and their legal questions regarding it to the European Court of Justice, for its judgment.

Meanwhile, two retired nurses in a same-gender relationship have taken their first steps towards obtaining their pension benefits through the European Court of Human Rights, with the support of the human rights group Liberty and the Royal Colleges of Nursing.

Britain has begun considering reforming its laws relating to transsexuals, publishing a discussion paper reviewing many legal issues of transsexuals (see PlanetOut News of July 27).

index