Human Rights Campaign Statement on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Denial of Certiorari in Pietrangelo v. Gates Case

Please find the official HRC response to the rejection of DADT by the Supreme Court:

WASHINGTON –The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization issued a statement today on the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of a writ of certiorari in the case of Pietrangelo v. Gates, a challenge to the U.S. Military’s discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law. Captain Pietrangelo was discharged in 2004 under the U.S. Military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law. The Supreme Court’s decision ends the appeals process for Captain Pietrangelo. This decision comes weeks before the Board of Inquiry hearing is scheduled to review the case of First Lieutenant Daniel Choi of the New York Army National guard who is being discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.

“The time to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is now. The Supreme Court’s denial of a writ of certiorari in this case, and the upcoming hearing to discharge Lt. Dan Choi, is only further proof that this law is not working and is putting our national security at unnecessary risk,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “Every day, patriotic lesbian, gay and bisexual service members continue to be discharged under this discriminatory policy. Every moment that the Administration and Congress delay repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” our nation is robbed of brave men and women who would risk their lives to keep our country safe.”

Pietrangelo v. Gates, originally Cook v. Gates, was brought by twelve former members of the U.S. Military who were discharged under DADT. At the time the case was called Cook v. Gates. The district court dismissed the suit for a failure to state a claim and the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Last year, the appeals court affirmed the district court’s ruling. Captain Pietrangelo on his own subsequently appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari.

First Lieutenant Daniel Choi of the New York Army National Guard is one of those service members affected by DADT. Later this summer, Lt. Choi will go before a Board of Inquiry to fight the U.S. Military’s efforts to discharge him under DADT. Lt. Choi, is an Arabic linguist who graduated from West Point. His case has received significant national media attention, underscoring the need for repeal of DADT.

The rejection is especially problematic given Pres. Obama assurances that he would repeal DADT during his term in office. In this particular case we see why it is important for us to continue to educate the general public about our issues, and pressure our representatives to keep their promises.

For more information on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or other LGBT military issues go here...

President Obama Appoints Out Lesbian to the D.C. Superior Court

Shewired.comr is reporting that Prez. Obama has appointed an out lesbian to D.C. Superior Court. Marisa Demeo, who currently serves as a Magistrate Judge, demonstrated understanding and unwavering commitment to civil rights.

The White House Press Office announced President Obama is, ”pleased to put forward two nominees who have served the people of the District of Columbia with such distinction. Marisa Demeo and Florence Pan have dedicated their careers to serving the public good and they will be esteemed and eminent additions to the DC Superior Court.”

The appointment of Demeo, who currently serves as a Magistrate Judge, pleased the Human Rights Campaign.

The HRC applauded the choice noting, “Demeo has a demonstrated understanding and unwavering commitment to civil rights. She has more than 15 years of experience working with LGBT, community, Latino, and civil rights groups such as DOJ Pride and GAYLAW. Judge Demeo is also a former co-chair of GELAAM where she conducted HIV and breast cancer outreach and education to the local Latino community. Demeo clearly possesses the intellectual rigor and experience required of an Associate Judge and we are confident her knowledge and expertise will serve our community well.”

You can read the article after the jump...

Police Candidate Sues for HIV Discrimination

Don't let anyone tell you the stigma around HIV/AIDS is dead. An Atlanta man is suing the police department for job discrimination because of his status, the Advocate reports:

A man who applied to be police officer in Atlanta is suing the department after higher-ups claimed he could not be admitted because he is HIV-positive. Suing under the pseudonym Richard Roe, the applicant said the department violated his privacy and that it has a history of not accepting officers who have HIV, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Monday.

City officials say the department did not turn Roe away because of his HIV status, but city documents sent to the the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission show that Atlanta disqualifies potential officers with blood-borne diseases, such as HIV. "Diseases passed through the blood present a hazardous condition and as such are disqualifying conditions," the city wrote to the EEOC about Roe's case.

Atlanta Human Resource Department director Alfred Elder said that Roe disqualified himself because he did not return phone calls from a police recruiter.

The Americans With Disabilities Act prohibits employers from firing or denying employment to those with HIV.

Roe was working another job within the department when he applied to become an officer in 2006, according to court documents. He claims he was told that the routine blood test was strictly for drug use. The department says Roe was notified that he was also being tested for HIV. The doctor administering the test told Roe he was HIV-positive and that the police department does not hire people with the virus. (Michelle Garcia, The Advocate)

You can find the original article after the jump...

State lawmakers move to dismiss lawsuit by transgender employee

By MATT SCHAFER, Southern Voice | Oct 17, 6:11 PM

Three state lawmakers have asked a federal judge to dismiss a discrimination lawsuit filed against them by a former employee who alleges she was fired after announcing her gender transition.

Vandiver Elizabeth Glenn claims she was fired from her job as a legislative editor last year because of her transition from male to female. A lawsuit filed this summer named Speaker of the House Glenn Richardson (R-Hiram), Senate President Pro-Tempore Eric Johnson (R-Savannah), Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, lawyer Sewell Brumby and Robyn Underwood, the state’s legislative financial officer.

Cole Thaler serves as transgender rights attorney for Lambda Legal, which is representing Glenn. Thaler said he was aware of the motion to dismiss but had not reviewed the motion with enough detail to comment.

The motion, filed by the lawmakers' attorney on Oct. 16, contested Glenn’s ability to sue and said she did not state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

“Asking this Court to determine if (Glenn) is similarly situated to other employees requires the Court to second guess the subjective, individualized assessments that are a part of any employment decision. It would make every decision by a government employer a constitutional matter,” the lawmakers' attorney argued in the motion.

Find more after the jump...

Separate is not Equal

This New York Times editorial draws on one of the tenants of the 1950's and 60's civil rights movment:

With a 4-to-3 ruling on Friday that granted gay and lesbian couples the right to marry, the Connecticut Supreme Court ended a serious injustice within its own borders, and the national debate over the issue was catapulted forward. The ruling made Connecticut the third state to legalize same-sex marriage, following Massachusetts in 2004 and California in May.

Connecticut’s Supreme Court was considering a ruling by a lower court that found that there was no denial of equal protection in excluding gay people from the institution of marriage. The lower court cited supposedly comparable protections and benefits afforded by the state’s civil-unions law. The Supreme Court’s decision correctly rejects that standard, which is the same as the excuse of separate but equal once used to rationalize racial segregation.

Justice Richard Palmer wrote in the majority opinion that segregating heterosexual and homosexual couples into different institutions constitutes a “cognizable harm” in light of “the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody.”

Because of that history of discrimination, the decision properly treats sexual orientation as a “suspect classification” entitled to the sort of heightened legal scrutiny applied to distinctions based on race or sex.

The new ruling is especially timely. Californians are about to vote on a ballot initiative that in effect overturns the May ruling that gave gay people the right to marry. Its message about the unfairness of treating the relationships of same-sex couples as somehow inferior needs to be taken to heart.

Find the original article after the jump...