National
10 years later, firestorm over gay-only ENDA vote still informs movement
Ten years ago, a firestorm ignited in the LGBT community over a vote in the U.S. House that many transgender people remember vividly because it excluded them in favor of advancing employment non-discrimination protections to lesbian, gay and bisexual people.
The vote on the “gay-only” version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act on Nov. 7, 2007, rocked the LGBT movement and prompted protests against the Human Rights Campaign and gay former Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who backed the bill, arguing it was the best that could be done at the time. The 10th anniversary of the vote is Tuesday.
But the omission galvanized transgender rights advocates to such an extent that for the next 10 years the LGBT movement committed to moving forward only legislation that included the full community — both at the state and federal level — and today advancement of a sexual-orientation only bill is impossible to imagine.
Dana Beyer, a Chevy Chase, Md.-based transgender activist who’s running for state Senate in Maryland, said the vote on the gay-only version of ENDA was “a landmark” for trans inclusion in the LGBT movement.
“Whenever I discuss the progress that we’ve made, which has been remarkable, I begin there because that was basically the first real battle for the trans community on the national stage and over the succeeding decade, we’ve made incredible progress,” Beyer said.
Beyer added from that time forward after the creation of United ENDA — an unprecedented coalition of more than 400 organizations that emerged to fight against trans exclusion —there have been with few exceptions “no instances of any gay activism or legislation that did not include trans people.”
Rebecca Juro, a New Jersey-based transgender activist and radio show host, said the reaction to the vote on the sexual-orientation only version of ENDA was a significant turning point.
“The reason why Barney Frank was able to introduce and get the kind of support he did in Congress was because there was a feeling [of] who cares, nobody knows about these people,” Juro said. “What that did was it said, ’No, no, no,’ you’re wrong.’ and people are going to call you out and it’s going to cost you politically and people are going to show up at the Human Rights Campaign galas and make it difficult for you to solicit money for your campaign.”
In the year Democrats assumed control of the U.S. House after more than a decade of Republican majorities, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) brought the gay-only version of ENDA to the floor after Frank determined an initial version of the bill that included protections based on gender identity wouldn’t get a majority vote in the chamber.
That version of ENDA would pass on the House floor by a vote of 235-184. (Among those voting in favor of the bill was Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), although he also voted in favor of a motion to recommit that would have killed the legislation.)
Voting “no” on the legislation were 25 Democrats, many of whom — such as Rep. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), former Rep. Anthony Weiner (N.Y.) and former Rep. Michael Michaud (Maine) — rejected the measure on the basis it lacked protections for transgender people. Then-Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), now a U.S. senator and still the only out lesbian in Congress, proposed an amendment to insert gender identity, but withdrew the measure before it could come to a vote.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign at the time of the vote, backed ENDA and 10 years later stood by his decision as a means to develop the legislation, citing “no hope of passing any legislation into law” with George W. Bush as president.
“It was a tactical decision to take a step in the direction of getting what we ultimately wanted, which was maybe a non-inclusive bill in the House, and inclusive bill in the Senate that would end up as a fully inclusive bill or that would end up as a fully inclusive bill by the time Obama became president,” Solmonese said.
Recalling a “great deal of debate within the community and the House” about whether sufficient votes for transgender inclusion were present, Solmonese said lawmakers pledged to LGBT activists support for a trans-inclusive bill before, then told Pelosi not bring such a measure to the floor.
“They sort of wanted it both ways,” Solmonese said. “They knew what they were supposed to do, but they didn’t want to do it.”
Frank said the vote on ENDA was “very important” because it paved the way for legislative victories on hate crimes protections and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“One of the problems we’ve had historically — we don’t have it anymore — is members being afraid to vote for us because they thought they could be defeated, that it would be a tough vote,” Frank said. “So, here we had members voting for a bill that was a broad protections for LGB people and nobody lost because of it. That was very helpful in setting the foundation.”
In his book “A Life in Politics,” Frank recounts the deliberative process that went into bringing the gay-only version of ENDA to the House floor, maintaining Republicans would have sought to amend the bill to remove the transgender protections.
Baldwin disagreed with moving forward without transgender inclusion, Frank wrote, even though she ultimately voted for the bill. (Baldwin’s office didn’t respond to a request to comment for this article.)
“As we approached the final vote, Tammy did her own informal whip count and concluded we would have enough Democratic votes,” Frank wrote. “Speaker Pelosi, a strong supporter of the bill, asked Tammy for her count, checked it herself with the members, and decided that Tammy had been too optimistic — a conclusion that [former Rep. George Miller and I, based on our own work, fully agreed with. We did not have the votes for the inclusive-bill. It was sadly but unmistakably clear to Pelosi, Miller and me that we could pass ENDA only in its earlier form, covering only lesbian, gay and bisexual workers.”
Backing that move was the Human Rights Campaign, which continued to support the gay-only measure as one of five co-signers in a letter to Congress dated Nov. 6, 2007 organized by the Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights.
“With each significant step toward progress, the civil rights community has also faced difficult and sometimes even agonizing tradeoffs,” the letter said. “We have always recognized, however, that each legislative breakthrough has paved the way for additional progress in the future. With respect to ENDA, we take the same view.”
That vote sent a shockwave through the transgender community, which quickly marshaled opposition to the bill and protested any further advancement without their protections. Many angrily accused the Human Rights Campaign and Frank of abandoning the transgender community.
Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said the vote was “one of the most important things that happened in the movement in the last 20 years.”
“We wanted everything to be about setting up for what the movement was after this vote happened, after the bill died for the year,” Keisling said. “What were the lessons the movement was going to learn, what was the lesson HRC was going to learn, what was the lesson Barney Frank was going to learn?”
The night before the vote, Keisling said, she received a call from Frank’s office and was informed “it was over” a for trans-inclusive version of ENDA. Together with Dave Noble, then policy director of the National LGBTQ Task Force, Keisling said she planned to write a letter to Baldwin in hopes she could influence the vote, but was told the gay-only ENDA would move forward.
That night, Keisling and Noble reached out to the National Center for Lesbian Rights and other groups to form a coalition against the trans omission. By morning more than 60 organizations had joined United ENDA, Keisling said, a coalition that refused to support the gay-only bill and pledged to work with lawmakers to support a trans-inclusive measure.
Keisling said other groups “were calling up slightly annoyed that they hadn’t been asked to sign on” and soon the coalition grew to several hundred members.
“It essentially was because Barney Frank and HRC had totally lost touch with what the community was,” Keisling said. “So they did not understand that this would not be alright with the community and we all found out very quickly in a matter of hours that it really was not, that the movement had really become an LGBT movement and it wasn’t going to fly to take trans people out. So not only were we against the vote happening, we were the leaders of being against the vote happening.”
The gay-only version of ENDA never reached Bush’s desk for his veto, nor did any version of the bill — trans-inclusive or otherwise — come up in the U.S. Senate even though Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress.
Had ENDA been brought to the floor for a vote in the Senate, the sponsor would likely have been the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, who was one of the rare champions of LGBT rights at the time.
Solmonese said he didn’t immediately remember why ENDA never came up in the Senate and said it “may have had to do with timing,” but said Kennedy would only have moved forward with a trans-inclusive bill, not a gay-only ENDA, as part of the strategy for the House vote.
“He understood and supported the rationale of having an overarching strategy,” Solmonese said. “George Bush is the president. This thing’s not going to get passed into law. You do one version in the House, an inclusive version in the Senate, the leadership of both chambers is such that the conference committee would likely end up with something that was fully inclusive, right?”
Keisling, however, said “there was no Senate plan” because the Democratic majority in the chamber was seen as too marginal to advance ENDA, nor did Kennedy ever express an aversion to the gay-only version of the bill.
“The plan was that Barney Frank and HRC thought that it was worth passing the gay-only bill through the House, just move the ball forward and get members on the record as Barney said many times,” Keisling said. “Everyone else believed that since it would never become law that year, we shouldn’t exclude anyone.”
Do the backers of the bill at that time have any regrets? Solmonese acknowledged a few even though he stood by his decision to support ENDA in 2007.
“I regret that I saw it one way, which was a step in building towards what all of us ultimately wanted and by no means a signal that that was the legislation that anybody would ultimately support, but the fact that many people didn’t see it that way and many people simply saw the symbolism around the act as one that was divisive to the community, that was never the intention of HRC or my intention, but I certainly regret that that’s the way that it unfolded,” Solmonese said.
Frank said his “regret was we didn’t have the votes” when asked about his approach and blustered at the suggestion anything else could have been done.
“I think to do nothing at all — that was the argument, if you can’t include everybody, you can’t include anybody — in the first place, that’s not the history of the civil rights movement,” Frank said. “I voted to help protect African Americans and immigrants and women. The civil rights movement…you move as much as you can as soon as you can and you build on that. So do I regret not trying hard to get votes? No, I tried as hard as I could to get the votes.”
‘The pendulum is all the way the other way’
Over the course of 10 years since that vote, it’s hard to imagine Congress — or any other legislative body — passing legislation that excluded transgender people. Each successful version of ENDA introduced and advanced in Congress has been trans inclusive and its supporters have defended that language against any objection it. The Equality Act, the successor to ENDA that would ban anti-LGBT discrimination in employment and in all aspects of civil rights law, has consistently been trans inclusive.
Keisling said the commitment to trans inclusion among LGBT groups is “almost total.”
“Most of the big LGBT organizations, including the legal organizations, the lion’s share of their work now is trans work and, no, I don’t think any of them would intentionally do work to cut trans people out. In fact, there are times that we have to talk people into doing things because they’re afraid trans people will think it means cutting them out when it doesn’t. So, yeah, the pendulum is all the way the other way, and then probably some extra.”
Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesperson, pointed to enactment of the Matthew Shepard & James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act and his boss’ support for the Equality Act as evidence of her support for trans inclusion.
“Leader Pelosi was proud to lead the Congress as speaker in passing a fully inclusive hate crimes bill signed into law by President Obama in October of 2009,” Hammill said. “A top priority for the leader is the Equality Act, comprehensive legislation to amend the Civil Rights Act and protect LGBT Americans from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and sex. The leader believes that this legislation would pass the Congress now should Speaker Ryan allow a vote.”
Times have changed for the Human Rights Campaign as well. In 2014, Chad Griffin, the current president of the Human Rights Campaign, apologized on behalf of his organization at the Southern Comfort transgender conference for having “done wrong by the transgender community in the past.”
Transgender work has become a major component of the LGBT group’s work. In recent years, the organization has opposed a gay-only non-discrimination bill in Michigan, worked to thwart the anti-trans House Bill 2 in North Carolina and successfully blocked an anti-trans bathroom bill in Texas. The organization has also opposed non-discrimination measures in Pennsylvania and Charlotte, N.C., without public accommodations protections, which were seen as a backdoor way of leaving out transgender people because of controversy over bathroom use.
Sarah McBride, who’s transgender and press secretary for the Human Rights Campaign, said in the past 10 years the organization is “proudly and unequivocally continuing to fight for trans-inclusive protections” and will only back legislation that is fully inclusive.
“From Michigan to North Carolina to Birmingham, HRC has forcefully and aggressively blocked laws and policies that don’t protect every LGBTQ person from discrimination while fighting to extend robust protections across the country,” McBride said. “We are also working to accelerate the pace of progress in other ways, from raising the visibility of the transgender community, to incentivizing trans-inclusive healthcare through our Corporate Equality Index, to shining a spotlight on the epidemic of anti-transgender violence which is taking the lives of so many trans women of color.”
But 2007 wasn’t the last time there would be fighting within the LGBT community over ENDA. In 2013, major LGBT groups (again with the exception of the Human Rights Campaign) dropped support from a version of ENDA over the scope of its religious exemption, which would have provided leeway for religious institutions, like churches or religious schools, to discriminate against LGBT workers in non-ministerial positions even if the bill were to become law. In a reversal from 2007, the Senate passed the legislation, but it didn’t come up for a vote in the Republican-controlled House.
Although ENDA has never become law, a growing consensus has emerged in the courts that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex, also applies to anti-trans discrimination. Four federal appellate courts — the First, Sixth, Ninth and Eleventh circuit courts of appeals — have determined employment discrimination against transgender people is barred under Title VII, as has the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Keisling cautioned against too much reliance on laws against sex discrimination because “things are in flux,” noting U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ withdrawal of support for transgender protections under Title VII and President Trump’s appointment of anti-LGBT judges.
“We’re still convinced that the courts are on our side, cases and decisions have been building up to support us and actually [the idea] trans people are supported by sex discrimination is better supported than that gay people are,” Keisling said. “We just don’t exactly know how that’s going to maintain. We do know that there’s a handful of both sexual orientation and gender identity cases moving up through the court system, so what I say now might not be true a month from now and certainly will be changed somewhat in a year.”
Confidence in the legal landscape for trans protections under Title VII is at such a point that a pending petition filed by Lambda Legal before the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a nationwide ruling for gay protections under the law, but not explicit trans protections, hasn’t registered as trans exclusion. The petition was filed on behalf of lesbian plaintiff Jackie Evans after the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against her.
Beyer said she’s not bothered by the petition and it should only upset transgender activists “who don’t bother to parse the specifics” and recognize the transgender victories in lower courts.
“We could have easily won [trans protections] nationwide first,” Beyer said. “In this case, sexual orientation has been viewed differently and most courts haven’t wanted to touch it until the Hively case in the 7th Circuit took it, and now we’ve got Evans. That’s beginning to change. I’m certainly not at all offended by that because this is the way you go. You have a case and the case can’t equally be broadened to include different classifications simply because the community would like it.”
The social scene, in contrast to advocacy groups and the legal landscape, may not be as advanced in accepting transgender inclusion despite the explosion over ENDA 10 years ago. Transgender rights advocates noted a distinction between the LGBT community at large in accepting transgender people and advocacy groups.
Beyer said she doesn’t see transgender inclusion at the social level “anywhere near as advanced” as the current legal landscape.
“Acceptance, affirmation in the general culture is one thing, but the fact that, say, 35 percent of Americans do know a trans person, doesn’t mean that people are that much more comfortable with trans people,” Beyer said. “I think on balance they are, but not overwhelmingly so.”
Efforts to resist trans inclusion in the movement on occasion still emerge, although they’re rare and don’t represent mainstream LGBT views. In 2015, a petition was posted on Change.org titled “Drop the T” urging major LGBT organizations to “disassociate themselves from the transgender movement and return to representing their base support of gay men and lesbians.” The petition, signed by 3,227 people, had no impact on transgender advocacy at LGBT groups.
But transgender advocates also saw a generational divide in the approach to trans inclusion on the social scene that meets what is now seen at the advocacy level.
Juro said college-aged LGBT activists just beginning to come into the movement have a much different view of trans inclusion than their LGBT elders.
“They’re all like, no, you cannot separate, we’re all in this together and trying to say we’ll get rights for gay people without trans people is unacceptable,” Juro said. “And our youth, let’s be honest, are the ones who are driving the community. There the ones who get out there with the signs and the marches. People my age, 55, and old farts, we’re not always as active as we used to be and these are the kids who are driving the movement.”
In some respects, the transgender movement has evolved in strength to take on challenges on its own. Just recently, the National Center for Transgender Equality formed a 501(c)(4) political arm and the Breakthrough Fund, a political action committee and offshoot of the Trans United Fund run by transgender activists, launched with the goal of electing transgender people to public office.
Beyer said the transgender movement is rising to the occasion now that transgender issues have become the focus after many victories on gay rights.
“I think the grassroots trans community has seized the initiative simply because after marriage, after Obergefell, it seemed like the air went out of the gay balloon,” Beyer said. “On a local level, there are still black trans women being murdered. There’s still difficulty getting jobs for many trans people, particularly the younger ones. So, there’s a lot of work that needs to be done.”
With the LGBT movement changing dramatically, Keisling said “the LGBT movement is quickly becoming a trans movement,” and now she’s concerned “we’re sending signals to the gay community that trans work is more important than gay work.”
Nonetheless, Keisling cited concerns about insufficient trans presence in places where existing infrastructure is based on gay rights, such as states that have state LGBT equality groups, but no trans groups.
“That’s fine as long as the LGBT movement is strong, but after marriage, if the movement’s weakening…that means trans people don’t have enough support from the LGBT group because it’s weakening but they don’t have the ability to have a strong trans group because there’s an LGBT group,” Keisling said. “I think that’s a conversation we have to start having more explicitly.”
Federal Government
House races could decide Department of Education’s future
Second Trump administration could target transgender students
The Associated Press reports that more than a dozen races for seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, including 10 for congressional districts in California, remain too close to call as of Tuesday — a full week after voters cast their ballots on Nov. 5.
Democrats hope that if they can flip the lower chamber, which is now governed by a narrow Republican majority, it might function as a bulwark against President-elect Donald Trump, his incoming administration, and the 53-47 majority in the U.S. Senate that his party secured last week.
If, on the other hand, the GOP retains control of the House, the Republican victory would clear a major roadblock that could otherwise have stymied a major plank of Trump’s education agenda: Plans to permanently shutter the U.S. Department of Education.
Congress ultimately scuttled the former president’s effort to do so during his first administration — though, technically, the proposal then was to merge the agency with the U.S. Department of Labor.
The Wall Street Journal notes that some Republicans, at the time and in the years since, have come out against plans to abolish the 44-year-old agency, in some cases even objecting to major funding cuts proposed by Trump that they understood were likely be unpopular.
However, if the second term plans for DOE as delineated in the Trump campaign’s Agenda47 and the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 governing blueprint become a major policy priority once the incoming administration takes over in January, reluctant Republican lawmakers will face tremendous pressure to get out of Trump’s way.
Federal government will remain in schools to advance anti-trans, anti-woke agenda
Among other responsibilities, DOE disburses and manages student loans, enforces the civil rights laws in public schools, and provides funding for students with disabilities. The agency’s programs, such as Title I, offer assistance for low-achieving or high-poverty K-12 schools, while Pell Grants help undergraduates who otherwise would not be able to pay for college.
It is unclear whether or how those functions will continue if the DOE is disbanded.
Trump’s aim, at least in large part, is to give states — rather than the federal government — the ultimate say over how their schools are run. At the same time, perhaps paradoxically, the other cornerstone of his education policy agenda is to issue proscriptive rules governing the content, curricula, and classroom discussion that will be permitted in the country’s public schools.
Specifically, this means “critical race theory, gender ideology or other inappropriate racial, sexual or political” topics or materials are forbidden. Reasonable people are likely to disagree about what is and is not “inappropriate,” and they may well have different, even disparate, definitions for terms like “gender ideology.”
When Florida and other states enacted similar anti-LGBTQ content and curricular restrictions in their public schools, critics warned the ambiguous language in the statute and the resulting confusion would lead to censorship, or perhaps self-censorship, especially for students and staff who, by virtue of their skin color or sexual orientation or gender identity, are more likely to be targeted with targeted or overzealous enforcement in the first place.
DOE plays major role investigating alleged civil rights violations in schools
According to the National Education Association, “federal civil rights laws prohibit school boards and other employers from discriminating against or harassing staff or students based on their sexual orientation or gender identity,” which “means, for example, that a school district may not prohibit only LGBTQ+ educators from answering students’ questions about their families, may not prohibit recognition and discussion in class only of LGBTQ+ families, and may not require that only LGBTQ+ students hide their sexual orientation or gender identity at school.”
However, the NEA warns, “some school districts, administrators, and the Florida Department of Education may nonetheless choose to do so until a court orders otherwise.”
If officials at a public high school allow heterosexual teachers to display family photos in their classrooms but warn the openly gay teacher that he must put his away or be terminated for violating restrictions on in-school discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity, the manner in which the policy was enforced against him would presumably run afoul of the federal civil rights laws, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The teacher could assume the expense of hiring an attorney to pursue legal remedies, shouldering the burden and the risk that litigation that could drag on for months and conclude with a judgment in favor of his employer. Alternatively, until or unless Trump dissolves the agency, he could file a complaint with DOE’s Office of Civil Rights.
Alternatively, until or unless Trump dissolves the agency, the teacher could file a complaint with DOE. The agency’s Office of Civil Rights would evaluate the information he shared to determine whether there were sufficient grounds to open an investigation and, if so, would deploy “a variety of fact-finding techniques” that can include a review of documentary evidence submitted by both parties, interviews with key witnesses, and site visits.
After the investigation is complete, if a “preponderance of the evidence supports a conclusion that the recipient failed to comply with the law,” OCR will attempt to negotiate a resolution agreement. If the recipient refuses to resolve the matter in this manner, OCR can “suspend, terminate, or refuse to grant or continue federal financial assistance to the recipient, or may refer the case to the Department of Justice.”
According to the DOE’s website, the agency has 11,782 investigations that were open as of Tuesday, with complaints against institutions of all kinds operating in all 50 states, from rural elementary schools in the Deep South to prestigious medical schools, community colleges, and charter schools for students with developmental disabilities. Likewise, the six civil rights laws over which OCR has jurisdiction cover a wide range of conduct, from sexual harassment to discrimination, retaliation, and single-sex athletics scholarships.
Should Trump succeed in abolishing the department, it is not yet clear how those active investigations will be handled, nor how complaints about violations of civil rights law by educational institutions would be reported and investigated moving forward in the agency’s absence.
During his first administration, Trump passed proposed changes to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which retooled the process for reporting sexual assault on college campuses in ways that were widely seen as imbalanced in favor of the accused.
President Joe Biden in April issued new guidelines that featured “significant shifts in how institutions address sexual harassment, and assault allegations while expanding protections for LGBTQ+ and pregnant students,” the American Council on Education wrote. Specifically, the administration provided a “new definition of sexual harassment, extending jurisdiction to off-campus, and international incidents,” while “clarifying protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, and parenting status.”
The regulations sidestepped thornier questions, however, about how schools should approach issues at the intersection of gender identity and competitive sports, specifying only that they should avoid bans that would categorically prohibit transgender athletes from participating.
Shortly after the Biden administration’s guidelines were introduced, Trump vowed they would be “terminated” on his first day in office. He also pledged to enact anti-trans policies that appear to have been modeled after some of the most extreme of the roughly 1,600 anti-trans bills that conservative statehouses have proposed from 2021-2024.
Among other promises Trump made during the campaign were plans to enact a nationwide ban on trans student athletes competing in accordance with their gender identity, a federal law that would recognize only two genders, and the prosecution of health care providers who administer gender affirming care to patients younger than 18.
National
Trump refers to Anderson Cooper as ‘Allison’
Crude insults continue in effort to attract male voters
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump referred repeatedly over the weekend to CNN’s Anderson Cooper as “Allison Cooper.”
Cooper, one of the nation’s most prominent openly gay television anchors, moderated a town hall last week with Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris.
Trump last Friday called Anderson “Allison” in a social media post, then used the moniker again at a Michigan rally.
“If you watched her being interviewed by Allison Cooper the other night, he’s a nice person. You know Allison Cooper? CNN fake news,” Trump said, before adding, “Oh, she said no, his name is Anderson. Oh, no.”
Trump repeated the name during another Michigan rally on Saturday, according to the Associated Pres, then followed it up during a reference in Pennsylvania. “They had a town hall,” Trump said in Michigan. “Even Allison Cooper was embarrassed by it. He was embarrassed by it.”
Describing Anderson Cooper as female plays into offensive and stereotypical depictions of gay men as effeminate as Trump continues to pursue the so-called “bro vote,” amping up crude and vulgar displays in an effort to appeal to male voters.
National
HRC rallies LGBTQ voters in 12 states ahead of Election Day
10 Days of Action campaign targets pro-equality candidate
The Human Rights Campaign said it filled 1,426 new volunteer shifts and held 174 events across key swing states between Oct. 10-20 as part of its 10 Days of Action campaign.
The LGBTQ civil rights advocacy group is working to mobilize and turn out voters in support of pro-equality and LGBTQ candidates, including the Harris-Walz ticket, on Election Day.
HRC reported exceeding its recruitment goals, noting the strong response across the 12 states as a “clear and resounding message” that LGBTQ and allied voters are energized to back the Harris-Walz ticket.
To kick off the 10 Days of Action, Gwen Walz, the spouse of Minnesota governor and Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz, spoke at a Philadelphia event that HRC and the Out for Harris-Walz coalition hosted on Oct. 10.
Walz highlighted her husband’s long-standing support for LGBTQ issues, such as his role in fighting to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in Congress and banning so-called conversion therapy as governor, according to the Pennsylvania Capital-Star.
Other events launched canvassing efforts for Senate candidates, such as U.S. Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.), along with House candidates, such as Will Rollins and Mondaire Jones in California and New York respectively.
A virtual organizing call on Oct. 11 that the Out for Harris-Walz coalition hosted featured prominent figures, including actor Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Andy Cohen, U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), and Delaware state Sen. Sarah McBride, who is running for Congress.
To close out the 10 Days of Action, HRC President Kelley Robinson canvassed with LGBTQ organizers in Phoenix on Oct. 20.
In a statement, Robinson said the campaign’s work is “far from over.”
“We plan to spend every day until the election making sure everyone we know is registered to vote and has a plan to vote because no one is going to give us the future we deserve — we have to fight for it and show America that when we show up, equality wins,” she said. “Together, we will elect pro-equality leaders like Vice President Harris and Governor Walz who value our communities and are ready to lead us forward with more freedom and opportunity.”
A September HRC poll found that LGBTQ voters favor Kamala Harris over Donald Trump in the presidential race by a nearly 67-point margin.
National
73 percent of LGBTQ community centers face harassment: Report
Findings show threats triggered by ‘anti-LGBTQ politics or rhetoric’
The biennial 2024 LGBTQ Community Center Survey Report, which was released Oct. 16, shows that 73 percent of 199 U.S.-based LGBTQ community centers that participated in the survey reported they had experienced anti-LGBTQ threats or harassment during the past two years.
The survey, which included LGBTQ centers in 42 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, is prepared by the Fort Lauderdale-based CenterLink, which provides services and support for LGBTQ community centers; and the Boulder, Colo.-based Movement Advancement Project (MAP), a research organization that focuses on social justice issues impacting the LGBTQ community.
“The biennial survey series started in 2008 and highlights the crucial role these centers play in the broader LGBTQ movement, offering an invaluable link between LGBTQ people and local, state, and national efforts to advance LGBTQ equality,” a statement released by the two organizations says.
The statement and the findings in the report point out that most of the LGBTQ centers that faced anti-LGBTQ threats or harassment said they were triggered by “anti-LGBTQ politics and rhetoric” that has surfaced across the country in the past several years.
“As attacks on LGBTQ people escalate year after year, we applaud these centers’ ongoing dedication to serving on the front lines – meeting both the immediate and long-term needs of LGBTQ people, their families, and their communities across the country,” Tessa Juste, a Movement Advancement Project official, said in the statement.
“This report illustrates the vital difference these centers make in people’s everyday lives, while also highlighting the urgent need for continued funding and support of these centers and the lifelines they provide,” Juste said.
“A majority of centers said they had experienced these threats or harassment offline (63 percent of centers) as well as online (68 percent),” the report states. “Almost half of centers (47 percent) said they had experienced both online and offline harassment in the past two years,” the report says.
“Numerous centers mentioned in open-ended comments that these threats or harassment were specifically in response to anti-LGBTQ politics or rhetoric (77 percent), transgender-related events or programs (50 percent), and youth-related programming (42 percent), again reflecting the current political environment and its targeted attacks on LGBTQ and specifically transgender youth,” according to the report.
Although the report lists in its appendix the names of each of the 199 LGBTQ community centers that participated in the survey, it does not disclose the names and locations of the LGBTQ centers that reported receiving threats or harassment.
Dana Juniel, director of communications for the Movement Advancement Project, told the Washington Blade in a statement that the two organizations that conducted the survey have a policy of not disclosing the centers’ responses to specific questions in the survey.
“Not identifying the specific centers has been our policy since the inception of this report and it is a typical policy for this type of report,” Juniel said. “It’s important to understand that the goal of the survey is to better understand the landscape and capacity of the movement as a whole, not to identify gaps or challenges for specific organizations,” she said.
The report shows that among the LGBTQ community centers that participated in the 2023-2024 survey were the D.C. Center for the LGBTQ Community; the D.C. LGBTQ youth advocacy group SMYAL, which the report lists as an LGBTQ center; the Delmarva Pride Center in Easton, Md.; the Frederick Center in Frederick, Md.; the CAMP Rehoboth LGBTQ center in Rehoboth Beach, Del.; the Sussex Pride center also in Delaware; and LGBTQ centers in Virginia based in the cities of Richmond, Norfolk, Winchester, Oakton, and Staunton.
Spokespersons for the D.C. Center and CAMP Rehoboth did not immediately respond to a Blade inquiry on whether they were among the centers that experienced threats or harassment. Sussex Pride Executive Director David Mariner told the Blade that his center was among those that had not received anti-LGBTQ threats or harassment in the past two years.
The Blade reported in August of this year that D.C. police were investigating threats made against SMYAL following the publication of an article criticizing SMYAL’s programs supporting LGBTQ youth in the conservative online publication Townhall.com. A D.C. police report said the threats were reported by SMYAL Executive Director Erin Whelan.
The statement released by CenterLink and Movement Advancement Project also points out that the LGBTQ center survey shows LGBTQ community centers in the U.S. serve more than 58,700 people each week, or three million people each year, “with many centers primarily serving people and communities that are historically under-resourced and under-served, including low-income, people of color, transgender people, and those under the age of 18.”
Denise Spivak, CEO of CenterLink, says in the joint statement that the report “is a crucial guidepost for us to see the positive impact of LGBTQ centers across the U.S. as well as what areas need additional resources.” She added, “As we celebrate our 30th anniversary, this report makes clear the importance of LGBTQ centers in our communities.”
Among other things, the report includes these findings:
• 66 percent of LGBTQ community centers directly provide physical health, mental health, and/or anti-violence services or programs
• Half of the centers (50 percent) offer computer resources or services to the public, providing needed tools for job searching, career development, social services, and schoolwork.
• Nearly all centers (92 percent) engage in advocacy, public policy, or civic engagement activities across a wide range of issues and areas.
• While nearly half of all centers remain thinly staffed, 84 percent of responding centers employ paid staff, providing jobs to 3,100 people.
• In 2023, roughly 11,600 people volunteered more than 421,000 hours at responding community centers, helping centers with and without paid staff to significantly expand their reach and impact.
The 2024 LGBTQ Community Center Survey Report can be accessed here.
Federal Government
Pentagon gives honorable discharges to 800+ LGBTQ+ veterans
Administration has committed to remedying harms of anti-LGBTQ military policies
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Tuesday announced the Pentagon has upgraded the paperwork of more than 800 veterans who were discharged other than honorably before discriminatory policies like “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” were repealed.
“More than 96 percent of the individuals who were administratively separated under DADT and who served for long enough to receive a merit-based characterization of service now have an honorable characterization of service,” said Christa Specht, director of legal policy at the department’s Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.
The change will allow veterans to access benefits they had been denied, in areas from health care and college tuition assistance to VA loan programs and some jobs.
Separately, this summer President Joe Biden issued pardons to service members who had been convicted for sodomy before military laws criminalizing same-sex intimacy were lifted.
More than a decade after the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the administration has made a priority of helping LGBTQ+ veterans who are eligible to upgrade their discharge papers, directing the department to help them overcome bureaucratic barriers and difficult-to-navigate processes.
However, as noted by CBS News, which documented the challenges faced by these former service members in a comprehensive investigation published last year, these efforts are ongoing.
The department is continuing to review cases beyond the 800+ included in Tuesday’s announcement, with an official telling CBS, “We encourage all veterans who believe they have suffered an error or injustice to request a correction to their military records.”
National
Detroit teen arrested in fatal stabbing of gay man
Prosecutor says defendant targeted victim from online dating app
A 17-year-old Detroit man has been charged with first-degree murder for the Sept. 24 stabbing death of a 64-year-old gay man that prosecutors say he met through an online dating app.
A statement released by the Wayne County, Mich., Prosecutor’s Office says Ahmed Al-Alikhan allegedly fatally stabbed Howard Brisendine inside Brisendine’s home in Detroit before he allegedly took the victim’s car keys and stole the car.
The statement says police arrived on the scene about 4:04 p.m. on Sept. 29 after receiving a call about a deceased person found in their home. Upon arrival police found Brisentine deceased in his living room suffering from multiple stab wounds, the statement says.
“It is alleged that the defendant targeted the victim on an online dating app because he was a member of the LGBTQ community,” according to the prosecutor’s statement.
“It is further alleged that on Sept. 24, 2024, at the victim’s residence in the 6000 block of Minock Street in Detroit, the defendant stabbed the victim multiple times, fatally injuring him, before taking the victim’s car keys and fleeing the scene in his vehicle,” it says.
It further states that Al-Alikhan was first taken into custody by police in Dearborn, Mich., and later turned over to the Detroit police on Oct. 1. The statement doesn’t say how police learned that Al-Alikhan was the suspected perpetrator.
In addition to first-degree murder, Al-Alikhan has been charged with felony murder and unlawful driving away in an automobile.
“It is hard to fathom a more planned series of events in this case,” prosecutor Kym Worthy said in the statement. “Unfortunately, the set of alleged facts are far too common in the LGBTQ community,” Worthy said. “We will bring justice to Mr. Brisendine. The defendant is 17 years and 11 months old – mere weeks away from being an adult offender under the law.”
She added, “As a result of that and the heinous nature of this crime, we will seek to try him as an adult.”
A spokesperson for the prosecutor’s office said the office has not designated the incident as a hate crime, but said regardless of that designation, a conviction of first-degree murder could result in a sentence of life in prison. The spokesperson, Maria Lewis, said the prosecutor’s office was not initially disclosing the name of the dating app through which the two men met, but said that would be disclosed in court as the case proceeds.
The NBC affiliate station in Detroit, WDIV TV, reported that Brisendine was found deceased by Luis Mandujano, who lives near where Brisendine lived and who owns the Detroit gay bar Gigi’s, where Brisendine worked as a doorman. The NBC station report says Mandujano said he went to Brisendine’s house on Sept. 29 after Brisendine did not show up for work and his car was not at his house.
Mandujano, who is organizing a GoFundMe fundraising effort for Brisendine, states in his message on the GoFundMe site that Brisendine worked as a beloved doorman at Gigi’s bar.
“We will do what we can to honor Howard’s life as we put him to rest,” Mandujano states in his GoFundMe message. “He left the material world in a volatile manner at the hand of a monster that took his life for being gay. Let’s not allow hate to win!”
In response to a Facebook message from the Washington Blade, a spokesperson for Gigi’s said the money raised from the GoFundMe effort will be used for Brisendine’s funeral expenses and his “remaining bills.” The spokesperson, who didn’t disclose their name, added, “Any leftover money will be donated to local LGBTQ nonprofit groups to combat hate.”
The GoFundMe site can be accessed here.
Congress
Baldwin attacked over LGBTQ rights support as race narrows
Wis. Democrat facing off against Republican Eric Hovde
As her race against Republican challenger Eric Hovde tightens, with Cook Political Report projecting a toss-up in November, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) is fielding attacks over her support for LGBTQ rights.
Two recent ads run by the Senate Leadership Fund, a superPAC that works to elect Republicans to the chamber, take aim at her support for gender affirming care and an LGBTQ center in Wisconsin. Baldwin was the first openly LGBTQ candidate elected to the Senate.
The first ad concerns her statement of support for Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers’s veto of a Republican-led bill to ban medically necessary healthcare interventions for transgender youth in the state.
Treatments require parental consent for patients younger than 18, and genital surgeries are not performed on minors in Wisconsin.
The second ad concerns funding that Baldwin had earmarked for Briarpatch Youth Services, an organization that provides crucial services for at-risk and homeless young people, with some programming for LGBTQ youth.
Baldwin’s victory is seen as key for Democrats to retain control of the Senate, a tall order that would require them to defend a handful of vulnerable incumbents. U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, an Independent who usually votes with the Democrats, is retiring after this term and his replacement is expected to be the state’s Republican Gov. Jim Justice.
National
Supreme Court begins fall term with major gender affirming care case on the docket
Justices rule against Biden admin over emergency abortion question
The U.S. Supreme Court’s fall term began on Monday with major cases on the docket including U.S. v Skrmetti, which could decide the fate of 24 state laws banning the use of puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors.
First, however, the justices dealt another blow to the Biden-Harris administration and reproductive rights advocates by leaving in place a lower court order that blocked efforts by the federal government to allow hospitals to terminate pregnancies in medical emergencies.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services had issued a guidance instructing healthcare providers to offer abortions in such circumstances, per the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which kicked off litigation over whether the law overrides state abortion restrictions.
The U.S. Court of appeals for the 5th Circuit had upheld a decision blocking the federal government from enforcing the law via the HHS guidance, and the U.S. Department of Justice subsequently asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
The justices also declined to hear a free speech case in which parents challenged a DOJ memo instructing officials to look into threats against public school officials, which sparked false claims that parents were being labeled “domestic terrorists” for raising objections at school board meetings over, especially, COVID policies and curricula and educational materials addressing matters of race, sexuality, and gender.
Looking to the cases ahead, U.S. v. Skrmetti is “obviously the blockbuster case of the term,” a Supreme Court practitioner and lecturer at the Harvard law school litigation clinic told NPR.
The attorney, Deepak Gupta, said the litigation “presents fundamental questions about the scope of state power to regulate medical care for minors, and the rights of parents to make medical decisions for your children.”
The ACLU, which represents parties in the case, argues that Tennessee’s gender affirming care ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by allowing puberty blockers and hormone treatments for cisgender patients younger than 18 while prohibiting these interventions for their transgender counterparts.
The organization notes that “leading medical experts and organizations — such as the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics — oppose these restrictions, which have already forced thousands of families across the country to travel to maintain access to medical care or watch their child suffer without it.”
When passing their bans on gender affirming care, conservative states have cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), which overturned constitutional protections for abortion that were in place since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973.
The ACLU notes “U.S. v. Skrmetti will be a major test of how far the court is willing to stretch Dobbs to allow states to ban other health care” including other types of reproductive care like IVF and birth control.
Also on the docket in the months ahead are cases that will decide core questions about the government’s ability to regulate “ghost guns,” firearms that are made with build-it-yourself kits available online, and the constitutionality of a Texas law requiring age verification to access pornography.
The latter case drew opposition from liberal and conservative groups that argue it will have a chilling effect on adults who, as NPR wrote, “would realistically fear extortion, identity theft and even tracking of their habits by the government and others.”
National
Lesbian software developer seeks to preserve lost LGBTQ history
HistoryIT helps create digital archives that are genuinely accessible
Up until the early 2010s, if you searched “Babe Ruth” in the Baseball Hall of Fame, nothing would pop up. To find information on the greatest baseball player of all time, you would have to search “Ruth, George Herman.”
That is the way online archival systems were set up and there was a clear problem with it. Kristen Gwinn-Becker was uniquely able to solve it. “I’m a super tech geek, history geek,” she says, “I love any opportunity to create this aha moment with people through history.”
Gwinn-Becker is the founder and CEO of HistoryIT, a company that helps organizations create digital archives that are genuinely accessible. “I believe history is incredibly important, but I also think it’s in danger,” she says. “Less than 2% of our historical materials are digital and even less of that is truly accessible.”
Gwinn-Becker’s love for history is personal. As a lesbian, growing up, she sought out evidence of herself across time. “I was interested in stories, interested in people whose lives mirrored mine to help me understand who I was.”
“[My identity] influences my love of history and my strong belief in history is important,” she says.
Despite always loving history, Gwinn-Becker found herself living and working in San Francisco during the early dot com boom and bust in the ‘90s. “It was an exciting time,” she recounts, “if you were intellectually curious, you could just jump right in.”
Being there was almost happenstance, Gwinn-Becker explained: “I was 20 years old and wanted to live in San Francisco.” Quickly, she fell in love with “all of the incredible new tools.” She was working with non-profits that encouraged her to take classes and apply the new skills. “I was really into software, web, and database development.”
But history eventually pulled her back. “Tech was fun, but I didn’t want to be a developer,” she says. Something was missing. When the opportunity to get a Ph.D. in history from George Washington University presented itself, “I got to work on the Eleanor Roosevelt papers, who I was and remain quite passionate about.”
Gwinn-Becker’s research on Eleanor Roosevelt planted the seeds of digital preservation. “Eleanor Roosevelt doesn’t have a single archive. FDR has lots but the first ladies don’t,” she says. Gwinn-Becker wondered what else was missing from the archive — and what would be missing from the archive if we didn’t start preserving it now.
Those questions eventually led Gwinn-Becker to found HistoryIT in 2011. Since then, the company has created digital archives for organizations ranging from museums and universities to sororities, fraternities, and community organizations.
This process is not easy. “Digital preservation is more than scanning,” says Gwinn-Becker. “Most commercial scanners’ intent is to create a digital copy, not an exact replica.”
To digitally preserve something, Gwinn-Becker’s team must take a photo with overhead cameras. “There is an international standard,” she says, “you create an archival TIFF.”
“It’s the biggest possible file we can create now. That’s how you future-proof.”
Despite the common belief that the internet is forever, JPEGs saved to social media or websites are a poor archive. “It’s more expensive for us to do projects in the 2000 to 2016 period than to do 19th-century projects,” explains Gwinn-Becker, since finding adequate files for preservation can be tricky. “The images themselves are deteriorated because they’re compressed so much,” she says.
Her clients are finding that having a strong digital archive is useful outside of the noble goal of protecting history. “It’s a unique trove of content,” says Gwinn-Becker. One client saw a 790% increase in donations after incorporating the digital archive into fundraising efforts. “It’s important to have content quickly and easily,” says Gwinn-Becker, whose team also works with clients on digital strategy for their archive.
One of Gwinn-Becker’s favorite parts of her job is finding what she calls “hidden histories.”
“We [LGBTQ people] are represented everywhere. We’re represented in sports, in religious history, in every kind of movement, not only our movement. I’m passionate about bringing those stories out.”
Sometimes queer stories are found in unexpected places, says Gwinn-Becker. “We work with sororities and fraternities. There are a hell of a lot of our stories there.”
Part of digital preservation is also making sure that history being created in the moment is not lost to future generations. HistoryIT works with NFL teams, for example. One of their clients is the Panthers, who hired Justine Lindsay, the first transgender cheerleader in the NFL. Gwinn-Becker was excited to be able to preserve information about Lindsay in the digital record. “It’s making history in the process of preserving it,” says Gwinn-Becker.
Preserving queer history, either through “hidden histories” or LGBTQ-specific archives, is vital says Gwinn-Becker. “Think about whose history gets marginalized, whose history gets moved to the sidelines, whose history gets just erased,” she prompts. “In a time of fake news, we need to point to evidence in the past. Queer people have existed since there were humans, but their stories are hidden,” Gwinn-Becker says.
Meanwhile, Gwinn-Becker accidentally finds herself as part of queer history too. Listed as one of Inc. Magazine’s Top 250 Female Founders of 2024, she is surrounded by names like Christina Aguilera, Selena Gomez, and Natalie Portman.
One name stuck out. “Never in my life did I think I’d be on the same list – other than the obvious one – with Billie Jean King. That’s pretty exciting,” she said.
But she can’t focus on the win for too long. “When I go to sleep at night, I think ‘there’s so much history, and we have to transfer it to the digital,’” she says, “We have a very small period in which to do that in a meaningful way.”
(This story is part of the Digital Equity Local Voices Fellowship lab through News is Out. The lab initiative is made possible with support from Comcast NBCUniversal.)
District of Columbia
Trans employee awarded $930,000 in lawsuit against D.C. McDonald’s
Jury finds franchise failed to stop harassment, retaliation by staff
A D.C. Superior Court jury on Aug. 15 ordered a company that owned and operated a McDonald’s restaurant franchise in Northwest Washington to pay $930,000 in damages to a transgender employee who charged in a lawsuit that she was subjected to discrimination, harassment, and retaliation because of her gender identity in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act.
The lawsuit, which was filed in January 2021 by attorneys representing Diana Portillo Medrano, says Medrano was first hired to work at the McDonald’s at 5948 Georgia Ave., N.W. in 2011 as a customer service representative and was recognized and promoted for good work until she began to transition as a trans woman two years later.
It says she was fired in 2016 after she filed a discrimination complaint with the D.C. Office of Human Rights on grounds that she did not have legal authorization to work in the U.S. as an immigrant from El Salvador. One of her attorneys, Jonathan Puth, said the jury agreed with the lawsuit’s allegation that the reason given for the firing was a “pretext” and the real reason was retaliation for her discrimination complaint.
Puth said evidence was presented during the eight-day civil trial that the McDonald’s had knowingly hired other immigrant employees who did not have legal authorization to work and never held that against them.
“Despite a successful five-year career with McDonald’s marked by raises, promotions, and awards and absence of discipline, Plaintiff Diana Medrano’s supervisors and co-workers subjected her to a barrage of taunts, laughter, ridicule, and harassment because she is a transgender woman,” the lawsuit states.
“Managers and supervisors routinely referred to her as male despite her expressed request that they respect her gender identity as female, encouraging co-workers to harass her relentlessly in like fashion,” it says. “When she complained to her managers, they claimed Ithat the harassment was justified because she hadn’t legally changed her name,” the lawsuit’s complaint continues.
“After she formalized and elevated her complaints, Defendants fired her on pretextual grounds. Defendants discriminated against Ms. Medrano because of her gender identity and retaliated against her in violation of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act,” the lawsuit complaint states.
The lawsuit names as defendants International Golden Foods LLC and MCI Golden Foods LLC, two companies based in Burke, Va. that it says were owned and operated by Luis Gavignano, who is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit. The lawsuit says the two companies held the franchise rights to own and operate the McDonald’s where Medrano worked.
The Washington Blade’s attempts to reach a spokesperson for the two companies and for Gavignano as well as two of the attorneys that represented them in contesting the lawsuit through email and phone messages were unsuccessful.
In a nine-page written answer to the lawsuit filed Feb. 12, 2021, on behalf of International Golden Foods, which is referred to as IGF, attorneys Amy M. Heerink and Kelvin Newsome dispute the allegations that Medrano was targeted for discrimination and harassment because of her gender identity.
The written answer to the complaint highlights the company’s claim that Medrano was fired because she didn’t have legal authority to work in the U.S. It refers to the company’s personnel official, Carla Vega, who informed Medrano that she could no longer work for the McDonald’s outlet.
“IGF admits that Ms. Vega informed Plaintiff that her employment had to be terminated due to Plaintiff’s voluntary and unprompted statement during the investigation that she was not authorized to work in the United States,” the written answer to the lawsuit states. “IGF admits that Plaintiff’s employment was terminated based on her ineligibility to work in the United States,” it says.
“The jury clearly found that IGF continually used unauthorized employees, hired and employed unauthorized workers knowingly,” Puth, Madrano’s attorney, told the Blade. “And they never fired anyone for that reason at any of their stores except for Diana,” Puth said.
“And so, the jury found that the reason given was a pretext for retaliation,” he said. “That was what was motivating them. They were motivated to retaliate against her because she kept complaining about discrimination.”
Puth noted that Medrano initially filed her complaint with the D.C. Office of Human Rights and was represented at that time by an attorney with Whitman-Walker Health’s legal clinic. He said Whitman-Walker later referred her to his law firm, Correia & Puth, after determining the case could not be resolved at the Office of Human Rights.
The jury’s verdict of $930,000 in damages included $700,000 in punitive damages and $230,000 in damages for the emotional distress Medrano suffered due to the discrimination and harassment to which she was subjected.
A statement released by the law firm representing her says the action by the jury is believed to be the first jury verdict in a transgender employment discrimination case under the D.C. Human Rights Act.
Attorney Puth and his law firm partner, attorney Andrew Adelman, were the attorneys of record representing Medrano in her lawsuit.
“When you are sure of what you have experienced, no matter how much time passes, the truth will come to light,” Medrano said in the statement released by her attorneys. “Our truth is our best weapon to achieve justice,” she said. “It is truth, justice, and faith in God that have helped me get here.”
In his law firm’s statement, Puth called the jury’s verdict a vindication of Medrano’s 11-year battle for her legal rights.
“Diana is our hero,” he said. “She stood up for her rights in the face of terrible harassment and kept fighting even after she was fired for doing so. This verdict puts other employers on notice that tolerating harassment of transgender employees is both unlawful and costly.”
Puth said earlier this year Medrano was approved for U.S. political asylum based on discrimination and harassment she faced in El Salvador. He said she is currently working full-time as a counselor for Empoderate, an LGBTQ health organization providing services for the Latina/Latino community that is affiliated with the D.C.-based La Clinica del Pueblo.
Page shines in trans family drama ‘Close to You’
I cheated and my boyfriend won’t forgive me
LA events to attend in honor of Trans Day of Remembrance
Report finds LGBTQ+ Latin American youth face discrimination at higher rates
Weak Democrats like Jared Polis already caving to Trump
California’s LGBTQ+ population braces for wave of federal attacks on rights
Controversy grows over member of Calif. university’s women’s volleyball team
HRC’s Brandon Wolf reflects on Trump’s victory, path ahead for LGBTQ movement
Trans Chicanas and Latinas experience exclusion from umbrella term
Weak Democrats like Jared Polis already caving to Trump
-
California4 days agoCalifornia’s LGBTQ+ population braces for wave of federal attacks on rights
-
Sports4 days agoControversy grows over member of Calif. university’s women’s volleyball team
-
Politics5 days agoHRC’s Brandon Wolf reflects on Trump’s victory, path ahead for LGBTQ movement
-
Opinions4 days agoTrans Chicanas and Latinas experience exclusion from umbrella term
-
Opinions2 days agoWeak Democrats like Jared Polis already caving to Trump
-
Politics3 days agoWill Rollins loses razor-close race for Republican Ken Calvert’s House seat
-
Politics4 days agoDems must not abandon trans people after Trump’s win: Kierra Johnson
-
Opinions4 days ago
What’s next for the LGBTQ movement?
-
California Politics3 days agoWhat does Measure G mean for Los Angeles County?
-
Federal Government4 days agoHouse races could decide Department of Education’s future