The 40 Most Important American Lawsuits
Throughout history, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and HIV-positive people have turned to the courts to enforce their rights. The most significant advances — and indeed, a few setbacks — that impact people’s daily lives have come from rulings in state and federal courts around the country. As public opinion on issues facing LGBT people and those with HIV have shifted over the years, the struggle for full equality remains largely in the courts, which are charged with upholding state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution and making sure everyone’s rights are protected. These 40 cases show some of the most significant victories and losses for LGBT people and those with HIV over the last 40 years.
2004
Smith v. City of Salem
378 F.3d 566 (Federal Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit).
A firefighter who had worked without incident for seven years claimed that city officials conspired to force her to resign once she was diagnosed with gender identity disorder and began expressing a more feminine appearance at work. The court allowed the firefighter to sue for sex discrimination under Title VII, the federal employment nondiscrimination law, based on cases protecting employees who do not conform to sex stereotypes.
2003
Goodridge v. Dep't of Pub. Health
798 N.E.2d 941 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court).º
Seven same-sex couples who had been denied marriage licenses sued to be allowed to marry. The Massachusetts high court found that the ban on same-sex couples marrying violated both the liberty and equality safeguards of the Massachusetts Constitution, and did not meet even minimal constitutional standards, because it was not rationally related to any legitimate governmental interest. The court ordered the state to allow same-sex couples to marry, but gave the legislature an opportunity to respond. When the legislature subsequently asked if a civil union law would satisfy the state constitution’s requirements, the court responded that it would not (In re Opinion of the Justices, 802 N.E.2d 565 (2004)), and same-sex couples accordingly began marrying in Massachusetts in May 2004.
2003
Lawrence v. Texas
539 U.S. 558 (United States Supreme Court).*
Two men who were convicted of engaging in private sexual conduct in one of their homes challenged Texas’ law that made oral and anal sex between people of the same sex a crime. The Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it violated the right under the Fourteenth Amendment to form personal relationships and engage in private, consensual, non-commercial sexual intimacy without government interference. The decision reversed Bowers v. Hardwick and struck down all 13 remaining state sodomy laws, including both those that regulated only same-sex conduct and those that, on their face, covered conduct of both different-sex and same-sex couples.
2003
Doe v. Bell
754 N.Y.S.2d 846 (New York County Supreme (trial) Court).
A 17-year-old transgender youth who lived in an all-male foster care facility challenged New York City’s children’s services agency’s for refusing to allow her to wear skirts and dresses, which was part of her treatment for gender identity disorder. The court ordered that the agency permit her to dress according to her gender identity, concluding that gender identity disorder was a disability within the meaning of New York’s antidiscrimination law, which entitled the youth to reasonable accommodation in her choice of attire.
2001
Goins v. West
635 N.W.2d 717 (2001) (Minnesota Supreme Court).
An employee who was told she could not use the women’s restroom at work because the employer considered her biologically male, although she identified and presented as a woman, sued after being threatened with disciplinary action for failing to comply with the company’s request; she then resigned. Even though Minnesota law prohibits employment discrimination against transgender people, the court ruled that it was not discrimination for an employer to require all employees to use restrooms that matched their biological gender.
2001
Brandon v. County of Richardson
624 N.W.2d 604 (Nebraska Supreme Court).*
After Brandon Teena was raped by men who discovered he was transgender and sought help from law enforcement officials, they humiliated him and subsequently failed to protect him, leading to his murder by the men who had raped him. Brandon Teena’s mother sued the sheriff and county and won, but obtained only a limited recovery. The appellate court ruled that the trial court improperly reduced the recovery against the sheriff and county for failing to provide adequate protection to Brandon Teena himself; improperly concluded that the Sheriff’s conduct was not extreme and outrageous; and improperly undervalued the emotional loss suffered by Brandon Teena’s mother. The case drew important attention to the violence inflicted upon many transgender individuals and law enforcement’s obligations to respond.
2001
Doe v. County of Centre
242 F.3d 437 (Federal Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit).
When a couple who had an HIV-positive son sought to become foster parents, a Pennsylvania county adopted a rule that foster families whose members have “serious infectious diseases” may only care for children with the same disease. The couple sued under federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability and the appellate court reversed the trial court’s ruling in the county’s favor. The appellate court rejected the argument that the placement of foster children in a home where an HIV-positive child lives poses a significant risk of harm to other children.
2000
Hernandez-Montiel v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
225 F.3d 1084 (Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit).º
A gay man who had adopted a female gender identity in Mexico sought asylum in the United States after suffering persecution, including rape, by the Mexican police. The court ruled that gay men in Mexico who dress and act like women are part of a particular social group entitled to asylum in the United States if they were persecuted in the past or have a well-founded fear of future persecution if forced to return to their country of origin.
2000
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale
530 U.S. 640 (United States Supreme Court).*
An Eagle Scout challenged the Boy Scouts’ revocation of his membership after learning that he was gay. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the exclusion of gay people from membership violated New Jersey’s law against discrimination, which prohibits public accommodations from discriminating based on sexual orientation. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that this application of New Jersey’s law violated the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of expressive association, because it significantly interfered with the Boy Scouts’ ability to express their antigay views.
2000
Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin v. Southworth
529 U.S. 217 (United States Supreme Court).º
A group of students at the University of Wisconsin challenged the collection of a mandatory student activity fee, which was used to support student organizations engaging in speech the students did not favor, such as activities supporting gay rights. The Supreme Court rejected their case, ruling that public universities may charge students activity fees that will be used to facilitate a wide range of extracurricular student speech, provided the program does not discriminate against certain groups based on their viewpoint.
2000
Colín v. Orange Unified School District
83 F. Supp. 2d 1135. (Federal District Court for the Central District of California).*
Students in Orange County, California were denied permission to form a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) at their public high school. They sued and won a court order that the school allow them to meet on the same terms as other student groups. The court ruled that, because the school received federal financial aid and allowed other non-curricular clubs to meet on campus during non-instructional time, the federal Equal Access Act prohibited the school from treating the GSA differently based on the content of what students sought to discuss. In addition, the school could not require the students to choose a different name for their club.
1999
Baker v. State
744 A.2d 864 (Vermont Supreme Court).º
Three same-sex couples who sought to be allowed to marry brought suit under the equal benefits clause of the Vermont Constitution. The court ruled that same-sex couples in the state are entitled to the same benefits and protections as are provided to different-sex couples under Vermont law, but left it to the legislature, in the first instance, to craft an appropriate remedy. This led to the adoption of the first “civil union” law in the United States.
1999
Littleton v. Prange
9 S.W.3d 223 (Texas Court of Appeals).
A transgender woman who had sex-reassignment surgery before she married a man sued a doctor for malpractice she claimed caused the wrongful death of her husband. Her case was dismissed based on the court’s refusal to respect the change from her sex designation at birth. Treating her as a man, the court held that her marriage to her husband was invalid and that she therefore had no right to sue for his death.
1999
Onishea v. Hopper
171 F.3d 1289 (Federal Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit).
HIV-positive prison inmates, who were segregated from other prisoners, challenged their exclusion from numerous prison programs and activities that resulted from that segregation. The court upheld their exclusion based on the theoretical possibility that transmission of HIV could occur in those settings.
1998
Tanner v. Oregon Health Sciences University
971 P.2d 435 (Oregon Court of Appeals).º
Lesbian employees of a state university sued to obtain the same health insurance benefits provided to married, heterosexual university employees. The court ruled that the denial of benefits to them violated the Oregon Constitution because, since the state did not allow same-sex couples to marry yet required people to be married to obtain benefits, it was denying them benefits based on their sexual orientation.
1998
Able v. United States
155 F.3d 628 (Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit).*
Six members of the military challenged the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy adopted by Congress. Rulings at the trial court level in their favor were reversed on the ground that courts had to defer to the military’s judgment with regard to the policy.
1998
Bragdon v. Abbott
524 U.S. 624 (United States Supreme Court).º
A woman sued her dentist after he refused to treat her in his office because she was HIV-positive. The Supreme Court ruled that people living with HIV are entitled to the protections against discrimination provided by the Americans with Disabilities Act, because HIV is a physical impairment that interferes with major life activities such as reproduction. The Court also held that, in determining whether the dentist could refuse treatment based on concern about the risk of HIV transmission, any risk must be assessed based on objective medical evidence, and not simply the dentist’s fear.
1998
Oncale v. Sundowners Offshore Services
523 U.S. 75 (United States Supreme Court).º
A worker on an off-shore oil platform was allowed to sue under Title VII, the federal employment nondiscrimination law, after being sexually harassed by co-workers in an all-male workforce. The Supreme Court rejected lower court rulings that would have denied protection to lesbian and gay employees, who frequently are the targets of same-sex sexual harassment.
1996
Nabozny v. Podlesny
92 F.3d 446 (Federal Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit).*
A gay high school student who was harassed and assaulted by other students was allowed to sue school officials for failing to provide him the same protections afforded other students. The court ruled that the school’s refusal to take action because a student was a gay male was discrimination based on both sexual orientation and sex. The subsequent jury verdict in the student’s favor led to the officials agreeing to a settlement of almost $1 million dollars, which sent a strong message to educators about their obligations to protect LGBT youth.
1996
Romer v. Evans
517 U.S. 620 (United States Supreme Court).*
An amendment to the Colorado Constitution, which prohibited government entities in the state from protecting lesbians and gay men against discrimination, was found to violate the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause. Expressing hostility towards gay people was not a legitimate state objective, the Court ruled. Because there was no other tenable explanation for why only gay people had been targeted for exclusion from such protections, the amendment could not even meet the minimum requirements demanded of all laws, and therefore had to be struck down.
*Cases in which Lambda Legal was of counsel.
ºCases in which Lambda Legal participated as a friend-of-the-court.
