All government employees are protected by the U.S. Constitution against irrational discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In addition, some measure of protection already exists under Title VII based on gender, which has been held to include gender identity and expression.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and several courts have interpreted Title VII to protect transgender employees, and the EEOC has interpreted Title VII to cover sexual orientation discrimination. The Supreme Court has held that the EEOC's interpretations of Title VII are entitled to "great deference."
YES, North Carolina has a criminal law that punishes people with an HIV diagnosis specifically for nondisclosure of HIV status prior to sexual conduct. A violation of this statute is classified as a misdemeanor.
YES, in recent years, there has been at least one criminal prosecution for HIV nondisclosure in North Carolina.
NO, North Carolina does not have laws that criminalize or enhance penalties for biting, spitting and/or throwing bodily fluids or substances (such as urine or excrement) if a person has been diagnosed with HIV, but that does not mean the state could not prosecute a person engaged in such activities under general criminal laws or argue for sentence enhancements based on the person’s HIV diagnosis.
NO, North Carolina does not have laws that enhance penalties for HIV-positive people involved in commercial sexual transactions, but that does not mean that a prosecutor could not argue for an enhanced sentence in such a situation based on the defendant’s HIV-positive status, if the prosecutor has access to that information, or attempt to bring separate charges under an HIV-specific nondisclosure statute or the general criminal laws.
Any adult. But if the petitioner is unmarried, no other person may join. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 48-1-103, 48-2-301.
No longer available. Second-parent adoptions were ruled invalid and an adoptive mom’s adoption order was voided based on the state supreme court’s determination in Boseman v. Jarrell,704 S.E.2d 494 (N.C. 2010). However, the Boseman court granted the former adoptive mother standing to seek custody of her child based on her former partner’s actions in creating and fostering a parent-child relationship. Non-legal parents may be able to protect their relationship with their child in the event of a breakup in reliance on Boseman v. Jarrell and other cases. We strongly advise consulting a family lawyer familiar with LGBT issues as soon as you and your partner decide to both become parents.
Generally hostile climate for lesbians and gay men, as seen in the custody decision of Pulliam v. Smith, 501 S.E.2d 898 (N.C. 1998).
Hostile climate for lesbians and gay men, as seen in the custody decision Pulliam v. Smith, 501 S.E.2d 898 (N.C. 1998).