ACLU Challenges Queens Landlord's Claim That Transgender People Are Not Entitled to Use Bathrooms or Common Areas of Building
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEW YORK -- In arguments before a state supreme court judge tomorrow, the American Civil Liberties Union is urging the court to reject a landlord's claim that he was justified in refusing to let transgender clients with the Hispanic AIDS Forum (HAF) use any of the building's restrooms or common areas of the building.
"The landlord's contempt for HAF's transgender clients is truly shameful," said James Esseks, Litigation Director of the ACLU's AIDS Project, which filed a complaint in 2001 on behalf of the group. By suggesting that they were justified in excluding HAF's transgender clients from using the building's common areas and restrooms, the building owners are ignoring bedrock principles of anti-discrimination law. As we learned so painfully during the early days of the civil rights movement, public restrooms and hallways are for all Americans."
The complaint filed by the ACLU in June of 2001 asserts that HAF, the leading Latino HIV/AIDS agency in New York, was effectively forced out of its home of 10 years in Jackson Heights, Queens -- an epicenter of the AIDS epidemic in U.S. Latino communities -- because the landlord acquiesced to complaints from another tenant that the agency's transgender clients were using the "wrong" restrooms. HAF repeatedly tried to negotiate with the landlord to reach an agreement that would be acceptable to all parties over the use of the restrooms, but the landlord refused to renew the lease -- saying he didn't even want the transgender clients in any of the common areas of the building.
"The landlord made it very clear that he had no respect whatsoever for transgender people," said Heriberto Sanchez Soto, Executive Director of HAF. "For the sake of all of our clients who have been disadvantaged by this discrimination -- but especially our transgender clients -- I hope the judge sends a very clear message that these kinds of attitudes won't fly in New York City."
The landlord has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint; that motion is the subject of tomorrow's hearing in New York State Supreme Court in lower Manhattan.
"Evicting HAF has also had a terrible impact on its ability to provide HIV services to the Latino community," said Kesari Ruza of Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, a volunteer lawyer working on the case. "By forcing HAF to relocate, hundreds of Latino clients must now travel much further for services."
According to the ACLU lawsuit, the Estate of Joseph Bruno (which owns the building in Jackson Heights), an associated Trust and its Trustees violated state and local laws that prohibit discrimination based on sex, gender and disability. The lawsuit asks for unspecified damages, citing the financial and practical impact the move had on the HAF's ability to reach people badly in need of services.
The ACLU's Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss is available online at /node/36222
About the Hispanic AIDS Forum
The Hispanic AIDS Forum provides treatment, education and innovative prevention services to New York City's Latino population. The agency's mission is to reduce HIV transmission and to secure timely and quality support services for Latina/os affected by HIV/AIDS. The Hispanic AIDS Forum operates three community-based offices in some of New York's largest Latino neighborhoods: Western Queens, Manhattan and the South Bronx.
About the ACLU AIDS Project
Since the first days of the AIDS epidemic, the ACLU has fought for the civil liberties of people affected by the disease. This includes working against discrimination, as well as for confidentiality in testing, reporting and treatment.
LGBTQ Rights
HIV
Hispanic AIDS Forum v. Bruno
LGBTQ Rights
HIV
Hispanic AIDS Forum v. Bruno
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
President Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender YouthPresident Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate today passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that would ban coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender youth whose parents are active-duty military personnel. The American Civil Liberties Union is opposing final passage of the defense bill over the inclusion of this health care ban and calling on President Joe Biden to veto the bill. Section 708 of the NDAA would prohibit insurance coverage for “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria” such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, which Speaker Mike Johnson says would “permanently ban transgender medical treatment for minors.” The same treatments would be covered by TRICARE for any medical purpose other than treating gender dysphoria, the clinical diagnosis for the psychological distress experienced by transgender people related to their gender identity. “By passing this bill, the House and Senate are forcing thousands of active-duty service members to choose between their careers in the military and the future of their transgender children,” said Mike Zamore, national director of policy & government affairs at the ACLU. “This unconscionable and unjustifiable attack on those families stands in direct contrast to President Joe Biden’s legacy of defending the civil rights of transgender Americans — including when few in his own party showed the courage to do so. President Biden should cement his legacy by vetoing this bill and sending it back to Congress to pass without Speaker Johnson’s last minute health care ban for servicemembers’ kids.” If signed by President Biden, this health care ban would be the first new anti-LGBTQ provision enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president since the enactment of the military’s since-repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for LGBTQ servicemembers and the since-repealed federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages known as the Defense of Marriage Act. It is unknown how many transgender youth are currently enrolled in TRICARE or how many of those enrolled are currently receiving coverage for gender-affirming care. In one 2022 analysis, 2,500 minor patients sought care for gender dysphoria through TRICARE Prime insurance at military or civilian treatment facilities in 2017, and 900 received puberty suppressants or gender-affirming hormones. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Montana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's LicensesMontana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's Licenses
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Montana from enforcing policies that bar transgender people from obtaining accurate sex designations on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses. After a prior restriction on amendments of birth certificates was struck down by the courts, in early 2024 the state of Montana enacted a new rule that categorically bars transgender Montanans from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. Around the same time, the Montana Department of Justice adopted a policy similarly restricting amendment of driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs challenged these policies in state district court, arguing that they violate various constitutional provisions, including the right to equal protection of the law. In a recent Montana Supreme Court decision, two justices concluded that discrimination on the basis of transgender status – as the state is engaging in here – is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause. The plaintiffs, two transgender women, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP. Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, said: “After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, wants me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male. Fortunately, the court agrees that this ridiculous policy should not be in effect.” “Once again the State of Montana chose to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans, only for that discriminatory action to be blocked by the courts,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. “Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.” “Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity unjustly violates their rights to privacy, equal treatment, and not being compelled to convey a government message about their sex that they disagree with,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. Fortunately, the court has refused to allow the state of Montana to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity as this case goes forward.” In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held, “[i]f the challenged state actions discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of their transgender status, they also necessarily discriminate the basis of sex.” The state has the option of appealing the district court’s ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, but the underlying case will proceed in district court. A trial has not yet been scheduled. -
FloridaDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. DixonKeohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy. -
IdahoDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. LabradorRobinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668.