Thanks to the work of two of our interns, Richard Luedeman and Allister Chang, GLAD now has a Resource List for each of the six New England states. You can either access the list online (see individual links below) or we can mail you your state’s Resource List in printed form- just contact GLAD’s Legal InfoLine.
Wherever possible we have included “umbrella” organizations that maintain lists of other local organizations that provide services in the area. For example, in some states there is a statewide HIV/AIDS organization that has a list of other local HIV/AIDS service providers. These “umbrella” organizations should have more up-to-date lists as changes occur.
We hope that you find these useful. We welcome suggestions of other agencies to include and would appreciate receiving any corrections or updates that need to be made. Changes, suggestions and comments can be sent to us here.In addition to these Resource Lists, GLAD has a large number of publications on the various legal issues that affect the LGBT and HIV+ communities in the six New England states. Just contact the Legal InfoLine, and an experienced volunteer can guide you to the publication(s) that provide the information you need.
New England LGBTQ and HIV/AIDS Resources by State
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
One section of this law allows retirees who retired under Chapter 32 of the Massachusetts General Laws on or before May 17, 2004 choosing Option A or B, and then married a person of the same sex on or before May 17, 2005 to change to Option C retroactive to their retirement date. Option C allows for a spouse to continue receiving a monthly retirement income after the retiree dies. This option is also available for the surviving spouse of a retiree provided the conditions above are met. Chapter 32 of the General Laws covers most Massachusetts state, county and municipal employees, including public school teachers.
Although the exact amounts are based on a number of factors including the ages of the retiree and spouse, in general changing from Option A or B to Option C results in about a 9-11% decrease in income for the retiree and if the retiree dies the surviving spouse gets two-thirds of that amount for his/her lifetime. If the spouse predeceases the retiree, then the retiree’s income reverts back to Option A effective the date that the spouse died.
If a retiree or surviving spouse chooses to take advantage of this, there will need to be adjustments to recover the excess income already received (the difference between the Option A or B income and the Option C income, which is approximately 9-11% each year). The law leaves how this will be done to the retirement boards. Also, it is not clear exactly what the IRS tax implications of this change are (since the retiree has already paid the federal tax on the Option A or B amount). We will provide further details as they become available.
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2011/Chapter176 Section 55.
If you have questions, contact GLAD’s Legal Infoline—800-455-GLAD (4523) or www.glad.org/rights/infoline-contact.
Guest Post by GLAD Summer Intern Michael Raleigh
This has been my first experience working at an office, and I’ve really enjoyed it. I hope any other office I may work at in the future will be modeled after this one. One empowering aspect of GLAD’s culture is the equality throughout the office. As an intern, I’ve never felt pushed aside, and I never feel that my voice is insignificant. I’ve been assigned very few “intern-y” tasks, and they are always quick, painless, and have some sort of positive impact. I never go home feeling that the work I’m doing as an intern at GLAD has no meaning.
I feel much more informed on issues that are very important to me. I understand the legal reasons why the Obama Administration isn’t defending DOMA; I have a deeper understanding of the adversity the LGBTQ community faces; I appreciate every victory of the Civil Rights movement more than before. I’ve also become more cynical about the United States of America’s willingness to afford equal rights to all of its citizens. Before coming to GLAD, I didn’t truly know what DOMA was. I knew it was an anti-gay law, but I didn’t know it forced the federal government to treat some legally married couples as if they had no connection to each other. I wasn’t aware that it was so blatantly discriminatory. In fact, in GLAD’s case Gill v. OPM Judge Tauro of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts ruled that Congress had no rational basis for the creation of DOMA.A long-term project I took on in my first week at GLAD consisted of editing and updating a Spanish translation of the “Massachusetts Overview of Legal Issues For Gay Men, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgender People” publication. At times this has been an amusing experience, especially when trying to accurately render “foot-tapping” (à la Larry Craig) into Spanish. It has also been a very informative experience: I have had the opportunity to play with texts in multiple languages, and have realized that as much as I love it, I want to try active interpretation because it requires communicating with other human beings.
Speaking of communicating with other human beings: when Bruce Bell, InfoLine Manager, asked me if I would work on the Legal InfoLine, I had many initial reservations. Because I didn’t understand what the InfoLine was, I thought it would be boring and menial; however, when I worked up the courage to take a phone call, I absolutely fell in love with it. The InfoLine is one way I can have a meaningful impact on people’s lives, even though I will likely never meet them. It’s truly amazing to have such an impact in such a short amount of time.
My other big project has been working alongside another intern, Andy Vo, on preparing materials for an upcoming high school GSA leadership conference (16-18 August) at UMASS Amherst. Having just graduated from high school, both Andy and I are very connected to students’ rights issues, so the opportunity to work on a project that was so close to our own experiences was incredible. We learned a ton about the legislation and case law that relates to the rights of students. From this information we created a brochure publication for MA students, designed a button, helped design the blue wrist bands people are wearing in the office (see below), stuffed goodie bags for the GSA leaders, and helped Vickie Henry, Senior Staff Attorney, create a slideshow presentation as well as a timeline of LGBTQ student rights for her presentation at the conference.
GLAD has provided me with opportunities to learn from and contribute to my community in a positive, meaningful, and enduring way. For that, I am forever grateful.
In the Public Affairs and Education wing of GLAD we are always so delighted when we can provide information that helps people successfully fight for their rights. Information is power, and it is our job to spread the word in the community about what legal protections exist to protect people no matter what their sexual orientation, HIV status or gender identity might be. As educators and advocates, we are excited when community members take the law under their arm and advocate for themselves.
A week ago we got a call on the InfoLine from a same-sex married couple who were denied spousal health insurance by a Massachusetts public entity. This couple knew that something was wrong.
Our callers made a strong impression on us since they handled the situation with such determination. They remembered all of the names of the people that they spoke to; they were asking clear and directed questions; they had a timeline of events; and they called all ends of the spectrum from the insurance company, to the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office, to GLAD.
We were able to guide them through some steps to challenge the information that they were given. Sometimes simply requesting a denial in writing is enough to cause authorities to take a closer look at their decisions and correct them. Massachusetts authorities realized, a little late, that they cannot deny state, country or municipal employees same-sex spousal health benefits.
When they won health insurance coverage for the spouse, they thanked us by sending a fruit, cracker and cheese basket. This was the first time that we ever received a gift from one of our InfoLine callers, and we were, well, just touched. They wrote to us saying that:
Your team at GLAD talked us through every step of the process to get us to where we needed to be, which was having my employer provide health insurance for my wife in addition to myself. We have never encountered such cooperation and compassion while getting correct information based on the law and our rights as a same-sex married couple with which to combat the inaccurate information being given to me by my employer.
Thank you to this amazing couple, to our volunteers, to our legal team for having our back, and to the community for turning to us for information.
The reason is fairly complex, but basically it has to do with whether the company’s health plan is insured (the company pays a premium for each health plan to an insurance company) or the plan is self-insured or self-funded (which means that the company directly pays the health expenses that are incurred under the plan). The only way to tell whether your company’s plan is insured or self-insured is to obtain a copy of the plan or speak to your HR person, because even companies with self-insured plans often hire an insurance company to manage their paperwork.
With insured plans, usually the state’s insurance laws apply to the plan, and so in places that recognize the marriage, the company and health plan are required to treat same-sex spouses the same way they treat different-sex spouses.
Self-insured plans, however, are regulated by a federal agency, ERISA, which sets minimum standards that employers must meet. Because of DOMA, ERISA does not require employers to treat same-sex spouses the same way it does different-sex spouses, and so with self-insured plans employers can legally discriminate against same-sex spouses and not allow them to get on the health plan.
It is important to understand though that ERISA does not PREVENT employers from offering the same benefits to same-sex spouses. If the benefit is denied, it is because the employer is deliberately choosing to discriminate against its same-sex married couples. Also, sometimes even with self-insured plans, the definition of spouse may legally require that same-sex spouses be covered. So if you are denied spousal coverage, call GLAD’s Legal InfoLine. We can arm you with information that may persuade your company to provide coverage.
Even if a same-sex spouse is allowed on the other spouse’s health plan, DOMA steps in with another example of discrimination. Employer benefits to different-sex spouse are tax free, but since the federal government does not recognize the marriages of same-sex couples, any benefit the employer offers to a same-sex spouse gets considered as extra income to the employee (called imputed income) and gets taxed by the federal government. However, in places that recognize the marriage there is no state tax.
If DOMA goes away, both these forms of discrimination would disappear. There is more detailed information about this at www.glad.org. If you have any questions about this blog or any other legal question, contact GLAD’s Legal InfoLine at 800-455-GLAD (4523).
I was on vacation for a couple of weeks, and so although I intended to send in my blog post from Puerto Vallarta, it just didn’t happen—somehow beach won out over blog. But I’m back, and now that we are in the middle of tax season, I thought it would be good to provide you with some tax-related information. First, the bad news. Although GLAD has two lawsuits going to take down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), until those cases conclude DOMA is still in force, and so that means that if you are a married same-sex couple you MUST each file a federal income tax return listing your status as single (unless one of you qualifies as a legal dependent under the IRS code). However, if you live in Massachusetts, Connecticut or Vermont, you MUST file your state tax as married (either married filing jointly or separately). If you live in another state that recognizes your marriage, check with our sister organization, Lambda Legal, about how to file your state taxes. GLAD has a publication that provides additional information on this topic.
Secondly, if because of DOMA you have been paying significantly more in federal taxes than you would have if you had been able to file as married, you may want to file an amended return as married now for the 2007 tax year, because for most people April 15, 2011 is the deadline for filing an amended return for the 2007 tax year. By filing an amended return as married, and then being rejected because of DOMA, you will be given a two year window to sue. This might buy you enough time for us to win our DOMA suit. You should consult with a tax professional before doing this, because filing an amended return could also increase your chance of being audited.
This tax burden is one of the many ways that DOMA continues to harm married same-sex couples. You can read some of the stories of families dealing with this issue on our website. And we encourage you to share your own story with us.
Finally, some important good news for transgender persons who have paid for medical treatment. You may now be able to claim those expenses as a medical deduction on your federal income tax. Thanks to GLAD’s victory in the O’Donnabhain case, treatment for gender identity disorder (GID) is now on the list of conditions that are eligible for consideration for a medical deduction on the federal income tax. As for any medical deduction, you need to have medical documentation that the treatment you received was appropriate for your particular diagnosis. For more details see our publication.
If you have questions about the above or any LGBT/HIV legal matter, contact GLAD’s Legal InfoLine at 800-455-GLAD (4523).
Courts have found that laws that discriminate against certain groups of people are more likely to reflect prejudice against that group than they are good public policy. Rather than being assumed to be constitutional, such laws need to be justified with exceptionally good reasons. This is called “heightened scrutiny” and has, for example, been used in cases where a racial group is being discriminated against.
GLAD has consistently argued in the courts that sexual orientation deserves “heightened scrutiny.” So it was an enormous breakthrough last week when the President and the Department of Justice (DOJ) agreed with GLAD on that point- and because of that also agreed that DOMA is unconstitutional.
This is only the opinion of the President and the DOJ, and what ultimately matters is how the courts view things. GLAD’s two DOMA cases, Gill and Pedersen, will continue, and we will have to wait to see how the courts rule on the issue of heightened scrutiny, and on DOMA’s constitutionality. If GLAD can convince the courts to accept heightened scrutiny as the proper standard of review, this would impact not only GLAD’s DOMA suits, but any suits that come before those courts which involve sexual orientation.
On the other hand, under the usual review standard that courts use, ”rational basis,” a law is presumed to be constitutional and, in order to demonstrate that, any valid reason (other than a discriminatory one) will do. It is certainly possible to win cases under the rational basis standard. GLAD’s Massachusetts marriage case, Goodridge, was decided on that basis, and U.S. District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro concluded that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional under rational basis, in GLAD’s Gill case now on appeal in the First Circuit. But heightened scrutiny review greatly increases the chances that a law will be found unconstitutional.
Until there is a final decision by the courts, DOMA remains the law of the land and is being enforced by the federal government. GLAD has prepared a helpful FAQ about what last week’s decision by the DOJ means. Take a look, and contact GLAD’s Legal InfoLine at 800-455-GLAD (4523) with your questions.
Hi, I’m Bruce Bell, GLAD’s Legal InfoLine Manager. I’ve been at GLAD for 6½ years and before that spent 33 years at Cape Cod Community College as a math teacher and associate academic dean. I really enjoy working with the wonderful volunteers who work on the Infoline. The InfoLine is a free, confidential service that GLAD provides to the public so that LGBTQ/HIV+ residents of the six New England states can learn about their legal rights. Many of these have been won by GLAD in the courts. The GLAD attorneys take on precedent setting cases that lead to the establishment of new protections for LGBTQ and HIV+ people.
The InfoLine is staffed by highly trained volunteers who are there to listen to your needs and then provide you with a custom tailored package of information, resources and, if you need legal advice, referrals to members of GLAD’s Lawyer Referral Service. For more information about the InfoLine go to: www.glad.org/infoline.
I will be writing a weekly blog here about some of the issues we are seeing on the InfoLine that may affect members of New England’s LGBTQ/HIV+ communities. Please contact the InfoLine, 800-455-GLAD (4523), or me, concerning any legal questions or issues you may be having. I hope that you will check back each week to read and comment on this InfoLine blog.
