Gay Teen Assaulted In School Reaches Settlement With School District

Let it be known: School districts can save a good chunk of change by not allowing gay kids to get beaten on their watch.

So learned Ohio's Union-Scioto school district, which includes the town of Chillicothe, where gay student Zach King suffered a beating at Unioto High last October. He was 15. The beating was captured on camera, went viral, and soon Zach found himself represented in a lawsuit by the ACLU. On Thursday, King, his mother, and the ACLU reached an agreement with the school district, according to which the district shall pay King and his legal reps "up to $35,000" and "improve its anti-bullying policies." From The Colombus Dispatch:

King and his mother, Rebecca Collins, claimed that school officials “fostered an atmosphere” that permitted the bullying of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender students while disregarding his reports of harassment.

“We hope similarly situated students don’t have to go through what Zach went through. The school district has made a commitment to try to avoid incidents like this in the future,” said James Hardiman, a Cleveland lawyer and the legal director of the ACLU of Ohio.

The school district’s insurer will pay $20,000 in damages to King and his mother, provide up to $10,000 in reimbursement for medical and counseling expenses and pay $5,000 in legal fees to the ACLU.

Through a lawyer, the school board communicated that they didn't feel they had fostered any kind of bully-facilitating atmosphere. 

Why Is This DOMA Case Different From All Others?

BY ARI EZRA WALDMAN

Three cases. Three courts. One result.

Whether it was Judge Jeffrey White of the Northern District of California, Judge Barbara Jones of the Southern District of New York, or Judge Joseph Tauro of the District of Massachusetts (or, of course, a unanimous three-judge panel of the First Circuit Court of Appeal), the result was essentially the same: the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has asked the Supreme Court to hear the DOMA cases out of the First Circuit and the Northern District of California, bypassing the Ninth Circuit. Earlier this week, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which represents Edith Windsor (right) in the New York case, asked the Supreme Court to bypass the Second Circuit and take Ms. Windsor's case, as well. Skipping over the intermediate appellate courts is rare, but not impossible, especially when the case is so obviously headed for an ultimate decision at One First Street.

Still, each of these cases -- Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services, and Windsor v. United States -- is slightly different. In Golinski, the court preferred to use heightened scrutiny to invalidate DOMA; in Massachusetts, the First Circuit used so-called "rational basis plus," or a more searching form of rational basis review; and, in Windsor, the court rejected DOMA under simple rational basis. A win is a win when it comes to equality and access to the federal marriage benefits, but a Supreme Court decision to hear Windsor, in particular, could bring the scrutiny issue front and center.

In the end, while DOMA will likely die at the Supreme Court next term, the level of scrutiny for sexual orientation discrimination will probably continue its muddled trajectory.

Edie Windsor Reacts to Winning Her Case Against DOMA: VIDEO

As you may know, this week a fifth federal judge struck down DOMA as unconstitutional in a case brought by the ACLU/NYCLU on behalf of Edie Windsor, the 83-year-old widow of Thea Spyer. Windsor was seeking $350,000 back from the government which she was forced to pay after Spyer died, because the couple, who were together for 44 years, weren't married and entitled to the tax advantages heterosexual married couples receive.

Windsor reacts to the decision in a new video from the NYCLU.

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Another Federal Judge Finds DOMA Unconstitutional

U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Jones today ruled the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional in the Edith Windsor case, brought by the ACLU.

Here's what our legal expert Ari Ezra Waldman wrote about the case, which was filed by the ACLU, back in 2010, before marriage equality had passed in New York:

The ACLU and Paul Weiss are bringing the case of Edie Windsor, the 81-year-old widow of Thea Spyer, subject of the documentary, Edie and Thea: A Very Long Engagement, and who was forced to pay $350,000 in estate taxes on Thea's estate upon her death because the federal government did not recognize that the two were married. Had DOMA Section 3 not been on the books and Edie enjoyed federal recognition of her marriage, Thea could have passed her entire estate to Edie tax free.

This case is out of New York, which does not have marriage equality, but recognizes same-sex marriages legally performed elsewhere. That only slightly changes the legal landscape, but not in any significant way. Suffice it to say, Edie's and Thea's marriage was legal in New York, and while they received state benefits, they received no federal benefits and were subject to the federal estate tax. Because they weren't married in the eyes of the federal government, which permits estates to pass from spouse to spouse upon death tax free, Edie was treated differently than similarly situated heterosexual couples simply because Edie is a lesbian and married a woman.

The ACLU is asking for a declaration that DOMA Section 3, as applied to Edie via the IRS code, is unconstitutional. Edie is seeking her $350,000 back from the government.

Wrote Jones in the opinion:

Regardless whether a more "searching" form of rational basis scrutiny is required where a classification burdens homosexuals as a class and the states' prerogatives are concerned, at a minimum this court "must insist on knowing the relation between the classification adopted and the object to be attained. The search for the link between classification and objective gives substance to the equal protection analysis. Additionally, as has always been required under the rational basis test, irrespective of the context, the court must consider whether the government's asserted interests are legitimate. Pursuant to those established principles, and mindful of the Supreme Court's jurisprudential cues, the court finds that DOMA's section 3 does not pass constitutional muster.

Read the full opinion HERE.

Gay Couple of 48 Years Sues for Freedom to Marry in Illinois: VIDEO

This morning I posted news that the ACLU and Lambda Legal are filing lawsuits seeking the freedom to marry in Illinois on behalf of 25 same-sex couples. Here's one of them, via the ACLU.

Ed Hamilton and Gary Magruder are tired of living a double life. They've been together for 48 years, and Gary would like to see equality before he dies, preferably by their 50th anniversary in two years.

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

ACLU, Lambda Legal, and 25 Couples Sue for Equal Marriage Rights in Illinois

Later today, Lambda Legal and the ACLU will file lawsuits in Illinois demanding legal marriage rights for gay couples, the Chicago Tribune reports:

A total of 25 couples from across the state are plaintiffs in the two lawsuits. Each couple tried to get a marriage license from the Cook County clerk's office in May and was denied based on the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, which prohibits marriage "between 2 individuals of the same sex" and states: "A marriage between 2 individuals of the same sex is contrary to the public policy of this State."

The lawsuit will be announced at a press conference today at 10:30am in Chicago, according to an email Towleroad received from Lambda Legal.

The Tribune adds:

The gay rights group Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois each plan to file a lawsuit Wednesday against the clerk of Cook County, claiming that not issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Illinois Constitution.

Activists say they will continue to press lawmakers to legalize same-sex marriage. But these lawsuits mean that the judicial system, and possibly the Illinois Supreme Court, will play a role as well.

"We always thought this was something that had to happen," said ACLU attorney John Knight. "We think it's time to try in the courts, and we're optimistic about our chances."

"We feel like we're at a tipping point," said Camilla Taylor, a Lambda Legal attorney who headed up a similar case that led to the legalization of gay marriage in Iowa. "You reach a point where you can no longer tell these families that they should hold off. You lack the justification when we reach a national moment, when it's clear that our time is now."

The Chicago Sun-Times adds:

The planned lawsuits will make some of the same arguments that worked in Iowa: equal protection under the law and due process. The ACLU case will argue that the right to privacy in Illinois’ Constitution protects against a ban on gay marriage. California’s constitution had a similar right to privacy cited by that state’s high court in upholding a right to same-sex marriage. That law is under review in federal appellate court.

Lambda also argues that Illinois’ ban on “special legislation” that benefits one group over another prohibits a ban on same-sex marriage.

Chicago Police Det. Tanya Lazaro, 36, and her partner Liz Matos, 40, are one of the couples filing suit — Sun Times.

A marriage equality bill introduced in the Illinois legislature earlier this year isn't likely to see movement, as we noted in April.