News
DOJ slammed for ducking on trans exclusion in ADA
Obama administration says resolution to case based on Title VII the right approach

The Justice Department ducked on whether the trans exclusion in ADA is unconstitutional. (Photo by Mbiama via Wikimedia Commons)
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders took the Justice Department to task in a statement last week for declining to weigh in on the explicit transgender exclusion written into the 1990 law.
The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, public accommodations and other areas, but the law explicitly states it doesn’t include “transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism [and] gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments or other sexual behavior disorders.”
Jennifer Levi, director of GLAD’s trans rights project, said the Justice Department’s decision to avoid the trans exclusion in a statement of interest filed on July 21 is “surprising and disappointing.”
“Given the rank animus behind it, the exclusion serves to marginalize and stigmatize a minority group that the DOJ has recognized needs and deserves legal protections,” Levi said.
Kate Lynn Blatt, a transgender employee at the hunter gear Cabela’s Retail, filed a discrimination claim against her employer under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, on the grounds the store discriminated against her based on her sex; and the ADA, on the basis the store refused to reasonably accommodate her by denying her use of a restroom consistent with her gender identity and the ability to wear a nametag with her correct name. Blair also endured harassment from supervisors and co-workers and was abruptly terminated in 2007.
In a four-page statement of interest signed by trial attorney Emily Nestler, the Justice Department asks the court to hold off on determining the constitutionality of ADA’s trans exclusion until the challenge on the basis of Title VII is resolved.
“The United States respectfully requests that the Court defer ruling upon Plaintiff’s constitutional challenge to the GID Exclusion until after the Title VII claims are resolved, as disposition of Plaintiff’s Title VII claims could resolve this case without the need to reach the constitutionality of the GID Exclusion,” the filing says. “Should the Court later determine that the constitutional issue cannot be avoided, the United States respectfully reserves the right to intervene or file a supplemental statement of interest at that time.”
In 2012, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determined in the case of Macy v. Holder the gender provision under Title VII applies to workplace discrimination against people for being transgender. In a statement in December, the Justice Department followed suit, saying the U.S. government would no longer deny the law covers gender-identity discrimination.
Levi added the filing has two silver linings: the reassertion that Title VII prohibits workplace discrimination against transgender people and language that enables the Justice Department to revisit the trans exclusion at a later time.
“While we acknowledge these bright spots, the problem created by the ADA exclusion remains,” Levi said. “Congress excluded transgender people from the protections of the ADA because of the stigma associated with gender dysphoria. As long as the transgender exclusion remains within the law, the ADA fails in its promise to create a level playing field in employment for all people capable of doing the job.”
The U.S. Justice Department deferred to its filing in the case in response to the Washington Blade’s request to comment on GLAD’s criticism.
Representing Blatt is Sidney Gold, Neelima Vanguri and Brian Farrell of the Philadelphia-based Sidney L. Gold & Associates. Along with Law Professor Kevin Barry of Quinnipiac University, GLAD and other trans rights groups filed a friend-of-the-court brief in January arguing by maintaining the trans exclusion, the ADA perpetrates the kind of discrimination it seeks to dismantle.
Congress
Bill seeks to block global gag rule expansion
Policy now bans US foreign aid to groups promoting ‘gender ideology’
Lawmakers on Wednesday introduced a bill that would block the expansion of the global gag rule.
President Ronald Reagan in 1985 implemented the global gag rule, also known as the “Mexico City” policy, which bans U.S. foreign aid for groups that support abortion and/or offer abortion-related services.
Trump reinstated the rule during his first administration. The Biden-Harris administration shortly after it took office in 2021 rescinded it.
The Trump-Vance administration earlier this year expanded the global gag rule to ban U.S. foreign aid for groups that promote “gender ideology.” The expansion took effect on Feb. 26.
U.S. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) introduced the Protecting Human Rights and Public Health in Foreign Assistance Act in the U.S. Senate. U.S. Reps. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), Lois Frankel (D-Fla.), Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), and Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) introduced it in the U.S. House of Representatives.
“Using taxpayer money to export the Trump administration’s anti-trans, anti-science, and anti-abortion ideological agenda isn’t just immoral — it’s antithetical to efficient, effective, and rights-based foreign assistance,” said Council for Global Equality Senior Policy Fellow Beirne Roose-Snyder on Wednesday in a press release.
Meng in a Congressional Equality Caucus press release added the Trump-Vance administration’s “crusade against healthcare and global aid is putting millions of lives at risk worldwide.”
“No one will flourish under the new expanded global gag rule,” said the New York Democrat. “These policies weaponize foreign aid and will result in greater harm, particularly for women and girls, marginalized communities, and LGBTQI+ individuals.”
“They should never have been implemented at all, let alone without even a basic public comment process,” she added. “This legislation will reverse these dangerous policies.”
District of Columbia
Both sides propose revised orders in Capital Pride stalking case
Defendant Darren Pasha agreed to accept less restrictive directive
An evidentiary hearing in D.C. Superior Court on April 29 in which the Capital Pride Alliance presented three of four planned witnesses to testify in support of its civil complaint that D.C. gay activist Darren Pasha engaged in a year-long effort to harass, intimidate, and stalk its staff, board members, and volunteers ended abruptly at the direction of the judge.
Judge Robert D. Okun announced from the bench that the hearing, which was intended provide Capital Pride an opportunity to present evidence in support of its request to reinstate an anti-stalking order against Pasha that the judge temporarily rescinded on April 17, was no longer needed because Pasha stated at the hearing that he is willing to accept a revised, less restrictive temporary restraining order.
Pasha made that statement after two Capital Pride witnesses — June Crenshaw and Vincenzo Volpe — each testified in support of the stalking allegations against Pasha for over an hour under questioning from Capital Pride attorney Nick Harrison and under cross-examination from Pasha, who is representing himself without an attorney.
After Capital Pride’s third witness, Tifany Royster, testified for just a few minutes, and after the judge called a recess for lunch and to attend to an unrelated case, Pasha announced that after obtaining legal advice he determined that he was unsuited to continue cross-examining the witnesses. He said he would be willing to accept a significantly less restrictive temporary restraining order.
Okun then ruled that the evidentiary hearing was no longer needed and directed Capital Pride and Pasha to submit to him their version of a revised stay away order. He said he would use their proposed revisions to help him develop his own order, which he would issue after deliberating over the matter.
He also scheduled a mandatory remote mediation session for July 23, in which efforts would be made to resolve the case without going to trial. He then adjourned the hearing at 3:50 p.m.
The online Superior Court docket for the case stated after the hearing ended that the judge would issue “a new modified Temporary Protective Order,” but it did not say when it would be issued.
Shortly before the April 29 hearing began at 11 a.m., Harrison filed a “Draft Temporary Anti-Stalking Order” that included a list of 34 “Protected Persons” that Harrison said during the hearing were affiliated with Capital Pride Alliance as staff and board members, volunteers, and others associated with the group.
The proposed order stated, “The defendant shall not contact, attempt to contact, harass, threaten, or otherwise communicate with any protected person, directly or indirectly, including through third parties, social media, electronic communications, or any other means.”
The proposal represented a significant change from Capital Pride’s initial civil complaint against Pasha filed in February that Pasha claimed called for him to stay away at least 200 yards from all Capital pride staff, board members, and volunteers without naming them. Okun granted that stay away request in February but reduced the stay away distance to 100 feet.
Capital Pride attorney Harrison disputes Pasha’s interpretation of the order, saying the 100-foot stay-away was for events, not for individual Capital Pride staff, volunteers, or board members. He said the order prohibited Pasha from engaging in any way with the Capital Pride staffers, volunteers or board members.
But the proposed order Capital Pride at first submitted at the April 29 hearing also called for Pasha to stay away from and to not attend as many as 25 Capital Pride events scheduled to take place this year from April 30 through June 21 and for him to say away from the Capital Pride office located at 1827 Wiltberger St., N.W., which is the building in which it shares with the DC LGBTQ Community Center.
At the April 29 hearing, at Pasha’s request, Okun called on Capital Pride to consider allowing Pasha to attend at least the two largest events — the Capital Pride Parade and Festival — which draw over 500,000 participants.
Harrison said in a follow-up message to the judge following the hearing that Capital Pride would allow Pasha to attend those two events and one other as long as he stays away from “ticketed and controlled access areas.”
At an April 17 status hearing Okun rescinded the earlier stay away order at Pasha’s request, among other things, on grounds that it was too vague and didn’t provide Pasha with sufficient specific information on who to stay away from. It was at that hearing that Okun scheduled the April 29 evidentiary hearing, saying it would give Capital Pride a chance to provide sufficient evidence to justify an anti-stalking order and Pasha an opportunity to challenge the evidence.
In his own response to the initial civil complaint filed in February and in subsequent court filings, Pasha has strongly denied he engaged in stalking and has alleged that the complaint was a form of retaliation against him over a dispute he has had with Capital Pride and its former board president, Ashley Smith.
Like its initial complaint filed in February, Capital Pride filed a multipage document at the start of the April 29 hearing with written testimony from staff members and volunteers who allege that Pasha did engage in stalking, harassment, and intimidating behavior toward them and others.
Like Capital Pride, Pasha following the April 29 hearing, filed his own proposed version of the stay away order with significantly less restrictions than the Capital Pride proposal. Among other things, it calls for him to restrict his contact with Capital Pride CEO Ryan Bos and Crenshaw but says it “does not by its terms restrict the defendant’s communications with any other person, entity, governmental body, or media outlet.”
“Darren Pasha sent multiple messages to us and to the court after the proceedings asking for further modifications — which we are not accepting or responding to,” Harrison told the Blade in response to a request for further comment on Judge’s request for each side to submit proposed revisions of the stay away order.
“We appreciate the court’s time and careful attention to the evidence presented today,” Harrison told the Washington Blade in a written statement after the hearing. “This process was about bringing forward the experiences of individuals who reported a pattern of conduct that caused fear, serious alarm, and emotional distress,” he said.
“Capital Pride Alliance remains committed to ensuring that our events and community spaces are safe, welcoming, and free from harassment and we will continue to take appropriate steps to support and protect our community,” his statement says.
“I am happy with what we have accomplished so far,” Pasha told the Blade after the hearing. “I’m just waiting to see what will happen next. But I want to reiterate this goes back to when someone treats you wrong you speak up,” he said. “Even if I lose this case, I am glad that I spoke up and raised concerns.”
He added, “I will just be confident that in the next couple of months the truth will come out. But for now, I am happy with the progress that we have made regarding this.”
This story will be updated when the judge issues his revised stay away order.
European Union
European Parliament backs EU-wide conversion therapy ban
More than 1.2 million people backed campaign
The European Parliament on Wednesday voted in favor of banning so-called conversion therapy across the European Union.
ACT (Against Conversion Therapy) LGBT in 2024 launched a campaign in support of the ban through the EU’s European Citizens Initiative framework. More than 1.2 million people ultimately signed it.
The proposed ban had the support of 405 MEPs. The European Commission is expected to formally respond to it by May 18.
Seven EU countries — Belgium, Cyprus, France, Malta, Norway, Portugal, and Spain — have banned conversion therapy outright.
Greece in 2022 banned the practice for minors. German lawmakers in 2020 passed a law that prohibits conversion therapy for minors and for adults who have not consented to undergoing the widely discredited practice.
-
Federal Government2 days agoHouse Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
-
Theater4 days agoWorld premiere of ‘Everything, Devoured’ oozes queer energy
-
The White House3 days agoFrom red carpet to chaos: A first-person narrative of the WHCD shooting
-
News2 days agoLGBTQ people are leaving Orthodox Judaism behind
