techo-babble

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Michelle Fernandez, OUTlaws president: michellefernandez@wayne.edu
Peter Hammer, OUTlaws faculty sponsor: phammer@wayne.edu

DETROIT – Wayne State University OUTlaws to sponsor a website posting court documents in Hammer v. University of Michigan – http://wayneoutlaws.org/hammer_v_umich

The Wayne State University OUTlaws exists to promote an inclusive, open, and supportive community at the Law School through education, collaboration, advocacy, and social programming.

In Hammer v. University of Michigan, Peter Hammer charges the University of Michigan Law School with anti-gay discrimination. Professor Hammer is the first openly gay professor to be considered for tenure at the University of Michigan Law School, and the first man in the history of that institution to be denied tenure. By a secret vote, a minority of the Law School faculty blocked his promotion.

The Complaint alleges a simple “breach of contract” theory, predicated on representations of non-discrimination during pre-employment negotiations, as well as University policies and by-laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual-orientation. Rather than building an affirmative case that no discrimination took place, the University’s initial stance was to maintain that its by-laws and non-discrimination policies had no legal meaning and created no rights. The same University that had defended the value of diversity in the U.S. Supreme Court was now vigorously defending its legal right to discriminate on whatever basis it wanted.

The Law School has filed two Motions for Summary Disposition. Each of these was denied. The trial court ruled that Hammer had established a legitimate claim of discrimination and that a trial on the merits was warranted. The Law School sought leave for an interlocutory appeal, only to have its application vacated as improvidently granted. The Law School has now been afforded an unprecedented third opportunity to seek summary disposition. The University brief is due September 15, 2007.

By posting the publically filed court documents in Hammer v. University of Michigan, The Wayne OUTlaws seek to highlight the often hidden face of LGBT discrimination in higher education. This litigation is also an important study of how private law can be used to combat LGBT discrimination.

Visit http://wayneoutlaws.org/hammer_v_umich to read more and to post your comments.

The ACLU of Michigan initiated litigation to keep proposal 2, Michigan’s anti-gay marriage amendment, from negatively affecting domestic partner benefits offered by the State. A Michigan Circuit Court ruled that proposal 2 does not reach domestic partner benefits. The State appealed and the Michigan Court of Appeals fast-tracked the case. I’v been selected to assist triangle foundation’s legal counsel in preparing an amicus brief for the Court of Appeals.

The GLBT group at Wayne State Law School has recently reinvigorated itself after a large loss due to graduation last year. I’ve volunteered my time as webmaster: www.wayneoutlaws.org.

Same-Sex Couples Must Be Allowed To Marry In New York, Court Rules; Lambda Legal Says Decision Is ‘Historic, Well Reasoned and Fair’:

http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/documents/record?record=1634

From the Lambda Legal press release:

(New York, February 4, 2005) — A New York State court ruled today that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry, in a decision that Lambda Legal called “a historic ruling that delivers the state Constitution’s promise of equality to all New Yorkers.” Lambda Legal filed the lawsuit last year, representing five same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses in New York City.

In a 62-page decision issued this morning in New York City, State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan said that the New York State Constitution guarantees basic freedoms to lesbian and gay people – and that those rights are violated when same-sex couples are not allowed to marry. The ruling said the state Constitution requires same-sex couples to have equal access to marriage, and that the couples represented by Lambda Legal must be given marriage licenses.

An interesting set of facts about the judge who ruled on this case:

Justice Ling-Cohan has been a New York Supreme Court Justice since 2002. Before that, she was a judge in Civil Court for the City of New York for seven years. Voters in Manhattan (in districts including Chinatown and Lower Manhattan) elected her to both positions. When Ling-Cohan ran for the New York Supreme Court, she was the only candidate in a field of 12 who was nominated by four parties, including the Republican and Democratic parties. She received 50,384 votes on the Republican Party line; her support from the Republican Party line was higher than the majority of the other candidates.

Law Dork is reporting that an Ohio County Public Defender is attempting to leverage Ohio’s Issue One (the anti-gay marriage amendment which passed in Ohio) to skirt around domestic violence laws. The ACLU of Ohio is opposing the move. You can read their press release or their brief.

I know of someone here in Michigan who had been in a same-sex relationship and is being charged with domestic violence stemming from said relationship. His lawyer (not a public defender) is making the same move – attacking the domestic violence addition to assault based on the Michigan anti-gay marriage amendment.

The wording of the Michigan law seems to indicate that the tactic is unlikely to work in the case I’m familiar with:

M.C.L.A.

750.81. Assault and assault and battery; domestic assault

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person who assaults or assaults and batters an individual, if no other punishment is prescribed by law, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both.

(2) Except as provided in subsection (3) or (4), an individual who assaults or assaults and batters his or her spouse or former spouse, an individual with whom he or she has or has had a dating relationship, an individual with whom he or she has had a child in common, or a resident or former resident of his or her household, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both.

(3) An individual who commits an assault or an assault and battery in violation of subsection (2), and who has previously been convicted of assaulting or assaulting and battering his or her spouse or former spouse, an individual with whom he or she has or has had a dating relationship, an individual with whom he or she has had a child in common, or a resident or former resident of his or her household, under any of the following, may be punished by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both . . .

(Emphasis added.)