|
The following summaries are from some of our most interesting cases of 2001. These cases would not have been possible without the dedicated support of attorneys who volunteer to assist CCLU.
FIRST AMENDMENT
Zeller v. Consolini (Connecticut Appellate Court): The Connecticut Appellate Court has ruled that a group of private citizens was entitled to oppose the construction of a proposed shopping mall, before local zoning boards and in the courts, without fear of legal reprisal. The court agreed with the trial judge, that the citizens' unsuccessful petitions were not groundless, and were therefore protected against liability. The decision protects anyone who seeks government action -- whether by legislative bodies, administrative agencies or the courts -- as long as there is at least some reasonable basis for thinking that the government might respond favorably. This decision is the first time that any Connecticut appeals court had vindicated the right to petition the government in such unequivocal terms.
In re Baby B (U.S. District Court): This case involves an order by a Superior Court judge to a pre-adoptive parent in a DCF custody case to not discuss anything related to the case with the media or with any Internet sites. We are representing an employee of a human rights group who is seeking to post non-personally identifiable information about the government's actions on the Internet.
Seymour v. Connecticut Elections Enforcement Commission (Connecticut Supreme Court) (amicus): We prepared an amicus brief in support of a constitutional challenge to a Connecticut election law which requires disclosure on the face of the document of the name of anyone who helps pay for a piece of campaign literature, even where the local supporters of a maverick campaign had spent a very small sum of money and wished to remain anonymous. We argued that this requirement deprives citizens of their right of anonymous expression and also has a chilling effect on expression in the context of campaign literature. The Supreme Court upheld the requirement.
Leydon v. Town of Greenwich (Connecticut Supreme Court) (amicus): We are supporting the claim of a Stamford man who was denied admittance to the Greenwich town beach because he was not a Greenwich resident. The plaintiff lost in the trial court, and on appeal we argued that the judge should have considered the negative effects on free speech of a total exclusion on non-residents from local parks and beaches. The Appellate Court accepted the alternative "common law" argument that public parks are kept in trust for all state residents and that towns should not be allowed to exclude non-residents. The case has been appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Mansfield underground high school newspaper: Working closely with the Eastern Connecticut CCLU chapter, we represented student editors of the "Chunnel", an underground newspaper at Mansfield high school, who were disciplined and threatened with discipline for both on- and off- campus distribution of their satirical publication. After receiving our demand letter, and after a 2 ½ hour public hearing, at which many students and parents spoke, the Regional School Board voted unanimously to overrule the principal and superintendent and rescind all discipline and restrictions on unofficial student publications.
RACIAL SEGREGATION
Sheff v. O'Neill (Connecticut Supreme Court & Superior Court, Hartford): We returned to court in September 1998 to enforce the landmark 1996 ruling of the Connecticut Supreme Court finding de facto school segregation in Hartford area schools unconstitutional. After the hearing, a Superior Court judge ruled that the state's integration plan should be given more time. We have now filed a second compliance motion, arguing that the state's magnet school and interdistrict choice programs are too small to remedy unconstitutional segregation in the Hartford area. The Sheff v. O'Neill case was filed in 1989 by a coalition of civil rights groups to challenge unequal resources, achievement gaps, poverty concentration and racial segregation between Hartford and surrounding suburban school districts.
In Re Declaratory Ruling on Rental Assistance Program (Department of Social Services): As the first step in an anticipated class action lawsuit, we filed a formal administrative petition with the Connecticut Department of Social Services (DSS) demanding an increase in rent levels allowed under the state "Rental Assistance Program" (RAP), which provides portable rental vouchers for over 2000 low income Connecticut families. The program rents were frozen in 1990, and as a result, families were unable to obtain housing outside of high poverty, segregated areas. The Request for Declaratory Ruling seeks a significant increase in rents to provide realistic opportunities for participating RAP families to move to suburban towns and a wider variety of city neighborhoods. The administrative petition (which is a required procedural step under state law) would also require DSS to provide additional mobility counseling services to participating families to help them identify and move into apartments in non-segregated areas.
Public Housing Demolition: We have been successfully represented low income, mostly Latino tenants in Meriden in their opposition to a local proposal to demolish a 140-unit public housing development. Our position was that the proposed demolition would eliminate a small enclave of minority-occupied housing from a predominantly white city, and would harm minority tenants in the future by removing this public housing resource from the community. We argued that HUD should use its limited demolition & revitalization funding to address desegregation of highly concentrated, racially segregated public housing in cities like New Haven, Hartford, and Bridgeport -- not to eliminate opportunities for poor people of color to live in integrated communities.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM
Rivera v. Rowland (Superior Court, Hartford): This class action was filed on behalf of indigent defendants challenging high caseloads and low reimbursement rates in the state public defenders' office. After 4 ½ years of litigation, in a landmark settlement agreement, we obtained a substantial (more than 30%) increase in public defender staffing, and a commensurate reduction in public defender caseloads, along with new practice and caseload guidelines, new training programs and an oversight system for the private "special" public defenders that complement regular public defender staff. This settlement has become a model for reform of indigent defense systems around the country.
Doe v. Lee (US District Court): This constitutional challenge to the sex offender registration law is based on the due process and "Ex Post Facto" clause of the constitution. We are arguing, in part, that Connecticut's over-inclusive mandatory registration system has no procedure to evaluate whether persons are likely to be dangerous, and no procedure to permit registrants to challenge their placement on the list, even where there is no evidence that they are dangerous, and where inclusion on the list have devastating consequences to their reputation and livelihood.
GAY RIGHTS
In Re Connecticut State Employee Campaign (Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities): The state Human Rights agency has released its final decision affirming the exclusion of the Boy Scouts from the official state fundraising campaign, which is conducted each year in state government offices in Connecticut. The Commission based its ruling on the Connecticut Gay Rights Law, which prohibits any furtherance of discriminatory conduct in state facilities. Last year, the Commission had ruled to exclude the Boy Scouts from participation in the state employee campaign, but in response to the US Supreme Court case, Dale v. Boy Scouts of America, the Commission agreed to review and clarify its earlier ruling. In its new ruling, the Commission concluded that the Dale case did not affect the requirement that Connecticut should not support the Boy Scouts' discriminatory conduct. The new decision emphasizes that the Boy Scouts discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation not just against volunteer leaders (the subject of the Dale case), but also discriminate against youth members, and against paid employees.
Second Parent Adoption: In almost six years of litigation in the Baby Z case, we fought to establish a right for same sex couples to enter into "second parent" adoptions similar to step-parent adoptions permitted for the spouse of a biological parent. After winning twice in the trial court, we lost in the state Supreme Court, which held that the Connecticut adoption statutes were too narrowly written to permit this type of adoption. In 1999, in response to this decision, the CCLU helped initiate a broad-based legislative strategy that ultimately succeeded in reversing the Supreme Court's ruling during the 2000 legislative session.
The Waterbury Junior Prom: In response to a letter from the CCLU on behalf of a 16-year-old student, the Waterbury schools have agreed to lift their ban on same sex couples at a local high school's Junior Prom. Our arguments were based on a 1997 Connecticut Public Act which extends the right to equal educational opportunities to gay and lesbian youth. The CCLU had helped to gain passage of this 1997 law.
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Hargrove v. North Haven (US District Court): In this exclusionary zoning case, the town was seeking to enforce a zoning limitation on the number of unrelated persons living in a "sober house" in North Haven. The house was originally built as a rooming house, and has been operated as a group house for persons with disabilities for many years. The claim in this case is that towns must accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities by modifying local zoning rules to permit housing uses that would otherwise not be permitted.
WOMEN'S RIGHTS
Corcoran v. German Social Society (Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities): We filed a complaint on behalf of a Mystic woman denied membership in a local social/dining club because of her gender. Other than its exclusion of women from membership, the club is open to members from the general public.
West v. Manson (US District Court): The CCLU is responsible for monitoring compliance with a 1988 consent order governing conditions at the women's prison at Niantic. Most recently, we have been actively litigating the issue of inadequate mental health care at the facility. Our work has led to the hiring of new mental health staff, and a new management team for the facility's mental health unit.
STUDENTS' RIGHTS
Teshana Byars, et al. v. City of Waterbury (Superior Court): This case challenges the Waterbury school uniform and dress code policy. The plaintiffs are four middle school students who each have been suspended or expelled for wearing clothing that does not comply with the uniform or dress code policy.
Ramos v. Town of Vernon (US Court of Appeals): In this case, we are challenging the constitutionality of a juvenile curfew ordinance that bars teenagers form being outside after 11 p.m. on school nights. We are arguing that the curfew infringes on the fundamental rights of minors and usurps the family's role in raising children. The case is currently on appeal, after we lost in the District Court.
RIGHTS OF INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS
Joslyn v. Armstrong (US District Court): We joined with the National Prison Project of the ACLU in this class-action lawsuit challenging the use of 4 and 5-point restraints against Connecticut prisoners housed in Virginia. Our complaint alleges that prison guards routinely trap inmates into five-point restraints for up to 48 hours for petty offenses, a practice that runs counter to correctional standards, which warn against using the device for more than two hours at a time and against using restraints as a punitive measure. During these incidents, prisoners are bound to a steel bed by restraints at the wrists and ankles and a strap is tied across the chest. Our case also challenges the use of "stun guns" at the institution. Doe v. Meachum (US District Court): We are responsible for monitoring compliance with this statewide class action consent order governing HIV treatment, counseling, and privacy issues at all Connecticut prisons. This case has substantially improved HIV care and procedures in Connecticut's prisons, but continued vigilance is necessary to ensure that standards are maintained.
Roe v. Hogan (US District Court): The CCLU is responsible for enforcing the consent order which guarantees individual assessment and treatment for incarcerated patients at the state's mental hospitals. In 1999, we successfully resisted new efforts to limit the rights of criminally convicted patients, and sought a halt to a policy of routinely shackling patients leaving the grounds for medical appointments (including one patient who was actually shackled during surgery, with no assessment that such restraints were necessary).
|
