For the first time in our history, Sonoma County Pride is proud to host a Trans Rally — a bold and necessary gathering to uplift, support, and defend our transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive community.
This is more than a rally. It’s a call to action.
Across the country, transgender people are under attack — especially our transgender youth and people of color. Discriminatory legislation, healthcare bans, hateful rhetoric, and rising violence have created a political climate that is increasingly hostile and dangerous. In the face of these efforts to erase and marginalize transgender lives, WE ARE CHOOSING TO RISE — visibly, vocally, and unapologetically.
On Friday, May 30, we invite you to join us in Old Courthouse Square as we stand in solidarity and resistance. We are teaming up with local organizations, community leaders, and advocates to create a space of visibility, power, and hope. Expect passionate speakers, resource booths, and a unified community ready to show up and speak out.
We rally behind our transgender siblings — for their future, and for the community we believe in:
One where everyone has the right to live openly, safely, and with dignity.
Let’s come together in love and protest. Let’s send a message that Sonoma County shows up for our trans community — today and always.
After two years together, Ramita and Shilu—both pseudonyms to protect their identities—traveled to Sindhuli this month to register their marriage under Nepal’s June 2023 Supreme Court ruling which allows for same-sex marriages. But instead of recognition, the couple reportedly faced harassment, delays, rejection, and were forcibly separated, with police complicity and family hostility exacerbating their ordeal.
As local officials stalled the registration process, citing uncertainty about legal procedures, Ramita’s family reported her “missing.” Despite Ramita’s insistence that she felt unsafe with her family and wanted to marry Shilu, police handed her over to relatives she described as abusive. According to both women, police mocked their relationship and subjected them to verbal harassment. One officer allegedly made demeaning comments questioning the legitimacy of their relationship.
The 2023 Supreme Court interim order instructed the Nepali government to create a separate register for marriages between people of the same sex as well as third gender people, who have been recognized in principle based on self-identification for over a decade. The intention was to give queer couples interim legal recognition while the court deliberates a pending marriage equality case. But officials have been inconsistent in applying the order.
Since 2023, a handful of same-sex couples have successfully registered their marriages. Additionally, two same-sex couples in which one partner was Nepali and the other a foreigner were able to obtain spousal visas, but both had to take their cases to the Supreme Court.
Ramita and Shilu’s experience also reflects a broader pattern: lesbian women often face pressure, frequently enforced by their families, to conform to “compulsory heterosexuality,” a societal expectation that women should be in relationships with men. Ramita has said she fears being sent to a faith healer. “Even if you die or become disabled, I’ll still make you marry a man,” her sister-in-law reportedly told her. Shilu remains in fear and grief, unable to contact Ramita, whom she described as being held in a “hostage-like condition” since the attempted registration.
Rights advocates have condemned the incident as a grave human rights violation, calling for immediate protections and an investigation into local authorities’ conduct.
Same-sex couples who want to marry in Nepal have the legal right to do so. But the prolonged period under the interim order and lack of accountability for officials’ actions are undermining Nepal’s reputation as a global LGBT rights leader.
Municipal officials in the town of Łańcut, Poland, have abolished the country’s last remaining “LGBT Ideology Free” zone, righting more than five years of political assault on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans (LGBT) people across the country.
Between 2019 and 2024, while the right-wing Law and Justice party was in power, provinces, towns, and municipalities across Poland adopted discriminatory “family charters” pledging to “protect children from moral corruption” or declared themselves free from “LGBT ideology.”
Over time, authorities in one-third of the country adopted anti-LGBT resolutions after the Law and Justice ruling party made “protecting” Poland from “LGBT ideology” a centerpiece of its successful 2019 electoral campaign. Under the resolutions and charters, regional and local governments were to refrain from encouraging tolerance toward LGBT people and cut funds to organizations promoting nondiscrimination and gender equality.
Although legally unenforceable, LGBT activists told Human Rights Watch the “LGBT Ideology Free” zones – in their attempts to stigmatize, exclude, and indirectly discriminate against LGBT people – sent the message that LGBT people were not welcome in these areas. As a gay man in eastern Poland told Human Rights Watch: “In 2020, one of my good friends who had never before had an issue with my sexual orientation suddenly accused me of being ‘an ideology.’”
The situation in Poland offers a lesson for the region. In recent years, alongside the rise of right-wing populism, there has been manufactured hostility towards the concepts of “gender” and “genderism” in Europe, with opponents labeling it “gender ideology.”
Opponents have weaponized undefined “gender ideology” as a tool to curtail sexual and reproductive rights and LGBT equality by playing on people’s fear of social change and claiming a global conspiracy of great influence and scale.
Some observers refer to “gender ideology” as “symbolic glue,” or an “empty signifier”: it simultaneously means nothing and everything, and is consistently used to attack feminism, equality for trans people, the existence of intersex bodies, the elimination of sex stereotyping, family law reform, same-sex marriage, access to abortion, contraception, and comprehensive sexuality education.
The removal of Poland’s last “LGBT free” zone is reminder of the profound harm such symbolic policies inflict on people’s lives, a lesson that should be heeded across the region and the world.
A law enacted in Peru on May 12 purports to combat sexual violence against children and adolescents, but instead undermines freedom of expression and access to information and discriminates against transgender people, Human Rights Watch said today. The law’s vague and overly broad provisions could also be used to suppress expressions of identity, artistic content, and educational materials while failing to effectively address pervasive sexual violence against children and adolescents in the country.
The law, the stated aim of which is to “safeguard the right to sexual integrity of children and adolescents,” also mandates that public restroom access be restricted based on “biological sex,” effectively barring transgender people, including trans youth, from using public restrooms that correspond with their gender identity.
“Protecting children and adolescents from sexual exploitation and abuse is an important state obligation, but this law turns child protection into a pretext for repression and discrimination,” said Cristian González Cabrera, senior researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The law opens the door for authorities to censor expression that they deem ‘inappropriate’ under the guise of safeguarding children, while scapegoating trans people, a group already at high risk of violence in Peru.”
The levels of sexual violence against children and adolescents in Peru are high. According to the Ministry of Women and Vulnerable Populations, from January to March 2025, the Women’s Emergency Centers received 4,910 cases of sexual violence against children and adolescents (out of 15,293 total cases received). In 2024, the total number of such cases was 22,798 (out of 63,489). While Congress has a responsibility to respond to this crisis, the new law fails to provide an effective or rights-based solution, Human Rights Watch said.
Article 4 of the law prohibits the “exploitation and sexualization” of children and adolescents in media, advertising, and entertainment. However, because the provision does not define what constitutes its key concepts of “sexual connotation” or “objectification,” it could be used to censor personal or cultural statements, artistic creations, or learning resources. Resulting arbitrary enforcement and censorship could also undermine children and adolescents’ ability to access information relevant to their own sexual development, including as part of an age-appropriate and science-based comprehensive sexuality education curriculum that could help prevent sexual violence.
The law also modifies the provision of the criminal code concerning “obscene exhibitions and publications” by increasing the minimum prison sentence from three to four years for “anyone who shows, sells or delivers to a minor … objects, books, writings, images, visual or auditory, which due to their nature may affect their sexual development.” The maximum prison sentence remains six years.
Human rights standards call for specificity and proportionality for any restriction on the freedoms of expression and access to information, particularly when criminal penalties are involved, as vague or overly broad legal language can lead to unjust restrictions and discrimination.
Article 5 of the law states that “entry and use” of public restrooms is prohibited for individuals whose “biological sex” does not align with “the sex for which the service is intended.” Such provisions not only discriminate against transgender people but also reinforce harmful and unfounded fears that equate the presence of transgender people in restrooms with a threat to children.
Studies have shown no correlation between inclusive restroom policies and increased safety risks to women or children. On the contrary, it is transgender people who face elevated risks of harassment and violence in public spaces, including restrooms. Enforcing such a discriminatory policy also emboldens intrusive and humiliating scrutiny of individuals’ bodies or identities, potentially exposing people, including transgender and gender nonconforming youth, to suspicion and mistreatment.
On May 7, Human Rights Watch wrote to President Dina Boluarte, urging her to veto the then-proposed law as it curtailed the freedom of expression, the right to information, and the right to nondiscrimination. No response was received.
On May 12, the Congressional Ethics Committee voted to open an investigationagainst Congresswoman Susel Paredes for her alleged encouragement of trans women to use the women’s restrooms in congress during a March event focused on gender diversity. The complaint alleges that she violated the Parliamentary Code of Ethics; she faces a suspension of 120 days without remuneration. Peru’s new law is likely to lead to more arbitrary and baseless legal actions targeting both transgender people and their allies.
Peru has an obligation to uphold children and adolescents’ right to comprehensive sexuality education, an essential element of the right to education. At its core, comprehensive sexuality education consists of age-appropriate, affirming, and scientifically accurate curricula that can help foster safe and informed practices to, among other things, prevent gender-based violence, including sexual violence. The Committee on the Rights of the Child has called on Peru to provide all children with appropriate and accessible education on sexual and reproductive health. This new law will threaten that access.
Additionally, Peru is a party to several human rights treaties, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the American Convention on Human Rights, which oblige the State to protect all individuals from discrimination on any grounds, including age and gender identity. Enactment of this law violates Peru’s commitments as outlined in these treaties.
“Peru should urgently repeal this law, which fails to respond effectively to sexual violence against children and threatens the rights of the very people it seeks to protect, including trans children and adolescents,” González said. “Instead, Congress should pass targeted and evidence-based laws to prevent sexual violence as well as the high levels of discrimination against transgender people.”
In the documents, the NEC is urged to vote in favour of postponing the National Women’s Conference because it would be at “significant risk of a legal challenge” following the judgement if it were to go ahead – as it had in the past – on the basis of self-ID, adding given the “proximity” to the ruling it may result in “protests, direct action and heightened security risks”.
“This would also represent a political risk which would be likely to feature prominently throughout conference week,” the document also reads.
The leaked papers went on to warn that Labour would face “significant risk of direct and indirect discrimination claims succeeding” if it continues to use positive action measures such as the National Labour Women’s Committee and women officer roles based on self-identification.
The NEC is urged in the documents to vote in favour of using a biological definition of ‘sex’ to “mitigate the risk of legal challenge” going forward.
You may like to watch
“Pending a wider review, all positive action measures relating to women in the Party’s rules and procedures shall be interpreted on the basis of biological sex at birth. Guidance shall be issued to all Party units and relevant stakeholders to this effect,” the document reads. “The Party will work with individuals and local parties affected by the judgment to resolve specific cases with sensitivity and compassion, acknowledging the significant effect the judgment will have had on many people.”
Further to this, it is recommended to the NEC that the women’s conference is postponed in “light of the legal and political risks” because “the only legally defensible alternative would be to restrict attendance to delegates who were biologically women at birth (including trans men)”.
LGBT+ Labour: “Equality and positive action is all about increasing diversity”
In response, in a joint statement issued by LGBT+ Labour’s trans officer Georgia Meadows, Labour for Trans Rights and Pride in Labour the content of the leaked proposals was condemned “unreservedly”.
LGBT+ Labour and the other groups said the proposals are “not effective ways to ‘clarify’ anything” and will “restrict trans members’ engagement in internal democratic procedures”.
“We would also question whether the exclusion of trans women from Women’s Conference is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim, as trans issues have come up time and time again during the conference, this seems to completely remove trans people from that debate,” the statement reads.
“It is a blatant attack on trans rights and is seemingly an attempt to isolate trans people even further within the Labour Party and the labour movement more widely.”
Calling on NEC members to vote the paper down, the group continued: “Trans people are already greatly underrepresented in British politics, and if passed, this decision by the NEC will further harm trans people’s ability to engage with the democratic process and make them feel unwelcome at a time when the trans community is increasingly under attack.
“Equality and positive action is all about increasing diversity, access and fairness in public spaces. There are no trans or gender non-conforming MPs, and our community is underrepresented both in the Labour Party and across devolved and local governments.”
An emergency protest condemning the Supreme Court ruling was held in April. (Getty)
In their own statement, gender critical Labour organisation Labour Women’s Declaration labelled the decision to potentially postpone the women’s conference a “knee jerk reaction” and warned against “incendiary action as cancelling the single major policy-making conference of the party which focuses on issues affecting women”.
A spokesperson for the the group said: “We are shocked that hundreds of women in the Labour Party might be prevented from meeting at conference because the NEC would prefer to disadvantage all women rather than to exclude the very small number of trans-identified men who may wish to attend the women’s conference.
“The party should not act in fear of threats and demonstrations. We have held fringe meetings for years, often in the teeth of violent threats from trans activists, which we have managed carefully and kept everyone safe.
“It would be exceptionally disappointing if our Party, which strives to be a grown-up and serious political force, and a strong government, could not find the courage to run this conference as planned and run it in accordance with law which was introduced under a Labour government. Women deserve better.”
PinkNews has contacted Labour for comment.
It is understood the Labour Party respects the Supreme Court’s judgment and will comply with statutory guidance once published. Ministers will also consider the EHRC Code of Practice when a draft is submitted following its consultation on changes.
What is the EHRC consultation?
Following the Supreme Court ruling and as part of its interim guidance, the EHRC said it aimed to provide an updated version of its Code of Practice – which will “support service providers, public bodies and associations to understand their duties under the Equality Act and put them into practice” – to the UK Government by the end of June.
The equalities watchdog said it would be reviewing sections of the Code to incorporate the Supreme Court’s judgment and ensure it is in-line with its guidance.
“We are currently reviewing sections of the draft Code of Practice which need updating. We will shortly undertake a public consultation to understand how the practical implications of this judgment may be best reflected in the updated guidance,” the EHRC said.
“The Supreme Court made the legal position clear, so we will not be seeking views on those legal aspects.”
Originally, the consultation was scheduled for just two weeks but following criticism from from the Women and Equalities Committee and trans groups it was extended to six weeks.
The EHRC said the changes were made “in light of the level of public interest, as well as representations from stakeholders in Parliament and civil society” and the consultation will now launch 19 May and conclude on 30 June.
Anti-LGBTQ+ federal Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act doesn’t protect LGBTQ+ people from workplace discrimination — it only protects them from discriminatory termination. Kacsmaryk’s ruling contradicts the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, a case that classified anti-LGBTQ+ workplace discrimination as a form of sex-based harassment prohibited by Title VII.
In the case, the state of Texas sued the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), claiming that the federal agency’s June 2021 guidance interpreting Title VII as prohibiting anti-LGBTQ+ workplace discrimination violated Texas’s “sovereign right” to establish governmental workplace policies dictating employee names, pronouns, dress codes, and facility usage as being based on a person’s sex assigned at birth (and not their gender identity).
The EEOC’s June 2021 guidance said that, to avoid illegally discriminating against LGBTQ+ people in the workplace, adherence to dress codes, use of personal pronouns, and access to gender-segregated facilities must be differentiated based on one’s gender identity and not their sex assigned at birth.
Texas said that the EEOC violated Texas’s free speech rights and Title VII’s sex-based protections by forcing the state’s Department of Agriculture (TDA) to base its workplace policies on gender identity instead of one’s sex assigned at birth. These particular TDA workplace policies were created by Sid Miller, a supporter of the current U.S. president who has said he’s “thrilled” by the ban on trans military members and has called trans identity a form of “leftist social experimentation.”
Texas sued the EEOC with the assistance of the Heritage Foundation, the right-wing think tank that constructed Project 2025, the very anti-LGBTQ+ blueprint for the current U.S. president’s second term in office.
Kacsmaryk agreed with the state of Texas, ruling that the TDA’s policies can legally ban transgender employees from using restrooms, pronouns, and dress codes that align with their gender identity. The TDA’s policies don’t constitute unequal treatment of trans employees, Kacsmaryk wrote, because they “equally” apply to everyone based on their sex assigned at birth, Truthout reported.
Kacsmaryk’s ruling altogether ignores trans identities in a manner consistent with the current president’s interpretation of federal anti-discrimination law. The president has signed executive orders directing all federal agencies, including the EEOC, to end all legal recognition of trans people’s gender identities and to, instead, only recognize a person’s “biological sex” as assigned at birth.
Kacsmaryk ordered the EEOC to remove all references to sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under Title VII from its June 2021 guidance.
In 2022, Kacsmaryk ruled against LGBTQ+ protections in Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act – a law that bans healthcare discrimination on the basis of sex. The two doctors who sued in that case were represented by former Trump advisor Stephen Miller’s America First Legal Foundation, a far-right public interest group that opposes pro-LGBTQ+ civil rights.
Republicans and Christian groups often file their lawsuits in his district because of his tendency to rule in their favor.
Before his 2019 Senate confirmation hearing, Kacsmaryk removed his byline from an article condemning transgender health care in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, a far-right publication that he led as a law student at the University of Texas.
Hiding his contribution to the article likely prevented public scrutiny and questions about the article and his ties to The First Liberty Institute, a Christian conservative legal group that has represented clients who refused to serve LGBTQ+ people based on religious beliefs.
A federal judge has upheld part of Iowa’s “Don’t Say Gay” law prohibiting discussion of gender identity and sexual orientation from kindergarten through 6th grade. However, the judge has blocked other parts of the law that sought to block students from voluntarily being exposed to school “promotions” and “programs” that acknowledge the existence of LGBTQ+ people.
Iowa’s 2023 law S.F. 496 prohibits “any program, curriculum, test, survey, questionnaire, promotion, or instruction relating to gender identity or sexual orientation” in grades K-6.
In his split-decision issued late last week, U.S. District Judge Stephen Locher (an appointee of former President Joe Biden) ruled that the law can restrict any LGBTQ+-related information in mandatory curriculum, tests, surveys, questionnaires or instruction can be interpreted in the way the state argues or required school functions.
“It does not matter whether the lessons or instruction revolve around cisgender or transgender identities or straight or gay sexual orientations. All are forbidden,” he wrote, according to ABC News.
However, he said that the law’s prohibitions on “programs” or “promotion” are so broad that they violate students’ First Amendment rights.
In his ruling, Locher said the law has compelled some school districts to remove visual representations of LGBTQ+ support, including Pride flags, safe space stickers, and materials supporting LGBTQ+-friendly groups, The Hill reported. It has also compelled some school administrators to tell teachers in same-sex relationships not to mention their partners around students.
“Students in grades six and below must be allowed to join Gender Sexuality Alliances (‘GSAs’) and other student groups relating to gender identity and/or sexual orientation,” Locher wrote in his decision, adding that teachers and students “must be permitted to advertise” those groups as well.
Locher said that teachers may mention same-sex partners or make “neutral references” to books with LGBTQ+ characters, so long as those “are not the focus of the book or lesson.”
He also blocked part of the law forbidding schools from accommodating trans and nonbinary students, noting that the law didn’t clearly define “accommodation.” However, Locher allowed the state to continue the law’s forced outing provision that requires teachers and school administrators to notify parents of a change in students’ gender status or pronouns, essentially outing them to their potentially unsupportive parents.
The ACLU of Iowa and Lambda Legal sued the state in November 2023 on behalf of LGBTQ+ advocacy organization Iowa Safe Schools and seven students and their families, alleging that the law “singles out Iowa students and discriminates against them based on their sexual orientation and gender identity” in violation of their First Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, and Equal Access Act rights.
Last March, Locher blocked a portion of the law that allowed for the removal of books with LGBTQ+ themes and references to sex acts. In that ruling, he noted that 3,400 books removed from schools weren’t explicitly obscene, despite claims from the state’s Gov. Kim Reynolds (R). Locher also noted that the law made a contradictory exception for the King James Holy Bible, even though it contains references to sex and brutality.
On Thursday, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk—a far-right federal judge in the Northern District of Texas with a record of aligning with the GOP’s most extreme legal positions—issued a ruling declaring that Title VII no longer protects LGBTQ+ people from workplace discrimination. The decision directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s landmark 2020 ruling inBostock v. Clayton County, which held that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is, by definition, sex discrimination. Kacsmaryk’s ruling marks one of the most alarming judicial rollbacks of LGBTQ+ rights in recent memory—and sets up a direct legal challenge to one of the foundational civil rights protections for queer and trans people in the United States.
The case was brought against the EEOC by the state of Texas alongside the Heritage Foundation, a central force behind Project 2025—an aggressive right-wing policy blueprint that explicitly calls for rolling back LGBTQ+ protections in federal law. In siding with the plaintiffs, Judge Kacsmaryk pointed to the Texas Department of Agriculture’s current employee policy, which requires “employees to comply with this dress code in a manner consistent with their biological gender,” specifying that “men may wear pants” and “women may wear dresses, skirts, or pants.” The ruling also upheld the department’s policy banning transgender employees from using restrooms that align with their gender identity.
The judge reached a verdict that Title VII only protects “firing someone simply for being homosexual or transgender,” but that it does not protect transgender or gay people from “harassment.”
“In sum, Title VII does not bar workplace employment policies that protect the inherent differences between men and women,” Kacsmaryk writes in his ruling.
Judge Kacsmaryk further argued that disparate treatment of transgender employees does not constitute unequal treatment, reasoning that “a male employee must use male facilities like other males”—a statement that erases transgender identity altogether. He extended that logic to dress codes and pronouns, claiming that requiring employees to adhere to clothing standards and pronoun use based on their assigned sex at birth is not discriminatory because it applies “equally” to everyone. The argument mirrors the discredited legal reasoning once used to uphold bans on same-sex marriage—that such laws didn’t discriminate against gay people because they, like straight people, were allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. It’s a circular logic designed to mask exclusion as neutrality. It also flies in the face of the fact that Texas allows people assigned female at birth to wear gender “pants, skirts, and dresses” but denies that same right to people assigned male at birth.
Ultimately, Judge Kacsmaryk ordered the complete removal of all references to sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under Title VII from EEOC guidance. His ruling declares that “all language defining ‘sex’ in Title VII to include ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’” must be stripped from federal employment policy. Specifically, it targets and nullifies Section II(A)(5)(c) of the 2024 EEOC guidance, which states: “Sex-based discrimination under Title VII includes employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”
The ruling flies in the face of Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII protects LGBTQ+ workers from discrimination. The landmark case centered on Gerald Bostock, who was fired from a county job after joining a gay softball league, and Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman dismissed from a funeral home after informing her employer she would begin presenting as a woman. In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that firing someone for being gay or transgender is inherently sex-based discrimination, and thus violates federal civil rights law. While Bostock focused on wrongful termination, it strains credulity to suggest that the same protections wouldn’t also apply to workplace harassment or other forms of discriminatory treatment under the very same statute.
This isn’t Judge Kacsmaryk’s first foray into far-right legal activism—it’s his trademark. He’s become the go-to jurist for plaintiffs looking to turn extremist ideology into binding precedent. He’s the one who tried to revoke FDA approval of mifepristone, a safe and widely used abortion medication. He’s ruled against LGBTQ+ protections in the Affordable Care Act. He even tried to force Planned Parenthood to pay $2 billion to Texas and Louisiana—a ruling so outrageous that even the deeply conservative Fifth Circuit tossed it. Now, he’s taking aim at Title VII itself, effectively inviting employers to harass and discriminate against LGBTQ+ workers by pretending Bostock never happened.
Two teenagers, one a juvenile, brutally beat a 19-year-old woman inside a suburban McDonald’s after making derogatory comments about her sexual orientation, according to local police.
The May 13 incident occurred at the fast food chain’s location in Carpentersville, Illinois, about 40 miles from Chicago, with officers responding to a report of a fight in progress, according to news release from the Carpentersville Police Department.
The victim, who was later identified as Kady Grass, sustained severe injuries and was transported to a local hospital, where she was treated and has since been released.
Following an investigation, the Kane County State’s Attorney’s Office approved multiple felony charges against the suspects, according to police. John Kammrad, 19, was charged with aggravated battery, great bodily harm, aggravated battery in a public place, mob action and more. Kammrad was taken into custody on Saturday, while the juvenile suspect turned himself in on Friday.
Photos posted to a GoFundMe account for Grass show the extent of her injuries, which span her face and her legs. In an interview with NBC Chicago, Grass said the attack happened while she was in town to see her 13-year-old cousin’s choir concert.
“One hit me in the jaw and one was hitting me in the front, and then I didn’t realize that I was getting hit behind until a little bit later, like it took me a while to realize,” Grass said. “I was unconscious when they were stomping on my head, so I don’t remember that part, but my 13-year-old cousin does.”
Carpentersville Police Deputy Chief Kevin Stankowitz said the incident “underscores the importance of addressing violence and discrimination” within the community, according to the news release.
In an email to NBC Chicago, Stankowitz said the department collaborated with the Kane County State’s Attorney’s Office on whether or not to file hate crime charges. After a review of the case, Stankowitz said, the office declined to file them.
A lesbian and retired Rhode Island firefighter was awarded nearly $2 million in damages in a lawsuit involving her accidental disability pension, which could balloon to $5 million after interest, local NBC affiliate WJAR reported last month.
Lori Franchina previously won over $800,000 in a separate lawsuit detailing the anti-LGBTQ+ abuse she suffered while working with her fellow firefighters.
Franchina joined the Providence Fire Department in 2002. She retired on disability in 2013 after she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder due to the habitual anti-LGBTQ+ abuse she endured on the job. She filed for accidental disability in 2011, but was denied by the retirement board. She sued and was awarded over $800,000 and declared eligible for disability by a jury in 2016.
While Franchina was given disability, it was general disability versus accidental disability, which pays at twice the rate and is not subject to income tax. She sued again and won. Lawyers estimate with interest, she will be eligible for a payday of up to $5 million.
Franchina’s lawyer, John Martin, said the retirement board has no one to blame but themselves for the loss.
“Two weeks before trial, we offered to go to mediation with them where the only thing we were seeking was for them to reopen the application and provide her with a fair hearing, and they refused to even discuss it,” Martin told WJAR. “They could’ve avoided millions of dollars that they’re going to pay on this judgment by simply giving her a fair hearing, and they refused to do it two weeks before the verdict came down.”
During the original trial, representatives from PFD tried to downplay the abuse Franchina received, but jurors heard a litany of horrific and even life-threatening examples in court. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit described the abuse she received in the decision written by Judge Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson.
“‘C**t,’ ‘b***h,’ ‘lesbo’ all are but a smattering of the vile verbal assaults the plaintiff in this gender discrimination case, Lori Franchina, a former lieutenant firefighter, was regularly subjected to by members of the Providence Fire Department (‘the Department’),” Thompson wrote in the ruling. “She was also spit on, shoved, and – in one particularly horrifying incident – had the blood and brain matter of a suicide-attempt victim flung at her by a member of her own team.”
“That was the incident that broke me,” Franchina said.
She said she welcomes the ruling because it provides her with financial security and the message of hope it gives to others in similar circumstances.
“It gives me my gainful income, it gives me the ability to not decide what bill I’m paying, it definitely provides me with comfort,” Franchina reflected. “I hope it helps somebody realize you can win.”
