Archive for August, 2007

Hammer v. University of Michigan

Wednesday, August 29th, 2007

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 Michiganhttp://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 publicly 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.

Questionable HIV Disclosure Contract Under Fire

Tuesday, August 28th, 2007

Between The Lines reports that Ingham County Health Department is “telling newly-diagnosed HIV-positive people they ‘need’ to sign a contract with the department.”

And that contract is under fire by leading HIV legal advocates who reviewed it and said the contract is in violation of state law. The contract states the newly-infected person will notify past sexual partners within four weeks, and also acknowledges the person knows about the felony HIV disclosure law in Michigan.

“There is no requirement in the Michigan statute regarding HIV testing, requiring persons being tested to sign an agreement that they will inform their partners of their HIV status,” said Jay Kaplan of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan’s Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Project. “Any policy or practice telling people that they have to sign this agreement once they test positive is wrong and raises serious concerns.”

Update:

The ICHD, in responses to a 19-question BTL request, said the contract had been approved since 2001 by the MDCH HIV/AIDS Prevention and Intervention Section. But TJ Bulcholz, spokesperson for MDCH, said that is not true.

“Nobody at HAPIS approved that contract,” Bulcholz said. “Secondly it is not a contract. That is too strong of a word. It’s an agreement that people will follow the law. And the County needs to change the language to reflect that, in our opinion, if they are going to continue to use this.

Bulcholz said the law is already clear that a person infected with HIV had certain responsibilities, and the contract was a “social contract” and “unnecessary.”