Leave a Comment Sagesse
Transgender widow sues for benefits in Texas
May 1, 2012
By Jacob Combs
Nikki Araguz, a transgender woman whose husband Thomas was killed in 2010 while working as a volunteer fire fighter, is suing the city of Wharton, Texas for Thomas’s workmen’s compensation benefits. Nikki and Thomas wed in 2008, and Nikki underwent sexual reassignment surgery two months later.
After Thomas Araguz’s death, his ex-wife Heather Delgado sued him in court to challenge the custody agreement over their two sons. Delgado and her lawyer began investigating Nikki’s past, and discovered that she had been born a man. Since Thomas Araguz died while on duty, his surviving relatives are entitled to almost $1 million in death benefits. In court, Delgado argued that Nikki and Thomas’s marriage should not be recognized, since Texas law considers gender to be something that is assigned at birth. Marriages between individuals of the same sex are illegal in the state.
Last year, a judge voided the Araguzes’ marriage and ruled that Nikki could not receive Thomas’s death benefits. In her suit, Nikki Araguz contends that she was denied benefits because she is transgender. Her attorney, Peggy Campbell, said that the new lawsuit is not about marriage equality: “All of the courts keep saying they don’t allow gay marriage. Our position is that this is not a gay marriage issue. It’s a man being married to a woman.”
This year has seen some significant legal victories for transgendered individuals, from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals’s ruling in favor of a transgender woman fired from her job in the Georgia Legislature to the recent EEOC opinion that employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity is illegal under Title VII.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
8 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Carpool Cookie | May 1, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Ick. What a horrible situation!
Relatives squabbling over wills, benefits, etc. always gets ugly, though.
2.
AnonyGrl | May 1, 2012 at 12:44 pm
Especially since it is clear who THOMAS chose… he married Nikki. And if she had been born a woman, this would not even be an issue.
Sad. So very, very sad. Shame on Heather. And shame on Texas.
3.
James Sweet | May 1, 2012 at 12:58 pm
As a legal strategy, this is all well and good. But from a broader perspective, I think this sort of reasoning is questionable at best. It does trans people no favors to attempt to overlay a gender-binary narrative onto everyone's life experience. It very well may be the case that "a man being married to a woman" is the most accurate way to describe Thomas and Nikki's relationship, but that's not really the point: their story does not fit into the proscribed cisgendered heterosexual gender-binary constraints, and so it is seen as somehow "less". The important part if that it's two people who love each other; the taxonomy is irrelevant.
4.
AnonyGrl | May 1, 2012 at 1:31 pm
While I agree with your point, it may not serve Nikki's needs in court to argue it that way. And Nikki, while a prime example of what is wrong with the law, may not want to be the transgender community's cause celebe, which is entirely her right.
I support her in however she chooses to argue this case, because she is so obviously RIGHT, and so obviously being discriminated against by the mere fact that she is FORCED to fight this case at all.
5.
Sagesse | May 1, 2012 at 1:50 pm
@
6.
Str8Grandmother | May 1, 2012 at 2:35 pm
This poor poor woman. Stories like this just tear me up, they really do.
7.
HonestPerson | May 2, 2012 at 3:04 am
"She" will lose this lawsuit too.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=87814…
"Christie was created and born a male. Her original birth certificate, an official document of Texas, clearly so states… At the time of birth, Christie was a male, both anatomically and genetically. The facts contained in the original birth certificate were true and accurate, and the words contained in the amended certificate are not binding on this court.
"There are some things we cannot will into being. They just are.
"We hold, as a matter of law, that Christie Littleton is a male. As a male, Christie cannot be married to another male. Her marriage to Jonathon was invalid, and she cannot bring a cause of action as his surviving spouse."
8.
James Sweet | May 2, 2012 at 11:12 am
Yep, I agree with that: my first sentence was "As a legal strategy, this is all well and good", and by that I meant to imply much of what you said. Very much agreed; Nikki should do what she needs to do to win this case.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.