"Two parts of the landscape of family in America": Maintaining both spousal and domestic partner employee benefits for both same-sex and different-sex couples

Fordham Law Review

Volumn 81, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 735-759

  Polikoff, Nancy D ^a  

^a AMERICAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84871808794     PISSN: 0015704X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (82)

1. Diaz v. Brewer, 656 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 2011).
2. Amended Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief at 15, Collins v. Brewer, 727 F. Supp. 2d 797 (D. Ariz. 2010) (No. CV09-2402-PHX-JWS).
3. See Diaz v. Brewer, 656 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 2011).
4. For a strong opinion piece against passage of the legislation, see Barbara A. Atwood, Preserve Domestic Partner Benefits, ARIZ. DAILY STAR, Feb. 3, 2009, available at http://www.law.arizona.edu/news/Press/2009/Atwood020309.pdf.
5. 727 F. Supp. 2d 797 (D. Ariz. 2010).
6. 656 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 2011). To avoid confusion, I refer to this litigation as Diaz in the body of this Article, even though the arguments and opinion at the district court level, and the briefs filed at the Ninth Circuit, came under the case's previous name of Collins v. Brewer.
7. 676 F.3d 823 (9th Cir. 2012).
8. Christina Borrego, Staying on Message Brought Arizona Together, EQUALITYNY (Feb. 17, 2007), http://www.equalityny.com/site/index.php?option=com- bookmark&stask=detail&id=431.
9. Nate Silver, The Future of Same-Sex Marriage Ballot Measures, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT (June 29, 2011, 10:35 AM), http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes. com/2011/06/29/the-futureof-same-sex-marriage-ballot-measures/ (predicting the future of same-sex marriage ballot measures using the "results of 34 ballot initiatives to limit same-sex marriage rights, all but one of which, Arizona Proposition 107, were approved").
10. 2006 Ballot Propositions & Judicial Performance Review, ARIZ. DEP'T ST. (Sept. 2006), http://www.azsos.gov/election/2006/info/pubpamphlet/english/ propl07.htm (emphasis added).
11. Amanda J. Crawford, Consistent Message Doomed Prop 107; Loss of Benefits to Unwed Pairs Loomed Large, ARIZ. REPUBLIC, NOV. 9, 2006, at 21
12. Sonya Geis, New Tactic in Fighting Marriage Initiatives: Opponents Cite Effects on Straight Couples, WASH. POST, NOV. 20, 2006, at A3.
13. Press Release, Ariz. Together, Couples Protected by Domestic Partner Benefits File a Lawsuit Against "Protect Marriage Arizona", (July 12, 2006), available at http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT= 109&STORY=/www/story/07-12-2006/0004396019&EDATE= (describing Phoenix firefighters Paul Knobbe and Glen Cromer who stood to lose benefits for their different-sex domestic partners).
14. The lawsuit was unsuccessful. See Ariz. Together v. Brewer, 149 P.3d 742, 750-51 (Ariz. 2007).
15. See KYRSTEN SINEMA, UNITE AND CONQUER: HOW TO BUILD COALITIONS THAT WIN-AND LAST 59 (2009).
16. ARIZ. REV. STAT. §38-651 (0) (2011).
17. See 251 F.3d 604, 611 (7th Cir. 2001).
18. 543 N. E.2d 49 (N. Y. 1989).
19. NANCY POLIKOFF, BEYOND (STRAIGHT AND GAY) MARRIAGE: VALUING ALL FAMILIES UNDER THE LAW 49 (2008).
20. Ron Russell, W. Hollywood Will Insure Partners of Single Employees, L. A. TIMES, Feb. 22, 1989, at B3.
21. News Release, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employee Benefits in the United States-March 2011 (July 26, 2011), available at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/sp/ ebnr0017.pdf.
22. For a description of the breakdown by, among other things, type of employer, job category, and geographical location, see Nancy Polikoff, New Government Report Tells Us How Many Employees Can Include Same and Different-Sex Domestic Partners on Their Health Benefits, BEYOND (STRAIGHT & GAY) MARRIAGE BLOG (July 27, 2011, 9:38 PM), http://beyondstraightandgaymarriage. blogspot.com/2011/07/new-government-report-tells-ushow-many.html.
23. Paul Richter, Partner Benefits: Just What is Equality?, CHI. TRIB., Dec. 27, 2009, at A32 (citing Use de Veer of the consulting group Mercer). Mercer releases annually a publication entitled National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans.
24. See, e.g., Employers Accelerate Efforts to Bring Health Benefit Costs Under Control, MERCER (Nov. 16, 2011), http://www.mercer.com/press-releases/ national-survey-employer-sponsoredhealth-plans.
25. Domestic Partner Benefits, AFSCME, http://www.afscme.org/members/ conventions/resolutions-and-amendments/1992/resolutions/101-domestic-partner- benefits (last visited Oct. 20, 2012).
26. Brandy Davis, In Defense of Equality: Unions Stand Up for LGBT Families, LAB. FAM. NEWS (Winter 2009), http://www.working-families.org/publications/ newsletter/LPWF insidestory Winter09.pdf.
27. Nancy Polikoff, SEIU Resolution Values All Families, BEYOND (STRAIGHT & GAY) MARRIAGE BLOG (May 27, 2009, 4:55 AM), http:// beyondstraightandgayrnarriage. blogspot.com/2009/05/seiu-resolution-values-all- families.html.
28. Nancy Polikoff, Hearing Today on Domestic Partner Benefits for Federal Government Employees, BEYOND (STRAIGHT & GAY) MARRIAGE BLOG (Sept. 24, 2008, 10:23 AM), http://eyondstraightandgaymarriage.blogspot.com/2008/09/hearing- today-ondomestic-partner.html.
29. Perry v. Proposition 8 Official Proponents, 587 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2009).
30. See Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. State, 122 P.3d 781 (Alaska 2005)
31. Snetsinger v. Mont. Univ. Sys., 104 P.3d 445 (Mont. 2004)
32. Bedford v. N. H. Cmty. Technical Coll. Sys., No. 04-E-229 (N. H. Super. Ct. 2005), available at http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/bedford-and- breen-v-new-hampshire-technical-college-system/2006-bedford-decision.pdf
33. Tanner v. Or. Health Scis. Univ., 971 P.2d 435 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). The ACLU is currently litigating a case in Alaska following up on the win cited above
34. See Schmidt and Schuh v. Alaska-Case Profile, ACLU (May 9, 2012), http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/schmidt-andschuh-v-alaska-case-profile.
35. See MICH. COMP. LAWS §§ 15. 581-585 (2012)
36. Bassett et al. v. Snyder, ACLU (Aug. 7, 2012), hrtp://www.aclu.org/lgbt- rights/bassett-et-al-v-snyder. This statute effectively eliminated benefits to "other eligible adults", a category that encompassed more than unmarried partners. That category had been created by numerous public employers in Michigan to get around the Michigan Supreme Court's ruling that providing benefits specifically to unmarried partners violated Michigan's super-DOMA.
37. See Nat'l Pride at Work, Inc. v. Granholm, 748 N. W.2d 524, 543 (Mich. 2008).
38. See Glossip v. Missouri Department of Transportation and Highway Patrol Employees' Retirement System, ACLU (Apr. 12, 2012), http://www.aclu.org/lgbt- rights/glossip-v-missouri-departmenttransportation-and-highway-patrol-employees- retirement-sys.
39. Holly Bowen, Faculty OKs Health Benefits for Shared Households, MOSCOW-PULLMAN DAILY NEWS (Apr. 25, 2012, 1:00 AM), http://dnews.com/local/ article-7cad630c-52e4-5605-9413-ad263865bbd6.html. The university president has yet to approve this plan.
40. Collins v. Brewer, 727 F. Supp. 2d 797, 811 (D. Ariz. 2010).
41. Although Prop. 107 did not pass, in 2008, Arizona enacted a constitutional amendment recognizing marriage as only between one man and one woman. See ARIZ. CONST, art. 30, § 1.
42. 251 F.3d 604, 608-09 (7th Cir. 2001).
43. See generally Brief Amicus Curiae of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. in Support of Neither Party and in Support of Reversal, Irizarry v. Bd of Ed. of the City of Chi., 251 F.3d 604 (7th Cir. 2001) (No. 99 C 6991).
44. See generally CYNTHIA BOWMAN, UNMARRIED COUPLES, LAW & PUBLIC POLICY (2010) (providing an extensive review of the history of discrimination against unmarried couples).
45. Irizarry, 251 F.3d at 610.
46. see Domestic Partnership Benefits: Cost and Utilization, HUM. RTS. CAMPAIGN, http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/domestic-partner-benefits-costand- utilization (last visited Oct. 20, 2012).
47. James Campbell et al., Health Care Reform: The Impact to the LGBT Community, OUT & EQUAL SUMMIT-DALL. 1, 5 (Oct. 26, 2011), http://www.outandequal.org/documents/2011summit/Health%20Care%20Reform% 20-%20The%20Impact%20to%20theo/o20LGBT%20Community%20-%20James%20 Campbell.pdf.
48. Irizarry, 251 F.3d at 608-09.
49. PEW RESEARCH CTR., THE DECLINE OF MARRIAGE AND RISE OF NEW FAMILIES 62 (Nov. 18, 2010), available at http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/ll/pew- socialtrends-2010-families.pdf (69 percent of respondents surveyed believe that single women having children is a "bad thing;" 43 percent say that about gay and lesbian couples having children).
50. See Diaz v. Brewer, 656 F.3d 1008, 1014 (9th Cir. 2011).
51. Collins v. Brewer, 727 F. Supp. 2d 797, 806-07 (D. Ariz. 2010).
52. 543 N. E.2d 49 (N. Y. 1989).
53. (citing N. Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 9, § 2204. 6 (1989)).
54. See generally Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant, Braschi v. Stahl Assocs., 543 N. E.2d 49 (N. Y. 1989) (No. 02194-87).
55. Braschi, 543 N. E.2d at 52-53.
56. The New York Reporter helpfully summarizes the points of counsel. See Braschi v. Stahl Assocs., 74 N. Y.2d 201, 202-05 (1989) (summarizing the arguments made in the amici briefs).
57. For a more detailed description of the arguments of several amici, see Nancy D. Polikoff, Equality and Justice for Lesbian and Gay Families and Relationships, 61 RUTGERS L. REV. 529, 533-35 (2009).
58. Braschi, 543 N. E.2d at 53-54.
59. 413 U. S. 528 (1973).
60. 411 U. S. 619 (1973).
61. Moreno, 413 U. S. at 537-38.
62. Cahill, 411 U. S. at 620-21.
63. See Brief of Amici Curiae Wingspan and One Voice Community Center Supporting Plaintiffs-Appellees and Affirmance of the District Court Decision, Diaz v. Brewer, 656 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2011) (No. 10-16797).
64. Andrew Sullivan, Here Comes The Groom: A (Conservative) Case for Gay Marriage, NEW REPUBLIC (Aug. 28, 1989, 1:00 AM), http://www.tnr.com/article/ 79054/here-comes-the-groom.
65. Theodore B. Olson, THe Conservative Case for Gay Marriage, DAILY BEAST (Jan. 8. 2010, 7:00 PM), http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/08/the- conservative-case-forgay-marriage.html.
66. Pumam/N. Westchester Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs. v. Westchester Cnty. Human Rights Comm'n, 917 N. Y. S.2d 635, 637 (App. Div. 2011).
67. Arthur S. Leonard, A Near Miss? Domestic Partnership Benefits in the Age of Marriage Equality, LEONARD LINK (Feb. 10, 2012), http://newyorklawschool. typepad.com/leonardlink/2012/02/a-near-miss-domestic-partnership-benefits-in- the-age-ofmarriage-equality.html.
68. Of course there are numerous other examples going back more than a decade. See Tara Siegel Bernard, Some Companies Want Gays to Wed to Get Health Benefits, N. Y. TIMES, July 9, 2011, at B1. Indeed, after Vermont enacted civil unions in 2000, the University of Vermont ended domestic partner benefits and required gay and lesbian employees to enter civil unions to retain health insurance for their partners.
69. Nancy Remsen, UVM Benefits Require Civil Union, BURLINGTON FREE PRESS, Sept. 28, 2000, at 1.
70. Information about this case comes from the Lambda Legal website. See DeWolf & Watts v. Countrywide, LAMBDA LEGAL, http://www.lambdalegal.org/in- court/cases/dewolfand-watts-v-countrywide (last visited Oct. 20, 2012).
71. Press Release, Lambda Legal, Lambda Legal to File Lawsuit on Behalf of Lesbian Homeowners in Federal Court Against Self-Described "America's Home Loan Lender" (May 24, 2007), available at http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/ ny-20070524-lambda-tofile-suit-behalf-lesbian-homeowners.
72. Press Release, Lambda Legal, Lambda Legal Announces Settlement in Lawsuit on Behalf of Lesbian Homeowners: Fannie Mae Mortgage Policies Change (Aug. 20, 2010), available at http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/ny-20100820-fannie-mae- policies.
73. 798 N. E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003).
74. See Press Release, Nat'l Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Joint Statement in Favor of Maintaining Domestic Partner Benefits (June 20, 2004), available at http://thetaskforce.org/press/releases/pr705-063004. The signers were Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere (COLAGE)
75. See Statement in Favor of Maintaining Domestic Partner Benefits, ALTERNATIVES TO MARRIAGE PROJECT (June 2004), http://www.unmarried.org/dp-joint- statement.html.
76. Domestic Partnership Benefits Still Matter in the Age of Equal Marriage: Marriage Does Not Mean Instant Equality for Lesbian and Gay Employees, GLAD (Dec. 2011), http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/dp-benefits-post- goodridge.pdf.
77. See As Same-Sex Marriage Becomes Legal, Some Choices May Be Lost, LAMBDA LEGAL (July 8, 2011), http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/nyt-20110708-as-same-sex.
78. Relationship Recognition for Same-Sex Couples in the U. S., NAT'L GAY & LESBIAN TASK FORCE (June 28, 2011), http://thetaskforce.org/downloads/ reports/issue-maps/rel-recog-6-28-11-color.pdf.
79. For a review and analysis of these criteria, see Nancy Polikoff, Kudos to American University for Expanding Domestic Partnership Benefits to Include Different-Sex Couples, BEYOND (STRAIGHT & GAY) MARRIAGE BLOG (Nov. 22, 2010, 10:26 AM), http://beyondstraightandgaymarriage.blogspot.com/2010/11/kudos-to- american-universityfor.html.
80. For example, the University of Nebraska approved such a policy. Kevin Abourezk, Regents Approve Plus-One Benefits for NU Employees, LINCOLN J. STAR (June 8, 2012, 11:55 PM), http://joumalstar.com/news/local/education/regents- approve-plus-one-benefitsfor-nu-employees/article-6c2ed992-fb67-50d2-860d- 6d56a9389707.html.
81. see AGAINST EQUALITY: QUEER CRITIQUES OF GAY MARRIAGE (Ryan Conrad ed., 2010), and the website of the ALTERNATIVES TO MARRIAGE PROJECT, http://www.unmarried.org/about-us.html (last visited Oct. 20, 2012) ("The Alternatives to Marriage Project (AtMP) advocates for equality and fairness for unmarried people, including people who are single, choose not to marry, cannot marry, or live together before
82. See Nancy D. Polikoff, The New "Illegitimacy": Winning Backward in the Protection of the Children of Lesbian Couples, 20 AM. U. J. GENDER SOC. POL'Y & L. 721, 722 (2012) (arguing that obtaining parental rights for a nonbiological mother married to a woman who bears a child, without simultaneously creating parentage for a partner not married to the birth mother, revives the discredited distinction between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" children and is an example of winning backward).