Same-Sex Benefits Class Action Tossed Due to SCOTUS Ruling

On Thursday, a class action lawsuit alleging discrimination against same-sex domestic partners by the State of California’s employee benefits system was dismissed by a federal judge in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling removing discriminatory barriers to state employee benefits.

The case stems from allegations brought in 2010 by California public employees and their same sex spouses and registered domestic partners recognized under California law that the State’s application of the Defense of Marriage Act limiting access to benefits offered under California’s public employee benefit and retirement system (“CalPERS”) to heterosexual couples was wrong.

“CalPERS provides retirement and health benefits, including long-term care insurance, to many of the state’s public employees and retirees and their families. Long-term care insurance provides coverage when a person needs assistance with basic activities of living due to injury, old age, or severe impairments related to chronic illnesses, such as Alzheimer’s disease,” explained U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken in her order. “In 1996,” the judge continued, “Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which, among other things, defined the terms ‘spouse’ and ‘marriage’ for federal law purposes in a manner limiting them to heterosexual couples.”

In an order filed Thursday, Judge Wilken found that in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the proposed Class was no longer being harmed. The judge found that the Supreme Court’s decision in that case effectively overturned California’s gay marriage ban and pointed out that California passed a law adding domestic partners to a list of relatives eligible for long-term care benefits and the federal government stopped enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act.

In further support of her decision, the judge pointed out that the potential claims by Class Members are too individualized to be effectively addressed by the class action lawsuit. “[It] remains that same-sex registered domestic partners now have the opportunity to marry on the same terms as heterosexual registered domestic partners,” said Judge Wilken in her order. “Moreover,” the judge continued, “as federal defendants note, the barriers applicable to all class members, such as marriage license fees and participation in a marriage ceremony, are minimal and apply equally to heterosexual registered domestic partners who wish to get married.”

In 2011, Judge Wilken granted Class status to present and future CalPERS members in legally recognized same-sex marriages and domestic partnerships who were denied coverage under the long-term care program as a couple. Judge Wilken had pointed out that the Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by Bill Clinton had defined marriage as limited to heterosexual couples and a 2004 report by the General Accounting Office identified 1,138 provisions in federal statute in which marital status is used to determine benefits, rights and privileges.

Judge Wilken had granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on all claims in May of 2012. In 2013, the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the portion of that order addressing domestic-partner plaintiffs in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in the Perry case and U.S. v. Windsor. Additionally, California enacted its Public Employees’ Long-Term Care Act that added domestic partners to the list of relatives that could be enrolled into the system in 2013.

The plaintiffs are represented by William C. McNeill and Elizabeth Kristen of Legal Aid Society Employment Law Center, and Daniel S. Mason and Patrick Clayton of Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP. The state defendants are represented by Edward Gregory and Jennifer Morrow of Steptoe & Johnson LLP.

The California Same-Sex Employee Benefits Class Action Lawsuit is Dragovich v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, et al., Case No. 4:10-cv-01564, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.