Wisconsin Trial Court Dismisses ACLU Lawsuit Seeking Domestic Partner Benefits For Lesbian and Gay State Employees

But Issues Lengthy Decision Reasoning That It Is Unconstitutional For the State To Deny The Benefits
 
MADISON, WI – On Friday, a Wisconsin trial court dismissed a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of lesbian state employees and their partners seeking domestic partner health insurance and family leave protections. In a 46 page opinion, the court notes that although it believes it is unconstitutional for the state to continue to deny the employees equal health insurance coverage and family leave protection, it is bound by a prior decision from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals from 1992.
The Court’s opinion states: “The plaintiffs have offered a strong showing that the employment benefits in issue have been provided on a discriminatory basis. The defendants’ explanations offered for the continuing discrimination against these plaintiffs are unpersuasive and inadequate.”
“Losing doesn’t get any better than this,” said Larry Dupuis, Litigation Director of the ACLU. “We knew we had an uphill battle in the trial court because of the earlier case. But the court agreed with us that discrimination based on sexual orientation should be subject to strict judicial review and that it is unconstitutional for the state to deny equal benefits.”
The Court also found that providing the benefits would not be barred by the anti-gay marriage amendment that passed in 2006. After the amendment passed, the state had argued that the amendment barred the state from providing the benefits.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit in April 2005 on behalf of six lesbian state employees and their partners. The lawsuit charges that it is a violation of the state’s equal protection guarantees to deny lesbian and gay state employees access to the same health insurance and family leave protections that it provides to straight employees who are able to cover their spouses. The lawsuit was stalled for years because a number of Wisconsin municipalities tried to inject themselves into the lawsuit. The issue ultimately went up to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which ruled that they were not entitled to become a party to the litigation.

 
Governor Jim Doyle has repeatedly stated that he would like to provide lesbian and gay state employees with equal health insurance coverage and included in his budget proposal a provision for domestic partner coverage.

“While we are heartened by the court’s decision, we urge the legislature to pass the domestic partner bill so there will be no need to appeal,” added Chris Ahmuty, Executive Director of the ACLU of Wisconsin. “Our clients are forced to pay expensive prices for inferior health coverage and sometimes even to forego necessary care. They suffer every day this issue goes unresolved.”

Wisconsin Department of Corrections employee Jayne Dunnum and her partner, Robin Timm, pay nearly $450 a month for private insurance for Timm who works on the couple’s organic farm and food store in Platteville. “We don’t care if it happens through the courts or the legislature. We just really need the health insurance coverage,” said Dunnum. “It’s a matter of basic fairness. I work just as hard has my straight colleagues and shouldn’t be denied the equal employment benefits.”

The case is Dunnum v. Department of Employee Trust Funds. The couples are represented by John Knight and Rose Saxe of the ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project, Larry Dupuis of the ACLU of Wisconsin, and cooperating attorneys Linda Roberson and Christopher Krimmer of the Madison law firm Balisle & Roberson.
Biographical information for all of the couples, today’s decision, the complaint, and additional information are available at http://www.aclu.org/getequal/caseprofiles.htm.

Published by  Published by xFruits

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/wisconsin-tri…

Ellen Goodman: Gay couples in 4 states have strange dual citizenship D

They are not the only married couple in America who talk about taxes and ulcers in the same sentence. Nor are they the only couple who believe they are paying more than they should. On that ground they are part of a noisy majority.

But they are a couple for whom tax season also entails an identity crisis. Melba Abreu and Beatrice Hernandez file state taxes as what they are — a legally married Massachusetts couple. But under federal law, they have to file federal taxes as what they aren’t — two single women.

In the last four years, the government’s refusal to consider them a married couple has cost the writer and the CFO of a nonprofit about $5,000 a year. As Beatrice puts it, “We don’t know anyone for whom $20,000 and counting isn’t significant.”

This is one reason they joined seven other married couples and three surviving spouses last month in bringing a legal complaint against DOMA, the law that deliberately denies federal benefits to same-sex marriages. The other plaintiffs include a postal worker who can’t get health care coverage for her spouse, a widower ineligible for higher Social Security benefits, and a couple who can’t get a passport under their married name.

We have just doubled the number of states in which same-sex couples can be legally married. First, Iowa joined Massachusetts and Connecticut. Then Vermont followed with the first legislative approval. And a bill was just introduced in New York, where people cringe to find themselves lagging behind Iowa.

This is all part of a careful state-by-state strategy. But as a side effect, it’s producing more Americans with a strange dual citizenship: Married in the eyes of Iowa, single in the eyes of Washington. Eligible for a pension, health care, family leave in the eyes of the state; ineligible in the eyes of the feds.

Ellen Goodman: Gay couples in 4 states have strange dual citizenship Dayton Daily News

Published by  Published by xFruits

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/ellen-goodman…

Tax laws discriminate against gay couples

BOSTON — They are not the only married couple in America who talk about taxes and ulcers in the same sentence. Nor are they the only couple who believe they are paying more than they should. On that ground they are part of a noisy majority. But they are a couple for whom tax season also entails an identity crisis. You see, Melba Abreu and Beatrice Hernandez file state taxes as what they are — a legally married Massachusetts couple. But under federal law, they have to file federal taxes as what they aren’t — two single women.

This identity crisis is not just some psychological blip on the cheerful landscape of their family life. In the last four years, the government’s refusal to consider them a married couple has cost the writer and the CFO of a nonprofit about $5,000 a year. As Beatrice puts it, “We don’t know anyone for whom $20,000 and counting isn’t significant.”

This is one reason they joined seven other married couples and three surviving spouses last month in bringing a legal complaint against DOMA, the law that deliberately denies federal benefits to same-sex marriages. The other plaintiffs include a postal worker who can’t get health care coverage for her spouse, a widower ineligible for higher Social Security benefits, and a couple who can’t get a passport under their married name.

The suit is not just timely because we all share a certain post-tax traumatic stress syndrome. But we have just doubled the number of states in which same-sex couples can be legally married. First, Iowa joined Massachusetts and Connecticut. Then Vermont followed with the first legislative approval. And a bill was just introduced in New York, where people cringe to find themselves lagging behind Iowa.

This is all part of a careful state-by-state strategy. But as a side effect, it’s producing more Americans with a strange dual citizenship: Married in the eyes of Iowa, single in the eyes of Washington. Eligible for a pension, health care, family leave in the eyes of the state; ineligible in the eyes of the feds. See Tax laws discriminate against gay couples Statesman Journal

Published by  Published by xFruits

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/tax-laws-disc…

Gay Muslim to family: Take me or leave me

A young woman leaves
her arranged marriage and finds her identity and a new love.

Read more….

Gay Muslim to family: Take me or leave me

A young woman leaves
her arranged marriage and finds her identity and a new love.

Read more….

Gay Muslim to family: Take me or leave me

A young woman leaves
her arranged marriage and finds her identity and a new love.

Read more….

A company expands its diversity effort

The1990s has been called the “decade of diversity,” and PricewaterhouseCoopers did its part.

The global accounting firm sponsored affinity groups for women, blacks and Hispanics to meet over common issues and, over time, it added a group for gays and lesbians.

Since those early days the diversity movement has become more sophisticated. At PricewaterhouseCoopers, that includes seeking out what the firm calls “straight allies.”

Those are the straight partners, associates and clients who can be depended upon to foster inclusiveness toward their colleagues who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered.

About five years ago, the firm created a board of openly gay partners to make sure the gay community feels comfortable and welcome, said Jennifer Allyn, managing director for the office of diversity at PricewaterhouseCoopers in New York.

The firm’s family leave benefits were expanded to include unmarried partners, plus it supports independent gay and lesbian events around the nation and beefed up recruiting and retention efforts in the gay community.

Now it’s focusing on straight professionals and what they can do, said Allyn.

 See A company expands its diversity effort
Houston Chronicle, United State

Published by  Published by xFruits

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2008/12/company-expan…

Gay Blogads

website stats