Bassett v. Snyder

• Decision Date: 28 June 2013
• Docket Number: Case No. 12–10038.
• Citation: 951 F.Supp.2d 939
• Parties: Theresa BASSETT, Carol Kennedy, Peter Ways, Joe Breakey, JoLinda Jach, Barbara Ramber, Doak Bloss, Gerardo Ascheri, Michelle Johnson, and Denise Miller, Plaintiffs, v. Governor Richard SNYDER, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

951 F.Supp.2d 939

Theresa BASSETT, Carol Kennedy, Peter Ways, Joe Breakey, JoLinda Jach, Barbara Ramber, Doak Bloss, Gerardo Ascheri, Michelle Johnson, and Denise Miller, Plaintiffs,

v.Governor Richard SNYDER, Defendant.

Case No. 12–10038.

United States District Court,

E.D. Michigan,

Southern Division.

June 28, 2013.

Validity Called into Doubt

M.C.L.A. §§ 15.581, 15.582, 15.583, 15.584, 15.585.

Amanda C. Goad, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY, Amy E. Crawford, Bradley H. Weidenhammer, Donna M. Welch, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, John A. Knight, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation LGBT & Aids Project, Chicago, IL, Jay Kaplan, Michael J. Steinberg, American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiffs.

Margaret A. Nelson, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan Department of Attorney General, Lansing, MI, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

DAVID M. LAWSON, District Judge.

The plaintiffs in this case are five same-sex couples who allege that Michigan PublicAct 297 (2011) is unconstitutional because it violates their rights under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. Public Act 297 prohibits public employers from providing medical and other fringe benefits to any person cohabitating with a public employee unless that person is legally married to the employee, or is a legal dependent, or eligible to inherit under the State's intestacy laws. The plaintiffs allege that the primary purpose of the law is to prohibit public employers from furnishing benefits to the same-sex partners of their employees, and therefore the Act denies their right to equal protection because it contains a discriminatory classification on the basis of sex and sexual orientation and is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. The plaintiffs also argue that the act impermissibly burdens their fundamental right to intimate association and therefore violates their substantive due process rights. Many of the plaintiffs who are in relationships with public employees but not so employed themselves have lost their medical benefits, and the rest will do so shortly. They have moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the law.

The defendant—Michigan's Governor—opposes the preliminary injunction and has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction, the plaintiffs lack standing, the plaintiffs' claims are not ripe, and the plaintiffs have failed to plead either an equal protection or a substantive due process claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court heard oral argument on both motions on August 7, 2012. Thereafter, the Court allowed the parties to file supplemental briefs concerning the scope of the remedies available. The Court now finds that the plaintiffs have standing to assert their constitutional claims, the claims are ripe, and abstention is not appropriate. The Court also finds that the plaintiffs have not stated a viable substantive due process claim.

The equal protection claim is another matter. The plaintiffs argue that although Public Act 297 does not mention same-sex unions or describe same-sex partner benefits by name, the intended purpose of the law is to discriminate against same-sex couples on the basis of their sexual orientation without actually saying so. The defendant contends that the Act has no such purpose; instead, the intention behind passage of the law was to save money by restricting the scope of public employee benefits. The Court finds that the plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause when the rational basis for the benefits limitations is fairly analyzed, and they have shown a likelihood of succeeding on that claim. The other relevant factors plainly militate in favor of a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the law. Therefore, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the defendant's motion to dismiss, and grant the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

I.

A.

The plaintiffs in this case are five same-sex couples who have lived together in long-term relationships, residing in various Michigan communities. One domestic partner of each of the couples works for a public employer, such as a county, city, or school district. Those public employers provide fringe benefits, such as medical coverage, and historically have extended coverage to the domestic partners of the plaintiff-couples under the various collective bargaining agreements between the governmental units and their employees. Each of the public-employee plaintiffs is a skilled employee whose job duties are equivalent to the duties of their heterosexual colleagues. They each have enjoyed a long-term, committed, and financially interdependent relationship with their respective domestic partner and would marry if Michigan law permitted same-sex couples to marry.

According to the complaint, before 2004, a number of Michigan public employers voluntarily provided health insurance benefits to same-sex domestic partners. In 2004, the Michigan constitution was amended to include article I, section 25, which states: “To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.” Mich. Const. Art. 1, § 25 [hereinafter “the marriage amendment”]. In 2005, then Michigan attorney general Michael Cox issued an opinion on the City of Kalamazoo's domestic partner benefits allowance. Cox opined that although the provision of benefits to same-sex domestic partners was not itself unlawful, state and local governments could not provide those benefits on the basis of a relationship “characterized by reference to the attributes of a marriage.” Constitutionality of City Providing Same–Sex Domestic Partnership Benefits, Mich. Att'y Gen. Op. 7171 (Mar. 16, 2005), available at http:// www. ag. state. mi. us/ opinion/ datafiles/ 2000 s/ op 10247. htm (last visited May 31, 2013).

In 2006, a union group, various public employees, and their domestic partners filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory ruling that the marriage amendment did not prohibit public employers from offering benefits to same-sex domestic partners. The Michigan Court of Appeals found that the plans instituted by government agencies offering same-sex domestic partner benefits established eligibility criteria similar to marriage. National Pride At Work, Inc. v. Governor of Michigan, 274 Mich.App. 147, 164, 732 N.W.2d 139, 151 (2007). The court held that extending benefits to same sex domestic partners on that basis violated the marriage amendment's ban on recognizing a “similar union,” but that “[t]he amendment as written does not preclude the extension of employment benefits to unmarried partners on a basis unrelated to recognition of their agreed-upon relationship.” Id. at 165, 172, 732 N.W.2d at 151, 155.

The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' decision. National Pride At Work, Inc. v. Governor of Michigan, 481 Mich. 56, 748 N.W.2d 524 (2008). The court reasoned that the requirements of the benefit plans at issue that partners be of a certain sex—the same sex as their partner—and not be closely related by blood were so similar to the requirements for marriage as to constitute a “similar union” that could not be recognized by public employers. Id. at 86–87, 748 N.W.2d at 543.

As a result of those holdings, some public employers, including the publicly-employed plaintiffs' employers, revised their employee benefits plans. The City of Kalamazoo, the Ann Arbor Public Schools, and Ingham County all adopted benefit plans that permit employees to designate a person with whom he or she lives and, with the exception of the City of Kalamazoo, shares finances as an “Other Qualified Adult” (OQA), entitled to receive benefits. Those plans also require that the OQA not be eligible to inherit from the employee, be related to the employee by blood in a degree of closeness that would prohibit marriage in Michigan, and not otherwise be eligible for benefits from the public employer. The OQA could be of either sex. Other public employers that do not have employees involved in this suit but provide a similar program include the City of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw and Eaton Counties, the school districts of Birmingham and Farmington, and Kalamazoo Valley and Lansing Community Colleges.

In January 2011, the Michigan Civil Service Commission, which is granted plenary power to regulate compensation for state employees by the Michigan constitution, announced that it had decided to extend health care benefits to certain adult co-residents of state employees. Some state legislators issued press releases condemning that decision, characterizing it as an extension of health benefits to same-sex partners of state employees. On June 16, 2011, Representatives David Agema and Peter Lund, among others, introduced House Bill No. 4770, the Public Employee Domestic Partner Benefit Restriction Act. HB–4770, As Passed House, September 15, 2011, available at http:// www. legislature. mi. gov/ documents/ 2011– 2012/ billengrossed/ House/ htm/ 2011– HEBH– 4770. htm (last visited May 31, 2013). The Bill passed both houses of the Michigan Legislature and was signed by the defendant on December 22, 2011. It became effective on the same date. The governor's signing statement states that the law does not extend to university employees or state employees under civil service. The Act reads, in relevant part:

Sec. 3. (1) A public employer shall not provide medical benefits or other fringe benefits for an individual currently residing in the same residence as a public employee, if the individual is not 1 or more of the following:

(a) Married to the employee.

...