Bassett v. Snyder
| Citation | 59 F.Supp.3d 837 |
| Decision Date | 12 November 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 12–10038. |
| 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 |
Amanda C. Goad, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Los Angeles, CA, Amy E. Crawford, Bradley H. Weidenhammer, Donna M. Welch, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, John A. Knight, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Chicago, IL, Jay Kaplan, American Civil Liberties of Michigan, Michael J. Steinberg, American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiffs.
Margaret A. Nelson, Mark E. Donnelly, Michael F. Murphy, Rock A. Wood, Michigan Department of Attorney General, Lansing, MI, for Defendant.
On December 22, 2011, defendant Richard Snyder, Michigan's governor, signed into law the Public Employee Domestic Partner Benefit Restriction Act, Public Act 297 (2011), which prohibited local units of government from continuing to furnish health care and other fringe benefits to the domestic partners of their employees. The plaintiffs, five same-sex couples with one partner employed by a local municipality or school district that provided such fringe benefits to same-sex domestic partners, filed the present action to declare that Act 297 violates the Federal Constitution and to enjoin its enforcement. After a hearing and extensive briefing, I issued a preliminary injunction on June 28, 2013 preventing the defendant from enforcing Act 297. The State of Michigan did not appeal that order, and the injunction remains in effect.
The parties now have filed cross motions for summary judgment. The plaintiffs argue that Act 297 is nothing more than a mean-spirited attempt to deny health care benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of public employees on the basis of their sexual preference, and therefore the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Governor Snyder argues that the law is rationally related to legitimate governmental purposes, and therefore satisfies the deferential standard of review that allows such classification. When issuing the preliminary injunction, I found that the “primary purpose” of Act 297 was “to deny health benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees,” and that “ ‘can never be a legitimate governmental purpose.’ ” Bassett v. Snyder, 951 F.Supp.2d 939, 969 (E.D.Mich.2013) (quoting Davis v. Prison Health Services, 679 F.3d 433, 438 (6th Cir.2012) ). The defendant has failed to argue convincingly otherwise here. Therefore, I will grant the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, deny the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and enter a permanent injunction prohibiting the enforcement of Public Act 297.
Since the injunction was issued, there has been a new development. This district court declared that Michigan's marriage amendment (which prohibits same-sex marriage) violated the Equal Protection Clause because there was no rational basis for the State to deny the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. The Sixth Circuit reversed that decision, holding that states “retain authority” to regulate marriage by classifying who may marry; and if same-sex couples are denied that right, they can find no comfort in the Federal Constitution. DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388, 405–06 (6th Cir.2014).
But this case is not about marriage, as such, although allowing same-sex couples to marry would go a long way toward minimizing the discriminatory sting of the Public Employee Domestic Partner Benefit Restriction Act. Rather, this case deals with couples who cannot marry under state law and their families. It is one thing to say that states may cleave to the traditional definition of marriage as a means of encouraging biologically complimentary couples to stay together and raise the offspring they produce. DeBoer, 772 F.3d at 405–06. It is quite another to say that a state may adopt a narrow definition of family, and pass laws that penalize those unions and households that do not conform. See U.S. Dep't of Agric. v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534–35, 93 S.Ct. 2821, 37 L.Ed.2d 782 (1973). The former represents the application of a generous and deferential standard of reviewing legislative classifications, one that permits “legislative choices [that] may rest on ‘rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data.’ ” DeBoer, 772 F.3d at 405 (quoting FCC v. Beach Commc'ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 315, 113 S.Ct. 2096, 124 L.Ed.2d 211 (1993) ). The latter amounts to a classification based “on an irrational prejudice,” which cannot be sustained. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 450, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985). And when that occurs, courts play a vital role in our constitutional system to protect individual rights. Washington v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 458 U.S. 457, 486, 102 S.Ct. 3187, 73 L.Ed.2d 896 (1982) ().
The facts of the case and the circumstances of the plaintiffs were discussed in detail in the preliminary injunction opinion and order. See Bassett, 951 F.Supp.2d at 946–49, 951. It is enough to say here that each of the plaintiffs is either an employee of a Michigan city, county, or school district or the domestic partner of such an employee. The plaintiff-couples have been in long-term, committed relationships, but cannot marry because Michigan law forbids it. Each of the nonemployee partners enjoyed health care coverage provided by the local unit of government as a benefit furnished to the municipal employee. And each of the non-employee partners suffers from medical conditions that require or will require medical treatment.
Public Act 297 would forbid local governmental units from providing health care benefits to the non-employee partners unless they are married to a public employee, a relative, or a legal dependant. The Act states:
2011 Mich. Pub. Acts 297; Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 15.583 –.584.
The events that led to this legislation, discussed in the earlier opinion, bear repeating, as they shed light on the reasons behind the restrictive statutes. Act 297 was one of the dominos that fell some time after Michigan's voters amended their state constitution in 2004 to ban same-sex marriage, declaring that “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. At the time, the City of Kalamazoo had allowed same-sex partners of city employees to receive health care and other benefits as the partner of a municipal worker. But in 2005, then-Michigan attorney general Michael Cox issued an opinion on the lawfulness of the City of Kalamazoo's domestic partner benefits allowance in light of the marriage amendment. He said that 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/2000s/op10247.htm (last visited November 10, 2014).
That opinion led to litigation filed in 2006 by a labor union, various public employees, and their domestic partners who sued seeking a declaratory ruling that the marriage amendment did not prohibit public employers from offering benefits to same-sex domestic partners. However, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that local governments' plans that offered same-sex domestic partner benefits used eligibility criteria similar to marriage and were invalid under the state constitution's marriage amendment. National Pride At Work, Inc. v. Governor of Michigan, 274 Mich.App. 147, 164, 732 N.W.2d 139, 151 (2007). But the court also believed 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).
As a result of those holdings, some public employers revised their employee benefit plans. The City of Kalamazoo, the Ann Arbor Public Schools, and Ingham County introduced the status of “Other Qualified Adult” (OQA) into their plans. The plans allow the employees to designate a person with whom...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arab Am. Civil Rights League v. Trump
...‘some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respect from ourselves.’ " Bassett v. Snyder , 59 F. Supp. 3d 837, 847 (E.D. Mich. 2014) (citations omitted). The Sixth Circuit finds the following factors relevant for determining whether a facially neut......