Golinski v. United States Office of Pers. Mgmt.

• Decision Date: 16 March 2011
• Docket Number: No. C 10–00257 JSW.,C 10–00257 JSW.
• Citation: 781 F.Supp.2d 967,111 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1709
• Parties: Karen GOLINSKI, Plaintiff,v.UNITED STATES OFFICE of PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT and John Berry, Director of the United States Office of Personnel Management, in his official capacity, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

781 F.Supp.2d 967

111 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1709

Karen GOLINSKI, Plaintiff,

v.UNITED STATES OFFICE of PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT and John Berry, Director of the United States Office of Personnel Management, in his official capacity, Defendants.

No. C 10–00257 JSW.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

March 16, 2011.

James R. McGuire, Gregory P. Dresser, Rita Lin, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA, Jennifer Carol Pizer, Jon Warren Davidson, Tara Lynn Borelli, Lambda Legal, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff.Christopher R. Hall, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

JEFFREY S. WHITE, District Judge.

Now before the Court is the motion for preliminary injunction filed by Plaintiff Karen Golinski and the motion to dismiss the first amended complaint filed by Defendants United States Office of Personnel Management and John Berry, its director (collectively, “OPM”). Golinski brings this action for mandamus relief, seeking to have OPM rescind its prior guidance to her insurance company and to cease its obstruction of Golinski's attempts to secure health insurance coverage for her same-sex spouse. Having considered the parties' papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court HEREBY GRANTS OPM's motion to dismiss and DENIES Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. The Court shall give Plaintiff leave to amend her claims.

BACKGROUND

Golinski is a staff attorney in the Motions Unit of the Office of Staff Attorneys in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Declaration of Karen Golinski in support of preliminary injunction motion (“Golinski PI Decl.”), at ¶ 1.) Golinski has been partners with Amy Cunninghis for over twenty years, as registered domestic partners with the City and County of San Francisco since 1995, and with the State of California since 2003. On August 21, 2008, they were legally married under the laws of the State of California. ( Id. at ¶ 2.)

Shortly after the marriage, Golinski sought to enroll her spouse in her existing family coverage health insurance plan, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Service Benefit Plan, which she purchases through her employer and which already covers the couple's adopted minor child. ( Id. at ¶¶ 3, 4.) Initially, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (“AO”) refused to process her request on the basis that Golinski and her spouse are both women. ( Id. at ¶¶ 5, 6.) Finding that she could not secure comparable health insurance coverage, on October 2, 2008, Golinski filed a complaint under the Ninth Circuit's Employment Dispute Resolution (“EDR”) Plan, arguing that the refusal to grant her health benefits was a violation of the Plan's nondiscrimination provision. ( Id. at ¶ 8.)

The judicial council is established under federal law for each appellate court to “make all necessary and appropriate orders for the effective and expeditious administration of justice within its circuit.” 28 U.S.C. § 332(d)(1). In 1998, the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit approved an EDR plan that grants the circuit's employees certain substantive rights and sets out a procedure for the enforcement of those rights. ( See Plaintiff's PI Motion, Ex. A.) The plan specific prohibits “[d]iscrimination against employees based on ... sex ... and sexual orientation.” ( Id. at 2.)

In addition, the EDR plan sets out a detailed administrative process for the resolution of employee disputes within the circuit. ( See id. at 1.) After mandatory counseling and mediation, an employee may file a formal written complaint with the chief judge of the circuit court. ( Id. at 1, 3, 5–7.) In the event the presiding officer finds a violation of a substantive right protected by the plan, he may award “a necessary and appropriate remedy.” ( Id. at 9–10.) A party dissatisfied with the final decision may petition the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit for review. ( Id. at 9.)

By orders dated November 24, 2008 and January 13, 2009, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, sitting in his administrative capacity as arbiter of the Judicial Council, found that Golinski had suffered discrimination under the Court's EDR Plan and ordered the AO to process her health benefit election forms. (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) at Exs. A, B.) Judge Kozinski found that the denial of health benefits was based solely on the grounds of sex and sexual orientation, in direct violation of the EDR Plan's non-discrimination provision covering Ninth Circuit employees. ( Id. at Ex. B at 1–2; Golinski PI Decl., Ex. A (EDR Plan) at 2.) Judge Kozinski ordered the AO “to submit Karen Golinski's Health Benefits Election form 2089 ... to the appropriate insurance carrier. Any future health benefit forms are also to be processed without regard to the sex of the listed spouse.” (FAC, Ex. B at 7.)

The AO complied, but the OPM instructed Golinski's insurance carrier not to comply with the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council's remedial orders. OPM directed the AO and Blue Cross and Blue Shield Service Benefit Plan not to process Golinski's request on the basis that federal law, specifically Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), defines spouse as a member of the opposite sex and, accordingly, proscribes the enrollment of Golinski's same-sex spouse in her health benefits program.

In response, on November 19, 2009, Judge Kozinski issued another order addressing the OPM's conduct. The chief judge, again sitting as an administrator, held that he had the authority, under both the Ninth Circuit's EDR Plan and the separation of powers doctrine, to interpret the laws applicable to judicial employees that would displace “any contrary interpretation by an agency or an officer of the Executive.” (FAC, Ex. C at 14–15.) Judge Kozinski held that allowing the OPM to interfere with the Judge's orders would be tantamount to permitting it to exercise “dominance over logistics to destroy [the Judiciary's] autonomy.” ( Id. at 11.) Judge Kozinski further held that “[o]rdering enrollment is proper and within my jurisdiction because Congress intended [the EDR] tribunal to be the sole forum for adjudicating complaint of workplace discrimination by employees of the Judiciary. With that responsibility must come power equal to the task.” ( Id. at 9.)

Judge Kozinski granted Golinski both back pay and prospective relief. The injunctive relief required that the OPM “rescind its guidance or directive to the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Service Benefit plan and any other plan that Ms. Golinski's wife is not eligible to be enrolled as her spouse under the terms of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program because of her sex or sexual orientation, or that the plans would violate their contracts with OPM by enrolling Ms. Golinski's wife as a beneficiary” and “[c]ease at once its interference with the jurisdiction of this tribunal. Specifically, OPM shall not advise Ms. Golinski's health plan, the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Service Benefit Plan, that providing coverage for Ms. Golinski's wife violates DOMA or any other federal law. Nor shall OPM interfere in any way with the delivery of health benefits to Ms. Golinski's wife on the basis of her sex or sexual orientation.” ( Id. at 15–16.)

Judge Kozinski, in his order dated November 19, 2009, also invited the OPM to “appeal so much of this order as concerns it using the procedures outlines in the [EDR] plan.” ( Id. at 16.) In response, the OPM did not appeal the order, but instead issued a press release indicating that it was under no obligation to comply with the administrative order and, although in favor of its repeal, indicated that the Executive agency was tasked with enforcing DOMA, which prohibits same-sex spouses of federal employees from enrolling in the federal health benefits program. (FAC, Ex. E.)

In his final administrative order dated December 22, 2009, Judge Kozinski stated that the time for appeal had expired, thus rendering his prior orders in the matter “final and preclusive on all issues decided therein.” (FAC, Ex. D.) He further authorized Golinski to pursue any action she deemed fit against OPM, including filing a mandamus action in the district court. ( Id.)

On January 20, 2010, Golinski filed a mandamus action before this Court, seeking to have the OPM rescind its guidance to Blue Cross and Blue Shield Service Benefit Plan to deny Golinski's wife benefits as precluded by DOMA and to comply with Judge Kozinski's prior orders in her EDR claim.

On January 26, 2010, Golinski moved for a preliminary injunction seeking compliance with Judge Kozinski's order dated November 19, 2009, requiring that the OPM: (1) “rescind its guidance or directive to the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Service Benefit Plan,” and (2) “cease at once its interference with the jurisdiction of this tribunal” and “ not advise Ms. Golinski's health plan, the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Service Benefit plan, that providing coverage for Ms. Golinski's wife violates DOMA or any other federal law.” (FAC, Ex. C at 15–16.)

On May 10, 2010, OPM moved to dismiss the first amended complaint on the basis that this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief under these peculiar procedural circumstances.

During the pendency of these motions and after substantial briefing and supplemental briefing on the issue of the constitutionality of DOMA, on February 23, 2011, at the direction of President Obama, the Attorney General, Eric Holder, announced that the Justice Department would cease its legal defense of Section 3 of the Act. Although determining that DOMA was unconstitutional and resolving not to continue to defend the statute in pending court cases, the Justice Department indicated that it intended to continue to enforce the law unless it is either repealed by Congress or the courts render a final judicial finding that strikes it down.

Additional facts shall be addressed as necessary in the...