Lilly v. City of Minneapolis
| Citation | 527 N.W.2d 107 |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1995 |
| Docket Number | CX-94-1585,Nos. C6-94-1583,s. C6-94-1583 |
| Parties | 67 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 386 James A. LILLY, Respondent, v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, Appellant (C6-94-1583), Respondent (C8-94-1584/), and Kellie Jones, et al., intervenors, Respondents (C6-94-1583/), Appellants (C8-94-1584), Jane Anglin, et al., intervenors, Respondents (C6-94-1583/C8-94-1584), Appellants (). Nos. C6-94-1583, . |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. State statute that authorizes municipalities to provide health care benefits to municipal employees and their dependents applies to the City of Minneapolis, a home rule charter city. Minn.Stat. Sec. 471.61.
2. The court must narrowly construe a home rule charter city's power to legislate concerning a matter of statewide concern.
3. The grant of health care benefits to persons related to or living with a municipal employee is a matter of statewide concern; the City of Minneapolis's resolutions granting insurance benefits to same sex domestic partners and an expansive list of relatives not defined as dependents in a statute concerning health care benefits to municipal employees and dependents is ultra vires and without legal force.
Jordan W. Lorence, Paeonian Springs, VA, Paul Shoemaker, Minneapolis, for James A. Lilly.
Surell Brady, City Atty., James A. Moore, Asst. City Atty., Minneapolis, for City of Minneapolis.
Scott A. Benson, Dorsey & Whitney, Minneapolis, for Kellie Jones, et al.
Kristin Nering Lockhart, Brosnahan, Joseph, Lockhart & Suggs, Minneapolis, for Jane Anglin, et al.
Beverly Balos, University of Minnesota, Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Atty., Minneapolis, for amicus curiae Hennepin County.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., John Garry, Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for amicus curiae Minnesota Atty. Gen.
Richard M. Erdall, Minneapolis Professional Employees Ass'n, Minneapolis, for amicus curiae MPEA.
Tom Prichard, Minnesota Family Council, Minneapolis, for amicus curiae Minnesota Family Council.
David M. Wagner, Family Research Council, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Family Research Council.
Considered and decided by PETERSON, P.J., and SCHUMACHER and FOLEY, * JJ.
This case involves a confrontation between a home rule charter city's exercise of power in light of a state statute. Appellants, the City of Minneapolis and five city employees, challenge a judgment that permanently enjoins the city from providing health insurance benefits for city employees' same sex domestic partners and blood relatives not authorized to receive such benefits under Minn.Stat. Sec. 471.61 (1992). 1 We affirm on grounds that, although it is a home rule charter city, the City of Minneapolis does not have the power to grant employee health care benefits to persons beyond those defined by statute.
Appellant City of Minneapolis (the City) is a home rule charter city. The current city charter was adopted by election on November 2, 1920.
In 1988 and 1989, appellants Jane Anglin, Judith Bagan and Marie Hanson (Anglin appellants) sued the City and its Library Board for failing to provide health care coverage for the domestic partners of city employees. On January 25, 1991, the Minneapolis City Council (City Council) passed the Domestic Partnerships Ordinance, chapter 142 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances (City Code). The City Code defines domestic partners as two adults who:
(1) Are not related by blood closer than permitted under marriage laws of the state;
(2) Are not married or related by marriage;
(3) Are competent to enter into a contract;
(4) Have no other domestic partner with whom the household is shared, or with whom the adult person has another domestic partner;
(5) Are jointly responsible to each other for the necessities of life;
(6) Are committed to one another to the same extent as married persons are to each other, except for the traditional marital status and solemnities.
Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances Title 7, ch. 142, Sec. 142.20 (1991).
On November 17, 1992, the Minneapolis Commission on Civil Rights determined that the City's employee benefits program discriminated against lesbian employees of the Library Board based upon their "affectional preference." On April 2, 1993, the City Council passed resolution 93R-106, authorizing limited reimbursement to city employees for health care insurance costs for same sex domestic partners and for qualified blood relatives who are "not considered a dependent under current City health plans." The City acknowledges that resolution 93R-106 applies to grant reimbursement of monthly insurance costs for "adult children, adult grandchildren, parents, grandparents, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece or nephew who resides with the employee during period reimbursement is claimed." The resolution limits the reimbursement to
an amount not more than the difference between the employer contribution for family insurance coverage and the employer contribution for single insurance coverage under the applicable collective bargaining agreement.
The resolution expressly excludes reimbursement for the employee's domestic partner or family member who otherwise has access to other group health insurance coverage or to Medicare.
On August 27, 1993, the City Council adopted resolution 93R-342, extending "health care coverage for the partners of employees in same sex domestic partnerships." This resolution directed that the "limited reimbursement mechanism supporting the diverse families of the City's work force who are not eligible for health coverage" be continued. In addition, the resolution directed that the City would "seek an affirmative inclusion of the term 'domestic partners' in state legislation on health care benefits." Pursuant to this resolution, the city then contracted with two health maintenance organizations (HMO's) to include same sex domestic partners effective January 1, 1994. Six city employees registered their domestic partners for health insurance benefits.
On December 20, 1993, respondent James A. Lilly, a resident and taxpayer of the City of Minneapolis, sought a temporary restraining order to enjoin the City from implementing resolution 93R-342. Following a hearing on December 30, 1993, the district court granted the temporary restraining order. Lilly subsequently amended his complaint to enjoin the City from providing reimbursement for health insurance costs under resolution 93R-106.
The district court determined that the City of Minneapolis' resolutions 93R-106 and 93R-342 were ultra vires under Minn.Stat. Sec. 471.61 and that providing health care coverage for same sex domestic partners contravened state public policy and violated state law. The court granted Lilly's motion for declaratory/summary judgment and for a permanent injunction. This appeal followed.
May the City of Minneapolis, a home rule charter city, provide employee health care benefits to persons not defined as "spouse" or "dependents" in a general statute concerning the grant of health care benefits to municipal employees?
Where, as here, material facts are not in dispute, this court need not defer to the district court's application of the law. Hubred v. Control Data Corp., 442 N.W.2d 308, 310 (Minn.1989). The only issue here concerns interpretation and application of Minnesota statutes and the City's charter, ordinances and resolutions. 2 The application and construction of a statute, charter, ordinance or resolution is a question of law. Hibbing Educ. Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 369 N.W.2d 527, 529 (Minn.1985).
To determine whether the City may lawfully provide medical insurance benefits for same sex domestic partners of city employees and reimburse employees for medical insurance costs of relatives who live with them is a case of first impression, requiring an analysis of Minn.Stat. Sec. 471.61 (1992) which deals with the same subject matter. That statute provides:
A county, municipal corporation, town, school district, county extension committee, other political subdivision or other body corporate and politic of this state, other than the state or any department of the state, through its governing body, and any two or more subdivisions acting jointly through their governing bodies, may insure or protect its or their officers and employees, and their dependents, or any class or classes of officers, employees, or dependents, under a policy or policies or contract or contracts of group insurance or benefits covering * * * medical and surgical benefits and hospitalization insurance or benefits for both employees and dependents. * * * A payment is deemed to be additional compensation paid to the officers or employees.
Minn.Stat. Sec. 471.61, subd. 1. There should be no serious dispute that the terms "municipal corporation" and "other political subdivision or other body corporate and politic of this state" include home rule charter cities, such as the City of Minneapolis. The statute's exclusion of the state and departments of the state further clarifies that the statute encompasses all other political subdivisions, including home rule charter cities. See Maytag Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation, 218 Minn. 460, 464, 17 N.W.2d 37, 40 (1944) ().
The dispute here centers on the effect of the statute's definition of those who may receive benefits. Appellants argue that the statute is permissive, that it does not require a city to provide insurance benefits and that it does not indicate legislative intent to limit a city's power to extend benefits or provide reimbursement for insurance premiums to persons not listed in the statute. To the contrary, the statute is permissive in as much as a city "may," but is not required to, provide medical insurance benefits to employees and their dependents. As the district court concluded, however, Minn.Stat....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tyma v. Montgomery County, 20
...jurisdictions invalidated similar laws." See, e.g., Arlington County v. White, 259 Va. 708, 528 S.E.2d 706 (2000); Lilly v. Minneapolis, 527 N.W.2d 107 (Minn.App. 1995). The County also asserts that it is authorized to fund the Act with State monies, which the State generally provides for a......
-
Crawford v. City of Chicago
...There is no public policy prohibiting the exercise of home-rule authority in this area. 4 Finally, plaintiffs cite Lilly v. City of Minneapolis, 527 N.W.2d 107 (1995), a case in which the court of appeals struck down Minneapolis' plan offering health insurance to the same-sex partners of ci......
-
Advantage Media, L.L.C. v. City of Eden Prairie
...and with the intent of the Minnesota legislature, from which the City derives its regulatory authority. See Lilly v. City of Minneapolis, 527 N.W.2d 107, 110 (Minn.App. 1995) (a city is a political subdivision of the state). The Supreme Court has described legislative intent as the "touchst......
-
Slattery v. City of New York
...states have persuasive authority, the court finds that they are not inconsistent with this court's decision. In Lilly v. City of Minneapolis, 527 N.W.2d 107 (Minn.App.1995), for example, Minnesota's Court of Appeals struck a Minneapolis ordinance which, inter alia, extended health insurance......
-
Domestic partnership benefits: Why not offer them to same-sex partners and unmarried opposite sex partners?
...(148) Bowman & Cornish, supra at 1203. (149) Id. at 1198. (150) Id. at 1199. (151) Id. (152) Id. (153) Lilly v. City of Minneapolis, 527 N.W.2d 107 (Mo. Ct. App. (154) Bowman & Cornish, supra note 147, at 1199. (155) Id. at 1200. (156) Id. (157) Id. (158) Id. (159) Bowman & Corn......