National Pride at Work v. Governor
| Decision Date | 07 May 2008 |
| Docket Number | Calendar No. 3.,Docket No. 133554.,Docket No. 133429. |
| Parties | NATIONAL PRIDE AT WORK, INC., Becky Allen, Dorthea Agnostopoulos, Adnan Ayoub, Meghan Bellanger, Judith Block, Mary M. Brisbois, Wade Carlson, Courtney D. Chapin, Michael Chapman, Michelle Corwin, Lori Curry, Joseph Darby, Scott Dennis, Jim Etzkorn, Jill Fuller, Susan Halsey-Ceragh, Peter Hammer, Debra Harrah, Ty Hiither, Jolinda Jach, Terry Korreck, Craig Kukuk, Gary Lindsay, Kevin McMann, A.T. Miller, Kitty O'Neil, Dennis Patrick, Tom Patrick, Gregg Pizzi, Kathleen Poelker, Jerome Post, Barbara Ramber, Paul Renwick, Dahlia Schwartz, Alexandra Stern, Gwen Stokes, Ken Cyberski, Joanne Beemon, Carol Borgeson, Michael Falk, and Matt Scott, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, Defendant-Appellant, and City of Kalamazoo, Defendant-Appellee, and Attorney General, Intervening Defendant-Appellee. National Pride at Work, Inc., Becky Allen, Dorthea Agnostopoulos, Adnan Ayoub, Meghan Bellanger, Judith Block, Mary M. Brisbois, Wade Carlson, Courtney D. Chapin, Michael Chapman, Michelle Corwin, Lori Curry, Joseph Darby, Scott Dennis, Jim Etzkorn, Jill Fuller, Susan Halsey-Ceragh, Peter Hammer, Debra Harrah, Ty Hiither, Jolinda Jach, Terry Korreck, Craig Kukuk, Gary Lindsay, Kevin McMann, A.T. Miller, Kitty O'Neil, Dennis Patrick, Tom Patrick, Gregg Pizzi, Kathleen Poelker, Jerome Post, Barbara Ramber, Paul Renwick, Dahlia Schwartz, Alexandra Stern, Gwen Stokes, Ken Cyberski, Joanne Beemon, Carol Borgeson, Michael Falk, And Matt Scott, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Governor Of Michigan and City of Kalamazoo, Defendants, and Attorney General, Intervening Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Theresa J. Alderman, East Lansing, Arthur R. Przybylowicz, East Lansing, and White, Scheider, Young & Chiodini, P.C. (by Michael M. Shoudy and Dena M. Lampinen), Okemos, for amici curiae the Michigan Education Association.
Dickinson Wright P.L.L.C. (by Henry M. Grix), Bloomfield Hills, James P. Madigan, David S. Buckel, Chicago, IL, and Kenneth D. Upton, Jr., Chicago, IL, for amici curiae the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., the Human Rights Campaign, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the Triangle Foundation, Michigan Equality, the Women Lawyers Association of Michigan, and Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians & Gays, Inc.
We granted leave to appeal to consider whether the marriage amendment, Const. 1963, art. 1, § 25, which states 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," prohibits public employers from providing health-insurance benefits to their employees' qualified same-sex domestic partners. Because we agree with the Court of Appeals that providing such benefits does violate the marriage amendment, we affirm its judgment.
The marriage amendment, Const. 1963, art. 1, § 25, was approved by a majority of the voters on November 2, 2004, and took effect as a provision of the Michigan Constitution on December 18, 2004. At that time, several public employers, including state universities and various city and county governments, had policies or agreements in effect that extended health-insurance benefits to their employees' qualified same-sex domestic partners. In addition, the Office of the State Employer (OSE) and the United Auto Workers Local 6000(UAW) had reached a tentative agreement to include same-sex domestic-partner health-insurance benefits in the benefit package for state employee members of the union. However, on December 2, 2004, the OSE and the UAW agreed not to submit the proposed contract to the Civil Service Commission until after there had been a court determination that the language of the proposed contract did not violate the marriage amendment.
On March 16, 2005, in response to a state representative's request for an opinion regarding the marriage amendment's effect on the city of Kalamazoo's ability to provide same-sex domestic-partner health-insurance benefits to its employees, the Attorney General issued a formal opinion, concluding that the city's policy did violate the amendment. The Attorney General asserted that "Const. 1963, art. 1, § 25 prohibits state and local governmental entities from conferring benefits on their employees on the basis of a `domestic partnership' agreement that is characterized by reference to the attributes of a marriage." OAG, ___, No. 7,171, p. ___ (March 16, 2005), 2005 Mich. Reg. 5, p. 35.
On March 21, 2005, plaintiffs1 filed this declaratory judgment action against the Governor, seeking a declaration that the marriage amendment does not bar public employers from providing health-insurance benefits to their employees' qualified same-sex domestic partners. After the city of Kalamazoo announced its intention not to provide same-sex domestic-partner health-insurance benefits to its employees for contracts beginning in January 2006 absent a court ruling that such benefits do not violate the marriage amendment, plaintiffs added the city of Kalamazoo as a defendant. The Attorney General, acting on behalf of the Governor, moved to dismiss plaintiffs' suit. The Governor obtained separate counsel, who withdrew the motion to dismiss and filed a brief supporting plaintiffs. The Attorney General then intervened in his own right and adopted the brief that he had initially filed on the Governor's behalf as his own.
The trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary disposition and declared that the marriage amendment does not bar public employers from providing health-insurance benefits to their employees' qualified same-sex domestic partners. The court held that health-insurance benefits do not constitute one of the "benefits of marriage." Unpublished opinion of the Ingham Circuit Court, issued September 27, 2005, 2005 WL 3048040 (Docket No. 05-368-CZ), p. 7. The court further held that the "criteria [used by the public employers] also do not recognize a union `similar to marriage'" because the "criteria, even when taken together, pale in comparison to the myriad of legal rights and responsibilities accorded to those with marital status." Id. at 9.
The Attorney General appealed and moved for a stay. The Court of Appeals granted the motion for a stay and reversed the trial court, declaring that the marriage amendment does bar public employers from providing health-insurance benefits to their employees' qualified same-sex domestic partners. Nat'l Pride at Work, Inc. v. Governor, 274 Mich.App. 147, 732 N.W.2d 139 (2007). The Court of Appeals held that "a publicly recognized domestic partnership need not mirror a marriage in every respect in order to run afoul of article 1, § 25 because the amendment plainly precludes recognition of a `similar union for any purpose.'" Id. at 163, 732 N.W.2d 139. "All the plans listed establish criteria for eligibility that are similar to those for marriage." Id. at 164, 732 N.W.2d 139. "[T]he agreement between the employee and the dependent constitutes a union similar to marriage, because with the agreement (as with a marriage), the employer has a legal obligation to recognize the union and provide benefits to the eligible dependent (as with a spouse)." Id. Finally,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Haris, Docket Nos. 149872
...of MCL 333.17015 and MCL 333.17515. Legislative findings do not constitute substantive law. See Nat'l Pride at Work, Inc. v. Governor, 481 Mich. 56, 79 n. 20, 748 N.W.2d 524 (2008). Although the legislative-findings statute, MCL 333.17014, on one occasion refers to “truthful information,” n......
-
Bassett v. Snyder
...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 se......
-
League of Women Voters of Mich. v. Sec'y of State
...omitted). We locate meaning "by applying each term's plain meaning at the time of ratification." Nat'l Pride At Work, Inc. v. Governor , 481 Mich. 56, 67-68, 748 N.W.2d 524 (2008).The words added by Proposal 3 are not difficult to parse. Voters now have the right to "vote" by mail. What did......
-
Promote the Vote v. Sec'y of State
...in judicial interpretation, is to faithfully give meaning to the intent of those who enacted the law." Nat'l Pride at Work, Inc. v. Governor , 481 Mich. 56, 67, 748 N.W.2d 524 (2008). Under Const. 1963, art. 2, § 4 (1)(f), when a person registers to vote in person, the documents that the pe......
-
The Louisiana DOMA as an Improper Impediment to the Evolution of Public Policy Toward Cohabitants
...Virginia, VA. CONST. art. I, § 15-A; Wisconsin, WIS. CONST. art. XIII, § 13. 15. See National Pride at Work, Inc. v. Gov. of Michigan, 748 N.W.2d 524 (Mich. 2008); Ross v. Goldstein, 203 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. App. 2006); Va. Att’y Gen. Op. No. 006-003, 2006 WL 4286442 (2006); Kan. Att’y Gen. Op.......
-
An interpretivist judge and the media.
...n.1 (Weaver, J., dissenting); id. at 814-16 (Kelly, J., dissenting). (4.) See, e.g., Nat'l Pride at Work Inc. v. Governor of Michigan, 748 N.W.2d 524, 541-42 n.23 (Mich. 2008) ("The dissent inadvertently illustrates the principal infirmity of reliance upon legislative history, namely that i......