Thornton v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
| Decision Date | 11 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. C18-1409JLR |
| Citation | 570 F.Supp.3d 1010 |
| Parties | Helen Josephine THORNTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
Linda Rae Larson, Nossaman LLP, Seattle, WA, Tara Borelli, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., Decatur, GA, Karen Loewy, Pro Hac Vice, Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, Washington, DC, Peter C. Renn, Pro Hac Vice, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, Robert D. Thornton, Pro Hac Vice, Nossaman LLP, Irvine, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Stephen Michael Pezzi, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Sarah L. Martin, Sarah E. Moum, Social Security Administration, Seattle, WA, for Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court is Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura's combined report and recommendation on Plaintiffs Helen Josephine Thornton and National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare's (the "National Committee") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") complaint and motion for class certification (the "Report and Recommendation"). (R&R (Dkt. # 74).) Magistrate Judge Creatura issued the Report and Recommendation in response to Plaintiffs’ motion on the merits of the complaint and for class certification.1 Plaintiffs and Defendant Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner") also submitted multiple rounds of supplemental briefing to Magistrate Judge Creatura and participated in oral argument before Magistrate Judge Creatura. After Magistrate Judge Creatura issued the Report and Recommendation, both parties filed objections to the Report and Recommendation , and responses to the respective objections The court has considered the motion, the Report and Recommendation, the parties’ submissions filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the Report and Recommendation, the oral argument of the parties, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law. Being fully advised, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as detailed below.
This case arises out of the Social Security Administration's ("the Administration") decision to deny surviving spousal benefits ("survivor's benefits") to the surviving partners of same-sex couples who were prohibited from marrying because of now-unconstitutional state laws that banned same-sex marriage. (See generally 2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1-12.) As Magistrate Judge Creatura aptly details, Ms. Thornton—the lead plaintiff in this matter—and her partner, Margery Brown, spent 27 years together and "were partners for life in every meaningful way, except sharing a marriage license." (See R&R at 2-3.) During the time that Ms. Thornton and Ms. Brown were together—from approximately 1978 to 2006 (see Admin. Record ("AR") (Dkt. # 34) (sealed) at 70-76)— the state of Washington did not allow same-sex marriage, see RCW 26.04.010 (1998), amended by 2012 Wash. Legis. Serv. ch. 3 (S.S.B. 6239). Unfortunately, Ms. Brown passed away in 2006 (see AR at 75), which was approximately one year before Washington recognized domestic partnerships and six years before Washington legalized same-sex marriage in 2012, see RCW 26.04.010 (2012). It is undisputed that Ms. Thornton and Ms. Brown would have married but for Washington State's law at the time, which made same-sex marriage illegal. (See Mot. at 3-6; Resp. at 35 ().)
In January 2015, Ms. Thornton applied for Social Security survivor's benefits based on Ms. Brown's work history pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 402. (See AR at 19-22.) Under the Social Security Act and the Administration's interpreting regulations, the surviving spouse—either a "widow" or a "widower"—of a deceased person is eligible to be paid monthly survivor's benefits if the deceased spouse would have been insured under the Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(e) -(f). The Social Security Act further provides that "[a]n applicant is the ... widow, or widower of a fully or currently insured individual ... if ... the courts of the State in which he was domiciled at the time of death ... would find that such applicant and such insured individual were validly married ... at the time he died." 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(i).
On April 8, 2015, the Administration denied Ms. Thornton's application for benefits because she was not married to Ms. Brown at the time of Ms. Brown's death according to Washington law. (See AR at 20 ( )). On December 8, 2015, the Administration denied Ms. Thornton's request for reconsideration because "at the time of Ms. Brown's death in 2006, the State of Washington did not recognize same-sex marriages." (See Supp. Admin Record ("Supp. AR") (Dkt. # 50) at 190.) Ms. Thornton requested a hearing in front of an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"), which was held on October 18, 2016. (See AR at 13.) On January 10, 2017, the ALJ concluded that Ms. Thornton was not entitled to survivor's benefits because she was not legally married to Ms. Brown under Washington law at the time of Ms. Brown's death. (Id. at 15.) Ms. Thornton appealed, but an appeals council denied review by letter dated July 23, 2018. (Id. at 2.)
After the Administration denied Ms. Thornton's request for review, Ms. Thornton filed this action challenging the Administration's denial of her benefits. (See generally 2d Am. Compl.) Ms. Thornton alleges that the Administration's adjudication of her claim for survivor's benefits and the claims of other surviving same sex partners violates the right to equal protection and the right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. (See id. ¶¶ 87-103.) The National Committee—a membership organization that is "committed to ensuring that social security benefits are widely accessible, including to same-sex spouses"—also joins Ms. Thornton's challenge to the Administration's actions "in furtherance of its mission and in support of Ms. Thornton and other similarly-situated members."
The parties stipulated to address the merits of Ms. Thornton's challenges to the Administration's actions and the question of class certification and class relief simultaneously. Magistrate Judge Creatura issued the Report and Recommendation on January 31, 2020. (See R&R at 38.) On the merits of Ms. Thornton's claim, Magistrate Judge Creatura concluded that the Administration's actions violated her rights to due process and equal protection. (See R&R at 20.) Magistrate Judge Creatura also concluded that the following class definition met all of the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 :
All persons nationwide who presented claims for social security survivor's benefits based on the work history of their same-sex partner and who were barred from satisfying the marriage requirements for such benefits because of applicable laws that prohibited same-sex marriage. This class is intended to exclude any putative class members in Ely v. Saul, No. 4:18-cv-00557-BPV (D. Ariz.)
(Id. at 21.) Based on those conclusions, Magistrate Judge Creatura recommended that the court (1) grant Ms. Thornton's motion for class certification and certify the class with the definition provided above, (2) issue nationwide class relief "requiring the Administration to consider whether survivors of same-sex couples who were denied their constitutional right to marry would otherwise qualify for survivor's benefits," (3) reverse and remand Ms. Thornton's individual claim to the Administration for further proceedings, (4) dismiss the National Committee from the action, and (5) grant judgment for Ms. Thornton and the class. (Id. at 37-38.)
Plaintiffs and the Commissioner object to Magistrate Judge Creatura's Report and Recommendation. The Commissioner argues that (1) Magistrate Judge Creatura incorrectly ruled that the marriage requirements in the Social Security Act are unconstitutional, and (2) Magistrate Judge Creatura erred in recommending that this court grant class certification. (See Def. Obj. at 2-12.) Plaintiffs agree with Magistrate Judge Creatura's recommendation on the merits and on class certification, but argue that Magistrate Judge Creatura's proposed class is too narrow and wrongfully excludes individuals who have not yet presented claims for survivor's benefits to the Administration. (See Pls. Obj. at 2-4.) The parties also raise objections regarding the appropriateness of nationwide relief in this case and whether the National Committee should be dismissed from this action. (See id. at 12; Def. Obj. Resp. at 9-11; Def. Obj. at 12 n.7.) The court first addresses the Commissioner's objections to Magistrate Judge Creatura's recommendation on the merits of Ms. Thornton's claim, before turning to the parties’ objections on class certification and other miscellaneous issues.
12 A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation on dispositive matters. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)....
To continue reading
Request your trial