[Mpls] Domestic Partnership Benefits

[Bensonale at aol.com]

David Strand does an excellent job or pointing out that Doug Mann was  
incorrect in his assessment of the Domestic Partner Benefits Ordinance passed by  
the Minneapolis City Council in the early 90's and the basis of the Court of  
Appeals decision enjoining the City from fully enacting the ordinance.  I  
represented the city employees who would have qualified for benefits under  the 
ordinance as intervenors in the lawsuit.  (Incidentally, Carol Becker  was one of 
the two named intervenors, and, I might add, a very articulate  intervenor at 
that.)
 
For the sake of further clarity, here is the report from 1995 of the  
decision in LESBIAN/GAY LAW NOTES
Lesbian & Gay Law Association of  Greater New York
ISSN 8755 9021

March 1995
The Court of Appeals of Minnesota in Lilly v.  Minneapolis, 1995 WL
34048 (Jan. 31) dealt a serious blow when it upheld a  lower court's
ruling that permanently enjoined the City of Minneapolis  from
providing health insurance benefits for the same sex partners of
city  employees.  The court based its decision on a narrow reading
of the  Minnesota statute that governs the state's public benefit
plans and held that  Minneapolis, a home rule charter city, did not
have the power to expand the  list of people who would be considered
dependents of city employees for the  purpose of providing health
benefits.

Two years after passing a  domestic partnership registration
ordinance, the Minneapolis City Council  passed a resolution
authorizing limited reimbursement to city employees for  health care
insurance costs for same-sex domestic partners and other  qualified
blood relatives.  In 1993 the City Council passed an  additional
resolution extending health care coverage for the same-sex  domestic
partners of employees and directing that the city seek inclusion  of
the term "domestic partner" in state legislation on health  care
benefits.  Subsequently, the city contracted with two HMOs  to
provide health insurance to same-sex domestic partners  beginning
January 1, 1994.  James Lilly, a city resident and taxpayer,  sued
to enjoin the city from implementing the resolutions.  The  district
court found that the health care coverage for same-sex  domestic
partners violated state law and was against state public  policy.

In upholding the district court, the court of appeals noted  that
the state statute authorizing local legislative bodies, including
the  city, to insure employees and their dependents defined
"dependent" as a  "spouse and minor unmarried children under the age
of 18 years and dependent  students under the age of 25 years
actually dependent upon the  employee."  The court found that since
the domestic partners and other  relatives defined in the resolution
did not conform to the state statute's  definition, the city's
action was beyond its power.  The court found  that "the statewide
application of [the statute regarding benefits for  public
employees], and the legislature's prior amendments in  accordance
with the desires of state political subdivisions, indicates  that
the provision of insurance coverage for political  subdivisions'
employees and their dependents is a matter of statewide, not  purely
local, concern."

The court cited to the legislative history of  the sexual
orientation amendment to the Minnesota Human Rights Act in  support
of its finding that combating such discrimination was a matter  of
statewide concern as well.  According to the court, the  legislative
author of the bill pronounced that "(t)here is nothing in  here
about the domestic partners benefits.  Nothing that could lead  to
it. . ."  Based on this legislative history the court found  that
the legislature did not intend to extend health benefits to
employees  with same sex domestic partners.  Consequently, the city
could not go  beyond its powers and grant such benefits to its
employees.

In a  strongly worded dissent, Judge Schumacher asserted that the
"majority's  decision erodes the constitutionally recognized
principle of home rule: local  governance of areas of local
concern."  Schumacher found no basis for  the court's decision to
preempt a home rule charter city's power to provide  compensation,
even in the form of health benefits, to its employees.   Since there
was no language in the Minnesota statute that expressly  prohibited
the extension of health benefits to same- sex domestic partners  of
city employees, and the city's charter contained provisions
regarding  compensation of employees, Schumacher considered that the
city was well  within its power to extend the health benefits to
domestic partners of city  employees under the authority of its home
rule charter.

With regard to  the finding that the resolutions infringed state law
or policy concerning  discrimination, Schumacher maintained that the
fact that the state  legislature did not intend to expand the
definition of dependents was  irrelevant.  Unlike the two members of
the majority, Schumacher would  have reversed the lower court's
permanent injunction and permitted the City  to voluntarily offer
health benefits to the same sex partners of City  employees.  M.B.
 
Scott Benson
Council Member
Ward 11