|
home > newsroom
ACLU of Utah Files Friend-of-the-Court Brief in Support of
Domestic Partner Benefits for Salt Lake City Employees
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 10, 2005
PDF version >>
 |
|
Dianna Goodliffe (right) with her partner Lisa and their daughter
|
SALT LAKE CITY -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah filed a friend-of-the-court
brief today in support of a Salt Lake City executive order that extends
health and other employment benefits to city employees’ same-sex
and unmarried heterosexual domestic partners.
For Salt Lake City Police Department employee Dianna Goodliffe, the
city’s executive order is welcome news. For almost six years,
she has been in a committed and loving relationship with her partner
Lisa, with whom she has a four-year-old daughter.
“I’m so pleased that Salt Lake City recognizes that there’s
really no difference between my family and the families of my married
coworkers,” said Goodliffe. “Right now, my partner has benefits
through her employer, but we all know how quickly that can change. Now
we have the same options and opportunities as others.”
One year ago, Goodliffe and her partner’s daughter was diagnosed
with diabetes, making health insurance a particularly important consideration.
Like all parents, Goodliffe and her partner want to do what’s
best for their family, which, in the future, may include Lisa working
part-time or staying at home to care for their daughter. However, this
option is accessible only if Goodliffe can enroll Lisa in the city benefits
program.
Although the executive order’s effective date was September 21,
it may take a court order before Goodliffe and other Salt Lake City
employees can enroll their partners in the health insurance benefits
plan, the ACLU said. That’s because less than one week after the
order was signed, the governing body of the agency that administers
health insurance for state and local government employees, the Utah
State Retirement Board, filed a petition in state court requesting clarification
about whether Utah law prohibits the city from offering health insurance
benefits to domestic partners.
Today, Goodliffe, the ACLU of Utah, the national ACLU, and the local
branch of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME), filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the state court, arguing
that there is nothing in Utah’s statutory or constitutional law
that prohibits Salt Lake City from offering domestic partner benefits,
and that there are strong public policy arguments in favor of making
such benefits available.
“AFSCME has long advocated for equal benefits for workers,”
said Patty Rich, executive director of AFSCME Local 1004, which represents
over 1,000 government employees in Salt Lake City. “By offering
benefits to its employees’ domestic partners and their children,
Salt Lake City is demonstrating a strong commitment to the concept of
equal pay for equal work.”
In its petition, the Utah State Retirement Board cited Utah’s
constitutional amendment prohibiting the government from giving same-sex
relationships the “same or substantially equivalent legal effect”
as marriage, as well as Utah’s Marriage Recognition Policy, which
states that Utah will not recognize any law that creates benefits for
unmarried couples that are “substantially equivalent” to
marriage.
“Salt Lake City is absolutely correct in maintaining that the
provision of health insurance benefits to same-sex partners is in no
way ‘substantially equivalent’ to marriage,” said
ACLU of Utah staff attorney Margaret Plane. “The domestic partner
relationship is based on an economic and emotional relationship, and
does not in any way implicate the legal status of marriage.”
Plane noted that other courts have looked at similar cases involving
domestic partner benefits. Coincidentally, on the same day the Utah
State Retirement Board filed its petition, a state court in Michigan
ruled that that state’s new constitutional amendment does not
preclude city and state government employers from providing health insurance
benefits to domestic partners.
“While Michigan’s amendment is worded slightly differently
from Utah’s, much of the court’s reasoning applies to Salt
Lake City’s situation,” said Plane.
The case is currently in Third District Court before Judge Stephen
Roth. The brief is available online at www.acluutah.org/partnerbenefits.pdf.
--end-- |
|
|