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 REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
