FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 8, 1999

Massachusetts High Court Considers Fate of Domestic Partnership Laws

(BOSTON, MA) Attorneys for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) and the City of Boston argued before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) today in support of the legality of Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino’s Executive Order on Domestic Partnership (EODP) issued in August, 1998. The EODP allows partners of city employees who meet strict eligibility criteria to obtain health insurance benefits through the city employee as a family member.

A taxpayer’s group filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the Executive Order in November, 1998. GLAD sought and was granted permission to defend the Executive Order on behalf of itself and a City employee, Kay Schmidt, and Schmidt’s domestic partner, Diane Pullen, and their two children, all of whom receive health insurance through the EODP.

In November, Suffolk County Superior Court Judge Grabau agreed that the EODP conflicted with state insurance law and reported his decision to the appellate courts for a final determination. In December, the Appeals Court stayed the effect of Judge Grabau’s decision, thereby allowing the benefits to remain in place. The Supreme Judicial Court granted review in January, 1999, and the case was set on a fast track.

According to Jennifer Levi, the GLAD attorney who argued before the SJC, “Cities and towns in Massachusetts have broad home rule powers to act in local interests. Local laws like Boston’s complement the State insurance laws by filling gaps in insurance coverage. The Mayor’s Order implicitly acknowledges that some of Boston’s 20,000 employees have families with no other access to insurance coverage.”

A number of cities and towns, including Springfield, Northampton, Cambridge, and Brookline have domestic partnership health insurance plans. Mary Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Director, stated, “Government employers are now recognizing what has long been known in the private sector. Families come in many forms. Having access to health insurance is fair from an equal compensation perspective. Employers also provide domestic partner benefits for the same reason they provide benefits to employees generally: benefits are important for the security and peace of mind of their employees with families.” The Town of Brookline and City of Cambridge filed letters with the Court supporting the position that they have the power to provide domestic partner benefits.

Kay Schmidt, a paramedic who has worked for the city for 11 years, explained that “having access to health insurance through the City is critical for me and my family. My partner Diane stays at home and takes care of our two children. I work overtime and am the sole supporter of our family. Diane’s only access to affordable health benefits is through the City’s plan. Mayor Menino’s Executive Order is very important to my family’s financial security and peace of mind.”

Daniel Jackson of the Boston firm Bingham Dana LLP, assisted GLAD on the brief. A number of labor organizations also supported the position of the City and GLAD, including the Massachusetts Federation of Teachers, the Massachusetts Teachers Association, Service Employees International Union District 285, Service Employees International Union District 509 and Service Employees International Union District 925. The office of Attorney General Thomas Reilly also submitted a friend of the Court brief supporting the power of cities and towns to implement domestic partnership health insurance. The Court will likely rule within 130 days.