Recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages for
purposes of public employee health insurance coverage and other benefits ruled
lawful
Godfrey v Spano, 2009 NY Slip Op 08474, Decided on November 19, 2009, Court of
Appeals [Decided with Lewis v New York State Department of Civil Service]
Plaintiffs in this action are taxpayers challenging directives recognizing
out-of-state same-sex marriages for purposes of public employee health
insurance coverage and other benefits.* The Court of Appeals held that that
plaintiffs' actions were properly dismissed by the courts below.
Many residents of New York State in a same-gender relationship have traveled to Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont, jurisdictions permitting same-gender marriage,
for the purpose of marrying.
In response to this development, several state and county officials issued
general directives relating to the recognition of those out-of-state same-sex
marriages.
This appeal involved challenges to the lawfulness of two such directives: a
Policy Memorandum, Employee Benefits Division Policy Memorandum issued by the
Commissioner of the New York State Department of Civil Service, which became
effective May 1, 2007* and an Executive Order issued by the County Executive of
the County of Westchester, Westchester County Executive Order No. 3 of 2006.**
However, the Court of Appeals commented with respect to the action brought by
Godfrey that it did adopt the Second Department's rationale for affirmance of
the Supreme Court’s ruling, i.e., the Executive Order did not purport to change
the law, because it included language directing recognition of same-sex couples
"to the maximum extent allowed by law."
The high court said that it found such language ambiguous, and it said it
“would not encourage executive officials to try to insulate their orders from
judicial review by this means.” Instead the Court of Appeals sustained the
result “because the Godfrey plaintiffs have failed to allege an unlawful
expenditure of taxpayer funds, they have not stated a cognizable claim under
General Municipal Law §51.”
As to the Lewis plaintiffs, the Court of Appeals noted that the only surviving
causes of action were based on State Finance Law §123-b and the separation of
powers doctrine.
As to Finance Law § 123-b, the court said although a taxpayer may bring suit
under this statute to prevent the unlawful expenditure of state funds
"whether or not such person is or may be affected or specially
aggrieved" (State Finance Law §123-b [1]), there must be some specific
threat of an imminent expenditure. In this instance the Court of Appeals ruled
that “The State Finance Law claim of the Lewis plaintiffs fails to state a
cause of action for the same reason that the General Municipal Law § 51 claim
of the Godfrey plaintiffs fails.
Addressing the Lewis plaintiffs' action based on the separation of powers
doctrine, essentially the complaint alleges that the Department of Civil
Service acted "inconsistently with the Legislature's pronouncements on
spousal benefits" and was thus in violation of Civil Service Law §164. In
the words of the Court of Appeals: “The statute itself refutes plaintiffs'
claim.”
Civil Service Law §161(1) provides that the President of the Civil Service
Commission is "authorized and directed to establish a health insurance
plan for state officers and employees and their dependents and officers"
and provides that every state employee "shall be entitled to have his spouse
and dependent children, as defined by
the regulations of the president, included in the coverage upon
agreeing to pay his contribution, if any, to the cost of such coverage for such
dependents" (emphasis in the original).
Accordingly, said the court, the statute thus expressly gives the President of
the Civil Service Commission the authority to define "spouse."
Moreover, said the court, the statute does not restrict the President's
provision of health insurance to spouses and dependent children. The language
is of entitlement, not restriction.
The Court of Appeals concluded by stating that "in each case the order of
the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs."
* The
decision notes that “The Memorandum explained that the State had provided
eligibility for employee benefits, including New York State Health Insurance
Program benefits, to the domestic partners of State employees, including
same-sex partners, since the mid-1990s. The coverage, while mandatory for the
State, as an employer, itself, providing such coverage was discretionary for
Participating Agencies (PAs) and Participating Employers (PEs).”
** The New York State Employees’ Retirement
System recognized “same-sex marriages” for retirement benefit purposes if the
union was performed in a jurisdiction where performing a same-sex marriage was
lawful. It successfully defended a lawsuit challenging that policy [Godfrey v
DiNapoli, 22 Misc.3d 249]. In the Godfrey case the jurisdiction was Canada.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_08474.htm