Tyma v. Montgomery County6/14/2002
artners is inconsistent with federal benefits laws that do not include domestic partners among the enumerated "qualified beneficiaries."
Contrary to the appellants' position, the County maintains that "the Act does not create a marital relationship between domestic partners;" rather, "it merely extends to domestic partners many of the employment benefits currently available to County employees' spouses." Relying upon the Home Rule Amendment and the general welfare clause, and citing the opinions of this Court in Montgomery Citizens League v. Greenhalgh, 253 Md. at 161, 252 A.2d at 247, and Snowden v. Anne Arundel County, 295 Md. 429, 438, 456 A.2d 380, 385 (1983), the County argues that it clearly is authorized to extend employment benefits "where those benefits serve a valid public purpose," in this case, "recruiting and retaining qualified employees and promoting employee loyalty." Citing decisions from other jurisdictions reviewing similar laws and rejecting the argument that such laws implicate the State's interest in marriage, see, e.g., Slattery v. New York, 697 N.Y.S.2d 603, 605 (App.Div. 1999), appeal dismissed, 727 N.E.2d 1253, 734 N.E.2d 1208 (N. Y. 2000) ("there are enormous differences between marriage and domestic partnership, and, in light of those very substantial differences, the DPL cannot reasonably be construed as impinging upon the State's exclusive right to regulate the institution of marriage"); Crawford v. Chicago, 710 N.E.2d 91, 98-99 (Ill. App. Ct.), petition to appeal denied, 720 N.E.2d 1090 (Ill. 1999) ("Nothing in the DPO purports to create a marital status or marriage as those terms are commonly defined. Rather, the DPO addresses only health benefits extended to City employees and those residing with them"); Schaefer v. City and County of Denver, 973 P.2d 717, 719 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998), cert. denied (April 12,1999) ("The ordinance qualifies a separate and distinct group of people who are not eligible to contract a state-sanctioned marriage to receive health and dental insurance benefits from the City. Therefore, the ordinance does not adversely impact the integrity and importance of the institution of marriage"); Lowe v. Broward County, 766 So.2d 1199, 1206 (Fla.Dist. Ct. App. 2000), review denied, 789 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2001) ("The Act does not create a legal relationship that, because of the interest of the state, gives rise to rights and obligations that survive the termination of the relationship. Unlike a traditional marriage, a domestic partnership is purely contractual, based on the mutual agreement of the parties"), it argues that because it "does not interfere with State interests," the Act is a local law. The out of State cases have upheld these similar laws on the basis that the applicable constitutional provisions, as is the case here, delegate broad law-making authority to local governments. See, e.g., Crawford v. Chicago, 710 N.E.2d at 96; Schaefer v. City and County of Denver, 973 P.2d at 720. Only when "the enabling statute expressly limits a local government's ability to grant employment benefits to `its employees and dependents,'" the County asserts, "have courts in some jurisdictions invalidated similar laws." See, e.g., Arlington County v. White, 528 S.E.2d 706 (Va. 2000); Lilly v. Minneapolis, 527 N.W.2d 107 (Minn. App. 1995).
The County also asserts that it is authorized to fund the Act with State monies, which the State generally provides for any valid public purpose. It further argues that federal benefits laws do not preempt the Act because "these laws represent federal minimum standards that the County is free to exceed at its choosing."
IV.
We agree with the Circuit Court that the County had the authority, and clearly
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Maryland Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|