The Supreme Court has ruled on Friday, June 25, 2015, by a 5-to-4 vote, that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage. This paves the way for same-sex marriages in all the states.
For the full New York Times story, click here.
Congratulations to all who have waited so long.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, April 28, will hear oral arguments over whether states’ same-sex marriage bans are constitutional, setting the stage for a final decision on marriage equality by the end of June.
Federal appeals courts have disagreed on whether states’ bans violate the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment, leaving it to the Supreme Court to decide the issue.
Same-sex marriages are already allowed in 37 states and Washington, DC, but many hinge on lower courts’ decisions in favor of marriage equality.
For the full story, click on the link below:
On February 25, 2015, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) adopted new regulations that define the term “spouse” for purposes of the FMLA based on the “place of celebration” rule. Under this rule, the term “spouse” includes all legally married individuals, same-sex or opposite-sex, regardless of the law of the state where the employee currently resides or works. Previously, the DOL defined the term “spouse” according to the law of the state in which the employee resides (state of residence), rather than the state in which the employee was married (place of celebration). Adoption of the “place of celebration” rule will now ensure that all legally married employees, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, or married under common law, have consistent FMLA leave rights regardless of where they live.
To learn more about this amendment and what it means for company policies, click here.
For questions or more information, please contact Bethany C. Salvatore.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette featured an article highlighting the Name Change Project and its role in helping local transgender individuals legally change their name to one that is consistent with their gender. Obtaining a name change is not a particularly complex procedure, but many individuals do not have the necessary resources to undertake the process alone – not to mention the comfort that having an attorney involved adds to the process, reports the article.
In the words of Alice Millage – whose name change Buchanan attorneys Maureen Cohon, Kate Paine and Bridget Daley helped obtain – “Getting a name change ‘would’ve been a lot harder, definitely,’ without the project. ‘Having to do all of the paperwork and documents by myself would have been stressful for me and would have cost more money.’”
The article reports that the Name Change Project has already assisted in 1,700 name changes nationally and sees a “very strong demand for services in Pittsburgh.”
Read more about the project here.
The Name Change Project provides free legal name change services to transgender people through partnerships with some of the nation’s most prestigious law firms and corporate law departments. For many transgender people, securing a legal name change is an important step toward making their legal identities match their lived experience. A lack of appropriate identity documents can deter people from applying for jobs, school, and public benefits, and can lead to discrimination. But securing a legal name change can be a challenging experience, involving interaction with the court system and judges that is foreign to many people. By providing people with adequate legal representation, we work to ensure that people successfully complete the process and move forward with their lives. For more information, visit http://www.transgenderlegal.org.
A federal appeals court Tuesday unanimously struck down gay marriage bans in the West, paving the way for same-sex nuptials in five more states.
To see the full story, please click on the link below:
The Supreme Court on Monday decided to let stand rulings that allow same-sex marriage in Virginia, Utah, Oklahoma, Indiana and Wisconsin.
See the full story by clicking on the link below:
If I was married out-of-state before Whitewood legalized same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania, when is my official “date of change” of marital status, for purposes of determining whether my spouse is eligible under my employee benefit plan?
by: Raul Mendoza (Summer Associate)
It may be the case that, before your spouse can qualify under your employee benefit plan, your employer requires you to notify it of a change in marital status within a certain number of days after the marriage. It is always a good idea to review your employer’s policies to see if such requirement exists.
Those Pennsylvanians who had already legally wed their same-sex partners outside of Pennsylvania before Whitewood was decided may now be wondering when the change in marital status officially “occurred,” now that Pennsylvania recognizes same-sex marriage: is it the date that you got married?; is it May 20, 2104, the day the Whitewood opinion was issued and same-sex marriage became legal?; or is it another date – perhaps the date Governor Corbett stated he would not appeal the ruling? The answer to this question is very important, since in some instances, it may determine whether you are too late in reporting your status change, rendering your spouse ineligible for your employee benefits.
Good news: May 20, 2014, is the effective “change of marital status” date for those same-sex couples married out of state before Whitewood was decided. As such, Pennsylvania employers should not be able to take the position that couples married outside of Pennsylvania prior to the Whitewood decision needed to report the date of their out-of-state marriage and are now too late to collect spousal benefits.
How has the legalization of same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania altered the adoption process for same-sex couples?
by Gabrielle Lee (Summer Associate)
“Any individual may become an adopting parent.” This statement, cited from Pennsylvania’s Adoption Act now rings true for same-sex married individuals seeking to adopt their spouse’s children through what is called a “second-parent adoption.” The Adoption Act provides that, unless the court determines otherwise, the consenting parent of an adoptee (the child to be adopted) must permanently relinquish all parental rights to his or her child unless the adopter is the consenting parent’s spouse.
Prior to Pennsylvania’s Whitewood decision, which struck down Pennsylvania’s law refusing to recognize same-sex marriages, this “spousal exception” did not apply to same-sex couples, whether lawfully married outside of Pennsylvania or not. Although the Adoption Act did not explicitly prohibit same-sex couples from adopting, it imposed additional hurdles not faced by opposite-sex married couples. Same-sex couples wanting to adopt had two options: either the consenting parent could temporarily relinquish all rights to the child and subsequently file for a joint adoption with the spouse, or the consenting parent could attempt to persuade the court that the adopting partner should be permitted to adopt while the parent retained custody. For the latter option, the court had the discretion to determine if the adoption was in the best interest of the child.
Fortunately, now that Pennsylvania recognizes same-sex marriage, married same-sex spouses no longer encounter these time-consuming and emotionally-draining hurdles that existed before Whitewood.
What is the status of registered domestic partners in Pennsylvania post-Whitewood?
by Matthew Dulac (Summer Associate)
Now that same-sex marriage is legal in Pennsylvania, same-sex couples registered as “domestic partners” or “life partners” in cities like Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia may be wondering whether employers or State and Local officials will continue to provide domestic partner benefits.
Starting on June 30, 2015, Allegheny County will no longer provide benefits to county employees in registered domestic partnerships. (http://wesa.fm/post/allegheny-county-domestic-partners-given-more-time-losing-benefits.) As County Executive Rich Fitzgerald stated: “Now that same sex marriage is legal in Pennsylvania, I believe that it is important to continue to keep our employees on equal footing and that means requiring proof of marriage for coverage of a spouse, partner and/or family members.” With respect to the benefits afforded to all other same-sex couples registered as domestic partners, the city of Pittsburgh is apparently reviewing its policies in the wake of Whitewood and has yet to declare whether the benefits it extends will continue. In the employment context, each employer remains free to decide whether to continue to extend domestic partner benefits to its eligible employees,
At this point, it is not clear whether Harrisburg, which has provided same-sex domestic partner benefits since 2008, and Philadelphia, which has provided such benefits since 1996, will continue to do so. But, with same-sex marriage now legal in the state of Pennsylvania it would not be surprising if these cities stop extending spousal benefits in the relatively-near future to same-sex couples that are not “married”.
What is the status of domestic partnership benefits on a federal level post-Windsor?
by Matthew Dulac (Summer Associate)
Before the United States Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) in United States v. Windsor, the federal definition of “marriage” was limited to that between a man and a woman. For that reason, same-sex couples in registered domestic partnerships and civil unions could not receive spousal benefits under federal law. This has not changed post-Windsor, since same-sex and opposite-sex married couples are now afforded (nearly all of) the same treatment under federal law. That is, federal spousal benefits are only extended to “married” couples – whether same-sex or opposite-sex – and not to domestic partners.
In fact, several federal agencies have clarified that “marriage” means only couples who are actually married under the law, regardless of sexual orientation, and not those in registered domestic partnership or civil unions. For example, in September 2013, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) stated in Revenue Ruling 2013-17 that, for tax purposes, the term “marriage” includes marriage between individuals of the same sex but does not include registered domestic partnerships.
Similarly—and just two days after the IRS—the US Department of Labor (DOL) released its own statement in the DOL Guidance to Employee Benefit Plans 2013-04 that it would interpret “spouse” as any individual lawfully married under any state law, and “marriage” to include a same-sex marriage that is legally recognized as a marriage under any state law. The DOL also stated, however, that the terms “spouse” and “marriage” do not include individuals in a relationship that is not denominated a “marriage” under state law, such as a domestic partnership.
In sum, even though same-sex marriages now are eligible for many of the same federal benefits as opposite-sex marriages, domestic partnerships remain unrecognized for the purpose of receiving federal spousal benefits.