Share to Google Buzz
Share to Google Plus

 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.

Share to Google Buzz
Share to Google Plus

If you die intestate (without a last will and testament), will your same-sex spouse be considered a “spouse” for purposes of inheritance?

by Mercedes Bugallo (Summer Associate) 

Yes.  One of the effects of the Whitewood decision is that same-sex spouses are considered a “spouse” for purposes of Pennsylvania’s intestate succession process. A person domiciled in Pennsylvania who dies without a will is said to have died “intestate” and his or her estate is divided according to Pennsylvania’s intestate succession laws. The existence of surviving children or parents will affect the amount of the estate and other property to which the same-sex spouse is entitled.  If the deceased left no children or parents, then the surviving spouse inherits everything. Importantly, property inherited from a spouse is exempt from Pennsylvania’s estate tax.

For more detailed information, please refer to this chart, located on the Allegheny Register of Wills’ website:



Share to Google Buzz
Share to Google Plus

Does the recognition of same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania have any effect on immigration visa petitions for Pennsylvania citizens?

by Mercedes Bugallo (Summer Associate)

Immigration visas, unlike marriage recognitions, are regulated by the federal government, not the individual states.  This means that the Pennsylvania Whitewood decision, albeit groundbreaking on a state level, has no effect on a same-sex couple’s application for green cards or fiancé visas.

Fortunately, however, the federal government has been treating both same-sex and opposite-sex married couples alike for immigration purposes since shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court declared the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)
unconstitutional in 2013, in the case of United States v. Windsor.  Before Windsor, a U.S. citizen could not sponsor his or her foreign spouse for a green card or fiancée visa. Now, bi-national same-sex couples are afforded the same consideration as opposite-sex couples for immigration purposes.  Indeed, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USIS), which is the organization in charge of the visa process for spouses of American citizens, USIS reviews immigration visa petitions filed on behalf of a same-sex spouse in the same manner as those filed on behalf of an opposite-sex spouse.

Keep in mind that “the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated determines whether the marriage is legally valid for immigration purposes. . . . The domicile state’s laws and policies on same-sex marriages will not bear on whether USCIS will recognize a marriage as valid.” In other words, USCIS will consider visa petitions of same-sex couples who have a valid marriage license from a U.S. state or foreign country where same-sex marriage is legal, even if the couple lives in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage. But, it will not consider visa petitions for same-sex spouses whose marriage was performed in a country or state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, even if the couples lives in a state that does recognize same-sex marriages, because the marriage was not lawfully entered into.

 The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ FAQ section for same-sex marriage applications and benefits can be found at:


Share to Google Buzz
Share to Google Plus

Are out-of-country same-sex marriages (e.g., Canada) now recognized in Pennsylvania?

by  Mercedes Bugallo (Summer Associate)

Seventeen countries have legalized marriage for same-sex couples nationwide (Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Denmark, France, Brazil, Uruguay, New Zealand, Britain, and Luxembourg).  Two others allow same-sex marriage on a regional basis (Mexico and the United States).

Same-sex couples who married abroad can rest assured that the state of Pennsylvania will automatically recognize their marriage. There is no formal process or forms to fill out for the marriage to be recognized in the state.

However, marriages from other countries are not automatically registered in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This means that while Pennsylvania will recognize foreign marriages of same-sex couples, it will not maintain records of those marriages, because marriage records are maintained by the jurisdiction that granted the marriage license. Same-sex couples getting married abroad should, therefore, obtain certified copies of their marriage license from the country in which it took place. There are a various reasons why someone may need a copy of his or her marriage record. For example, proof of marriage may be required for name changes, to collect Social Security or pension benefits, for adoption purposes, and for some passport applications.

For more information, listen to Equality Pennsylvania’s “Questions and Answers about Marriage in PA”:


Share to Google Buzz
Share to Google Plus

Pennsylvania Anti-Discrimination Laws: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

By Sydney Normil (Summer Associate)

Currently, federal and state (Pennsylvania) anti-discrimination laws protect against discrimination on the basis of sex (male vs. female), but not sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.  However, a number of Pennsylvania municipalities have enacted ordinances prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity or expression.  The list of municipalities is always changing, and the protection offered by each municipality varies.  For example, one municipality may protect against transgender identity discrimination while another municipality may protect only against sexual orientation discrimination.  It is necessary to consult with the individual municipality to determine which protections are available.

Filing a Complaint

An aggrieved individual can file a “complaint” with its municipality for discriminatory acts performed against them in employment, housing or public accommodation matters occurring within the borough or city limits. A complaint is a form that requests general information of both the person filing and of the accused employer and a summary of the alleged discriminatory acts. Each municipality may maintain a different form and course of procedure for investigating such complaints. For example, the complaint form may need to be printed and mailed or hand delivered, or the complaint form may be submitted online. This list contains the names of the municipalities and their respective commissions, and hyperlinks to the municipalities’ websites, complaint forms or guides to filing a complaint, if available. (Last updated July 2014)


Abington Township – Abington Township Human Relations Commission – The complaint form can be found here.

Allegheny CountyAllegheny County Human Relations Commission – The complaint form can be found here.

City of AllentownHuman Relations Commission of the City of Allentown – The complaint form can be found here.

City of Bethlehem – Bethlehem Human Relations Commission

Bristol BoroughBristol Borough Human Relations Commission

Bucks CountyBucks County Human Relations Council

Cheltenham TownshipCheltenham Township Human Relations Commission – The complaint form can be found here.

Borough of ConshohockenBorough of Conshohocken Human Relations Commission

Borough of Dowington – Dowington Human Relations Commission

Borough of DoylestownDoylestown Human Relations Commission – The complaint form can be found here.

City of Easton – Easton Human Relations Commission

East Norriton TownshipEast Norriton Township Human Relations Commission

Erie CountyErie County Human Relations Commission – The guide to filing a complaint can be found here.

City of FarrellCity of Farrell Human Relations Commission

City of Harrisburg– Harrisburg Human Relations Commission

Haverford Township – Haverford Human Relations Commission

City of LancasterLancaster City Human Relations Commission – The complaint form can be found here.

Lansdowne Borough –  Lansdowne Human Relations Commission

Lower Merion TownshipLower Merion Township Human Relations Commission – The complaint form can be found here.

Jenkintown BoroughJenkintown Borough Human Relations Commission

Borough of NewtonNewtown Human Relations Commission

Borough of New HopeNew Hope Human Rights Commission

City of PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia Commission on Human Relations – The complaint form can be found here.

City of PittsburghPittsburgh Commission on Human Relations – The complaint form can be found here.

City of PittstonPittston Human Relations Commission

City of ReadingReading Human Relations Commission

City of ScrantonHuman Relations Commission of the City of Scranton

Springfield Township – Springfield Township Human Relations Commission

State College BoroughState College Borough Human Relations Commission – The guide to filing a complaint can be found here. The complaint form can be found here.

Susquehanna TownshipSusquehanna Township Human Relations Commission

Swarthmore Borough Swarthmore Human Relations Commission – The guide to filing a complaint can be found here.

Upper Merion TownshipUpper Merion Township Human Relations Commission – The guide to filing a complaint can be found here.

Borough of West Chester –West Chester Human Relations Commission

Whitemarsh TownshipWhitemarsh Township Human Relations Commission

City of YorkCity of York Human Relations Commission

Appeals court rejects Virginia same-sex marriage ban

Share to Google Buzz
Share to Google Plus

A federal appeals court struck down Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage, the first such decision in a southern state.

To read the full CNN story, following the link below:

Protection from Sexual-Orientation Discrimination in Pennsylvania

Share to Google Buzz
Share to Google Plus


By:  Alaura Maglio (Summer Associate)

Question: Does Whitewood v. Wolf Provide Any Protection from Sexual-Orientation Discrimination in Pennsylvania?  

In Whitewood v. Wolf, a federal judge struck down a Pennsylvania law that limited the definition of marriage to that between “one man and one woman.”  In his momentous opinion, Judge Jones also declared that classifications based on sexual orientation are subject to “intermediate scrutiny.”   As a result, when a state or local law classifies people (i.e. discriminates) on the basis sexual orientation, the government must prove that this classification is substantially related to an important government purpose.  This is quite a difficult standard to meet.

As this language indicates, to receive legal protection for discrimination, there must first be an applicable law.  It is important to understand that unfair or discriminatory treatment, on its own, is probably not an illegal practice.   For instance, we know that employers employees aged 40 or older are protected against being fired because of their age.  However, this is not just because discrimination is a bad practice; it is because a federal law, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), prohibits such practice.  Had Congress not passed the ADEA, there would be no law barring employers from firing employees based on their age, and such discrimination would not be illegal.

In sum, Whitewood only announced how rigorously a court must examine the purpose of an existing law.  There is currently no statewide Pennsylvania law that protects against sexual orientation discrimination.  Judge Jones did not create a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation (nor could he have done so).

There is, however, pending legislation in Pennsylvania that would provide some of these protections.  Senate Bill 300 seeks to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression” to the protected categories under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA).  If Senate Bill 300 were to pass, it would allow persons discriminated against in employment, housing or public accommodation because of their sexual orientation or gender identity or expression to seek redress under the PHRA.   For example, if an employer fired an employee because of her sexual orientation, she could bring a claim to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC).   If the former employee proved to the PHRC that she was terminated because of her sexual orientation, she could receive redress as provided by the Act.  Such redress includes: compensation for loss of work, reinstatement to her former position, and an order to the employer to pay a civil fine.  However, keep in mind that there is no law in Pennsylvania that regulates purely private conduct.  Outside of employment, housing, or public accommodations, Senate Bill 300 would not protect against or provide remedies for discrimination.

In sum, Whitewood represents an important step toward providing increased protections to the LGBT community by requiring courts to closely examine potentially discriminatory laws.  However, the court’s opinion does not provide recourse for discriminatory practices, and it also represents the conclusion of just one judge.  Such protections can be provided at a state level by the passage of laws like Senate Bill 300.

Designating Your Same-Sex Spouse as the Sole Beneficiary in Your Will

Share to Google Buzz
Share to Google Plus


By David K. Goldfarb (Summer Associate)

Question: If your will designates your same-sex spouse as the sole beneficiary, will your relatives have a valid (and potentially successful) claim against your estate?

Estate planning can be a very stressful time for all married couples, especially when children and other relatives need to be considered.  However, under normal circumstances, one need not be overly concerned with the validity of his will and the possibility of relatives bringing claims against a surviving spouse that has been designated as the sole beneficiary under that will. It is typically very difficult to challenge a will. Approximately 99% of wills are enforced without any issues. Courts interpret wills as the voice of the testator (the person who wrote the will). Since that person is deceased and no longer able to express his wishes, courts are extremely hesitant to alter the terms of the will.

As a general rule, a party must have an interest in order to challenge a will, and that interest must be substantial, direct, and immediate. It is very likely that a court would conclude that close relatives, like children, have a substantial, direct, and immediate interest in your will. Thus, your relatives would likely be able to bring a claim against your estate. However, such a claim is unlikely to prevail.

As an initial matter, Pennsylvania law expressly allows you to disinherit (deprive someone of inheritance) every individual other than your spouse.  Furthermore, your relatives, or any other challenger, would have a very limited number of grounds for bringing a claim against your same-sex spouse. Most grounds address the procedural process for the creation of a will and are easily addressed by retaining an attorney to assist in your estate planning. The two substantive grounds are that the individual lacked the mental capacity necessary for creating a valid will and that the will was procured by fraud, forgery, or undue influence.

In order to challenge a will based on mental capacity, the challenger must prove that the testator did not understand the consequences of making the will at the time of the will’s creation. Adults are presumed to have the necessary mental capacity required for the creation of a will, thus this argument is usually limited to the context of an individual diagnosed with dementia who revises their will towards the end of their life.

In order to challenge a will based on fraud, forgery or undue influence, the challenger essentially must prove that the will was not created by the deceased or that the deceased was forced via threats to create the will. No matter the situation, it would be wise to have several witnesses, including an attorney, present during the creation of your will. Most states require a typed hard copy of the will signed by the testator in the presence of at least two adult witnesses who are not named as heirs in the will.

It is advisable to consult with a Trusts & Estates attorney as part of your estate planning to ensure that no potential claimant could prevail against your same-sex spouse in challenging the will.


First Read on Same-sex Spouse Health Benefits Post Windsor

Share to Google Buzz
Share to Google Plus


by:  John H. Wilson

The issues of same-sex spousal rights to benefits is now largely resolved; however, substantial questions about same-sex spouse health and welfare benefits remain.

To see the full story, click on the link below:

John H. Wilson is a Shareholder of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC whose practice is primarily focused on employee benefits, ERISA and deferred compensation matters.

Attorney General Eric Holder Memo on Federal Benefits Post-Windsor

Share to Google Buzz
Share to Google Plus

“This is what we have been waiting for from the attorney general.”

Maureen Cohon, Esquire

Attorney General Eric Holder has issued a memo on how the Windsor decision will effect federal programs. This is a result of the year long review after Windsor. The memo can be found here by clicking on the link below: