Amicus Brief Against DOMA
Two federal lawsuits are challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. In 2010, a First Circuit Court Judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in one of these lawsuits, Gill v. Officer Personnel Management, a suit filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) on behalf of a group of same-sex couples and gay widowers in Massachusetts. Congress’ Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) appealed the decision, and appellate arguments are set for April 4, in Boston.
Business, including Xerox, BNY Mellon, and Aetna, filed an amicus brief that clearly indicates they do not agree with affect DOMA has employers. The brief states, in short, that federal law provides employees with many benefits which, in turn, allows the employee to focus attention on his employment. The brief further states that federal laws enable employers to be good employers, without having to intrude on the personal lives of their employees. However, according to the brief,
As employers, we must administer employment-related health plans, retirement plans, family leave, and COBRA. We must impute the value of spousal healthcare benefits to our employees’ detriment. We must intrude on their privacy by investigating the gender of their spouses, and then treat one employee less favorably, or at minimum differently, when each is as lawfully-married as the other. We must do all of this in states that prohibit workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and demand equal treatment of all married individuals. This conscription has harmful consequences.
The brief focuses on the practical burdens placed on employers as a result of DOMA, but does not make a constitutional argument regarding the law.
See Vickie Henery, Corporate Employers Take Principled Stand Against DOMA, Forbes, Mar. 3, 2012.
Special thanks to Jim Hillhouse (Professional Legal Marketing (PLM, Inc.)) for bringing this article to my attention.