WASHINGTON - A lawsuit filed Tuesday against the city of Bellevue could force all public employers in Washington — from the largest university to the tiniest town — to extend the same employment benefits to partners of gay workers as they now provide to families of heterosexuals.
Two firefighters and an emergency dispatcher — all gay — claim in the suit that the city's policy of limiting benefits such as health care, bereavement and family leave to employees with spouses of the opposite sex is discriminatory.
Larry deGroen, a firefighter and paramedic, said he experienced it firsthand in December 2005, when he requested a bereavement day to attend the funeral of his partner's father in Detroit.
It was denied — "the same request that would have been granted to any of my married co-workers," said deGroen, a 12-plus-year employee of the fire department. "Tom was not considered a member of my family."
The suit, filed in King County Superior Court, accuses Bellevue of violating the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution, which bans the granting of special privileges to one group that is not provided equally to everyone.
If that claim is upheld, all public employers across the state would be required to offer domestic-partner benefits, said Tara Borelli, a staff attorney with Lambda Legal.
Lambda Legal, which brought the suit on the employees' behalf, said the three plaintiffs "provide critical, life-saving services to the residents of Bellevue.
"But the city of Bellevue discriminates against them by denying them the basic protection they need to safeguard their own families in times of crisis."
Gay-rights advocates have been trying for years to get domestic-partner benefits for Bellevue city employees. The firefighters union, as recently as last fall, included them in bargaining with the city, but failed to get the issue passed.
Bellevue officials say it's a question of cost.
In recent years, the city has adopted a "no new benefits" position to address rapidly escalating health-insurance costs, said Tim Waters, a city spokesman.
Studies show that extending domestic-partner benefits would add between 1 percent and 2 percent to an employer's overall compensation costs.
"We're trying to be good financial stewards for taxpayers," Waters said.
In a state with an estimated 16,000 same-sex couples scattered in every county, many public employers already offer domestic-partner benefits, including the state of Washington; the cities of Seattle, Burien and Spokane; King and Snohomish counties; the University of Washington; and Seattle Public Schools.
Additionally, at least 645 private employers also provide such benefits.
Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage and Children, calls the lawsuit another attack on traditional marriage.
Since the state Supreme Court last year upheld the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which limits marriage to one man and one woman, efforts to undermine traditional marriage are coming from every angle, she said.
"It's just a new group that has picked up this fight — same issue, new attack," Haskins said. "We all know what the end game is."
But Faun Patzer, a firefighter and paramedic with the city for 17 years, said she would simply like to get decent health care for her partner, Carrie Wurzburg.
The two met in 2003 and fell instantly in love, she said.
Wurzburg, a self-employed general contractor, suffers from heart irregularities, the costs of which are a huge financial burden on the couple.
Patzer said she would enroll Wurzburg on her health plan if she could. "I know what the guys get for their wives; we could get far better coverage for her on my plan," Patzer said. "We 're not asking for anything different than what any other committed couple has."
DeGroen, who met his partner, Thomas Dixon, 16 years ago, said he felt the sting of discrimination for the first time last year when he asked for the day off to attend the funeral for Dixon's father.
"They kept saying it was not part of the union contract." he said.
"It sounds so petty — after all, it was just a day. But it meant to me that they did not recognize me and my family."
It's not the first time gay-rights activists have sought to use the state constitution's equal-protection clause to win rights for gays, including the right to marry.
Last year, the State Supreme Court rejected that argument, saying that restricting marriage to one man and one woman was not a violation of the privileges and immunities clause.
Borelli of Lambda Legal said a lack of domestic-partner benefits is a pocketbook issue as well — about equal work for equal pay.
Family benefits constitute about 30 percent of an employee's total compensation, she pointed out. "By denying them these benefits, the city is paying them 30 percent less than heterosexual colleagues."
from The Seattle Times
No comments:
Post a Comment