Recent Developments from Around the States

NH Court Finds Denial of Benefits to Employees in Same-Sex Relationships Discriminatory

The Superior Court of New Hamp-shire has held that a public college's denial of employee benefits to their employees' same-sex partners constitutes unlawful employment discrimination under New Hampshire law, RSA 354-A:7 (Supp.2005). Bedford v. New Hampshire Community Technical College System, 2006 WL 1217283 (N.H.Super. May 3).

Petitioners Patricia Bedford and Anne Breen, both state employees of the New Hampshire Technical Institute (NHTI) in Concord, NH, are both lesbians who have each been in long-term committed relationships with their same-sex partners and who share common homes, financial and emotional dependence, and jointly raise the biological children of their partners. Both sought health and dental insurance for their partners, and entitlement to bereavement leave should either of their partners die. Anne Breen also sought dependent care leave benefits to care for her partner's child. Petitioners filed complaints with the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights (the Commission) alleging unlawful employment discrimination under New Hampshire law based on their employer's refusal to provide them with these benefits. The Commission found no probable cause for petitioners' complaints, and they appealed.

Reversing the Commission's order, the New Hampshire Superior Court held that since 'New Hampshire law prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex and does not otherwise provide a means for same-sex couples to legally sanction their committed relationship, same-sex partners have no ability to ever qualify for the same employment benefits unmarried heterosexual couples may avail themselves of by deciding to legally commit to each other through marriage.' Therefore, the court found that 'unmarried, heterosexual employees are not similarly situated to unmarried, gay and lesbian employees for purposes of receiving employee benefits.' Petition-ers' evidence of respondent employer's differing treatment of same-sex couples with regard to the receipt of employee benefits was enough to establish a prima facie case of sexual orientation discrimination.

Further, the court, in response to respondent's argument that the employees' collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which was approved by the legislature, did not permit the extension of employment benefits to same-sex couples like petitioners, found that 'ratification by the legislature of a CBA does not exempt the State from compliance with statutory law or automatically cause the CBA to supplant existing statutory law.' Last, the New Hampshire Superior Court disagreed with the Commission's assertion that it 'lacked the authority to rule on the petitioners' claims because the petitioners are effectively attacking the constitutionality of the marriage laws.' The court found that the petitioners were not arguing that they have a right to marry each other, but rather 'that the benefits programs discriminate against them by denying them benefits that the programs provide to others who ' are similarly situated.' The New Hampshire court thus held that '[b]ecause the petitioners [had] established a prima facie case of sexual orientation, and because the State's justification for the discriminatory policy at issue was insufficient, the petitioners [had] met their burden under a disparate treatment analysis of establishing that the policy impermissibly discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of RSA 354-A:7.'

Bias Complaint By South Vietnamese Refugees Referred to Narrowly Defined Class

The Appeals Court of Massachusetts has held that a claim brought by a group of South Vietnamese refugees against the University of Massachusetts, although framed to assert claims of age and national origin bias, really stated a claim on behalf of a narrowly defined class that was not protected by the state's employment antidiscrimination statutes, and therefore failed to allege a viable claim. Nguyen v. University of Massachusetts, 846 N.E.2d 1184 (Mass.App.Ct. May 11).

Verizon to Pay $48.9 Million in Lost Pension Benefits

Verizon Wireless Communications will pay certain former female employees a total of $48.9 million for pension service credits wrongfully denied while on pregnancy and maternity leave as a result of an Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) consent decree entered in 2002. EEOC v. Bell Atlantic, S.D.N.Y., No. 97 Civ. 6723, final report on consent decree submitted 6/5/06).

The consent decree resolved two pregnancy discrimination lawsuits filed by the EEOC in 1997 and 1999 on behalf of some 12,300 current and former female employees denied pension credit for their pregnancy and maternity leaves by NYNEX and Bell Atlantic, two of Verizon's predecessor companies. The lawsuits alleged violations of Title VII and the Equal Pay Act stemming from the companies' denial of service credits affecting pension eligibility to their female employees. One suit had been filed by the Communication Workers of America and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers on behalf of the organizations' female unionized employees, and the other was brought by the EEOC on behalf of female management employees. The final consent decree, which was submitted to and approved by Judge Denny Chin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, covered all female employees of the two companies located in 13 eastern states and the District of Columbia who took either pregnancy- or maternity-related leaves of absence between July 2, 1965 and April 28, 1979, and/or leaves of absence to care for a newborn between July 2, 1965 and Dec. 31, 1983. In accordance with the decree, the employees were granted between 2 and 7 weeks of additional service credits per pregnancy, depending on when their leave was taken, and some were given enhanced service credit adjustments if they were denied early retirement incentive opportunities as a result of the companies' misconduct.

NH Court Finds Denial of Benefits to Employees in Same-Sex Relationships Discriminatory

The Superior Court of New Hamp-shire has held that a public college's denial of employee benefits to their employees' same-sex partners constitutes unlawful employment discrimination under New Hampshire law, RSA 354-A:7 (Supp.2005). Bedford v. New Hampshire Community Technical College System, 2006 WL 1217283 (N.H.Super. May 3).

Petitioners Patricia Bedford and Anne Breen, both state employees of the New Hampshire Technical Institute (NHTI) in Concord, NH, are both lesbians who have each been in long-term committed relationships with their same-sex partners and who share common homes, financial and emotional dependence, and jointly raise the biological children of their partners. Both sought health and dental insurance for their partners, and entitlement to bereavement leave should either of their partners die. Anne Breen also sought dependent care leave benefits to care for her partner's child. Petitioners filed complaints with the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights (the Commission) alleging unlawful employment discrimination under New Hampshire law based on their employer's refusal to provide them with these benefits. The Commission found no probable cause for petitioners' complaints, and they appealed.

Reversing the Commission's order, the New Hampshire Superior Court held that since 'New Hampshire law prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex and does not otherwise provide a means for same-sex couples to legally sanction their committed relationship, same-sex partners have no ability to ever qualify for the same employment benefits unmarried heterosexual couples may avail themselves of by deciding to legally commit to each other through marriage.' Therefore, the court found that 'unmarried, heterosexual employees are not similarly situated to unmarried, gay and lesbian employees for purposes of receiving employee benefits.' Petition-ers' evidence of respondent employer's differing treatment of same-sex couples with regard to the receipt of employee benefits was enough to establish a prima facie case of sexual orientation discrimination.

Further, the court, in response to respondent's argument that the employees' collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which was approved by the legislature, did not permit the extension of employment benefits to same-sex couples like petitioners, found that 'ratification by the legislature of a CBA does not exempt the State from compliance with statutory law or automatically cause the CBA to supplant existing statutory law.' Last, the New Hampshire Superior Court disagreed with the Commission's assertion that it 'lacked the authority to rule on the petitioners' claims because the petitioners are effectively attacking the constitutionality of the marriage laws.' The court found that the petitioners were not arguing that they have a right to marry each other, but rather 'that the benefits programs discriminate against them by denying them benefits that the programs provide to others who ' are similarly situated.' The New Hampshire court thus held that '[b]ecause the petitioners [had] established a prima facie case of sexual orientation, and because the State's justification for the discriminatory policy at issue was insufficient, the petitioners [had] met their burden under a disparate treatment analysis of establishing that the policy impermissibly discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of RSA 354-A:7.'

Bias Complaint By South Vietnamese Refugees Referred to Narrowly Defined Class

The Appeals Court of Massachusetts has held that a claim brought by a group of South Vietnamese refugees against the University of Massachusetts, although framed to assert claims of age and national origin bias, really stated a claim on behalf of a narrowly defined class that was not protected by the state's employment antidiscrimination statutes, and therefore failed to allege a viable claim. Nguyen v. University of Massachusetts, 846 N.E.2d 1184 (Mass.App.Ct. May 11).