Benefits fight spotlights Defense of Marriage Act question
Share with others:
A federal judge overseeing a dispute over death benefits between the parents and wife of a deceased Cozen O'Connor partner has requested the parties address the constitutional question of same-sex marriage, increasing the potential for a determination of whether the Defense of Marriage Act and a similar Pennsylvania statute are valid.
U.S. District Judge C. Darnell Jones II's order filed in Cozen O'Connor v. Tobits came just days after the Department of Justice acknowledged a potential constitutional challenge.
The justice department held back on intervening, though, until it became clear that such issues would even be discussed when the judge ruled on pending motions.
Now, Judge Jones has given the DOJ until Dec. 30 to submit a brief on the issue if it so desires.
In a separate filing by Jennifer Tobits, the wife of deceased law firm partner Sarah Ellyn Farley, Ms. Tobits informed the Eastern District of Pennsylvania court that an Illinois probate court had ruled she was the sole heir to Ms. Farley's estate. According to the order by that court, Ms. Tobits was deemed the heir because of her civil union with Ms. Farley.
When Ms. Tobits and Ms. Farley were married in Canada in 2006, Illinois did not recognize civil unions. The state recently passed a law allowing such unions.
Ms. Farley's parents, David and Joan Farley, had intervened in the probate court in an attempt to be named heir to their daughter's estate.
They have argued in Pennsylvania that federal and Pennsylvania law do not recognize same-sex marriages, meaning the ERISA-qualified profit-sharing plan at issue cannot comply with federal law if it gives benefits to a "spouse" that does not meet the federal definition of a marriage: only between a man and a woman.
Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller family law attorney Helen Casale, who is not involved in the case, said she understands why Ms. Tobits would inform the Pennsylvania court of her status as heir. But she said that probably wouldn't matter when it comes to enforcing DOMA or Pennsylvania's similar statute.
"Just because Illinois has recognized this relationship in one form or another, whether they call it a civil union or a marriage, doesn't mean Pennsylvania has to recognize it as such," she said.
The parents have argued before Judge Jones that DOMA, which limits marriage to only between a man and a woman, prohibits Ms. Tobits from being considered a "spouse" as defined by the plan. And even if Pennsylvania law were to apply instead of the federal DOMA, the state also has a similar law prohibiting same-sex marriage, they argued.
First Published November 7, 2011 12:00 am
