University Times

Human Relations Commission denies motion to dismiss same-sex complaint

The Pittsburgh Com- mission on Human Relations has denied the University's motion to dismiss a discrimination complaint by former Pitt legal writing instructor Deborah Henson — a case that has drawn national publicity as well as contrasting responses from city and state lawmakers.

Henson alleges that Pitt, in refusing to provide medical benefits for her lesbian domestic partner, violated the city's anti-discrimination law, which forbids discrimination against homosexuals in housing and employment.

Pitt, in defending against the 1996 claim, argues that the Human Relations Commission lacks authority to enforce a law protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination because no similar state law exists.

In its June 17 rejection of Pitt's motion for dismissal, the commission ruled that, because it already had found probable cause that the University discriminated against Henson based on her sexual orientation, she deserves the chance to gather further evidence for presentation at a public hearing.

The commission also rejected Pitt's claim that Henson's case was outside the commission's jurisdiction because it is based on marital, rather than sexual, status. The University extends health insurance only to individuals and married couples.

But the commission did not act on Pitt's controversial argument that the city anti-discrimination law is unenforceable.

"Whether or not the commission has jurisdiction to order a specific remedy…is an issue that should be raised if and when there is a finding of unlawful discrimination and at the time the commission would then hold a damages hearing to specifically consider the issue of damages and remedy," commission member Pamela W. Golden wrote.

The Human Relations Commission hopes to gather depositions in the case this summer, hold a hearing in September and issue a ruling in the fall, said commission director Charles Morrison.

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawyers representing Henson want to depose current and former Pitt officials in an attempt to support their argument that "anti-gay animus" on campus was at least partly responsible for the University's denial of medical benefits to Henson's partner.

Among those whom Henson's attorneys want to depose are: Board of Trustees chairperson J. Wray Connolly; former trustees chairperson Farrell Rubenstein; trustee Thomas J. Usher (who said he resigned as chairperson of a fundraising drive for Pitt's College of Business Administration because he feared the campaign would be hurt by the University's extension in 1993 of limited benefits to same-sex partners); former trustee James Flaherty (who, in 1993, moved to delete from Pitt's budget a $10,000 line item for those limited benefits; the board narrowly defeated Flaherty's motion); Chancellor Mark Nordenberg; former Chancellor J. Dennis O'Connor; former Senior Vice Chancellor for Business and Finance Ben J. Tuchi, and former Vice Chancellor for Institutional Advancement Lawrence Weber.

Pitt and Henson's side both say they are prepared to pursue the case in the state courts, if the city commission rules against them.

"We're in this for the long haul," said Christine Biancheria, lead ACLU counsel in the case.

Pitt, in a June 17 written statement, reiterated its earlier position that "the apparent goal of the [Henson] lawsuit is to make an end run around the existing law of the Commonwealth in an attempt to change the legal definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse' to include same-sex couples.

"In light of that, we continue to point out that individuals interested in redefining marriage should pursue their case in Harrisburg, the only arena in which it can be decided legally and unambiguously. Otherwise, the ultimate disposition of the pending lawsuit must be arrived at in the state courts, the forum in which the University will continue to demonstrate its compliance with controlling laws."

On June 17, Pennsylvania's House of Representatives sent to the Senate a bill that would have cut state funds to Pitt and other state-related or state-owned universities if they provided health benefits to unmarried domestic partners (heterosexual or homosexual). The Senate tabled the bill and adjourned for the summer.

Henson's supporters and Pitt officials drew different conclusions from the legislative moves.

The Equal Rights Alliance, a group of Pitt students and employees who have been protesting the University's refusal to grant health benefits to same-sex partners, argued in a written statement: "Clearly, if the General Assembly wanted to make any or all of these [state] funds conditional upon the University continuing to NOT provide domestic partner health benefits, there was ample opportunity. This will put an end to Pitt's argument that it cannot provide same-sex benefits because state funding would be cut."

Pitt, on the other hand, noted that state representatives approved the bill overwhelmingly. "This latest action by the state House leaves no doubt as to the position of the state lawmakers," a University statement argued. "In fact, it represents an emphatic reassertion of current state law" defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

In contrast to state lawmakers, city officials — including Mayor Murphy and City Council members — have condemned the University's defense in the Henson case.

In response to taunts that the city itself did not offer health benefits to same-sex partners, City Council on May 25 enacted an ordinance extending those benefits to the city's gay and lesbian employees.

Pitt officials said City Council's action demonstrated that the city anti-discrimination law, contrary to Henson's claim, does not require employers in Pittsburgh to provide benefits to same-sex couples. Otherwise, Pitt asked, why did City Council need to pass the May 25 ordinance?

Since Henson filed her complaint, three current Pitt employees have filed similar complaints alleging the University discriminated against them by denying health benefits to their same-sex partners.

The Human Relations Commission is tentatively scheduled on July 9 to hear oral arguments in considering an ACLU request to consolidate the complaints and declare the suit a class action.

Two of the current employees don't want their names to be revealed publicly, said the ACLU's Biancheria. But the latest employee to join the suit, Graduate School of Public Health research specialist Mark S. Friedman, told the University Times: "My relationship of 11 years is as loving and caring as any heterosexual relationship I know of. I took this action because [my partner] Raymond has to pay for his health insurance and, as a result, I'm being discriminated against. My job evaluations have been excellent. Therefore, it is unfair for Pitt to deny me equal benefits."

— Bruce Steele