Skip to Navigation
University of Pittsburgh
Print This Page Print this pages

June 22, 2000

ACLU challenges PA law in benefits case

ACLU challenges PA law in benefits case

In an attempt to chop the legal legs out from under the University in a controversial same-sex benefits lawsuit, American Civil Liberties Union lawyers have challenged the constitutionality of a Pennsylvania statute designed to end the lawsuit.

The statute, passed by the state's General Assembly in November, was cited by Pitt in its Dec. 21 request in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court for a preliminary injunction to halt proceedings in the four-year-old civil suit.

On April 20, Common Pleas Court Judge Robert C. Gallo granted Pitt's request, halting proceedings that the Pittsburgh Human Relations Commission (HRC) had begun on the case.

On May 23, University lawyers filed for a permanent injunction. In response, ACLU lawyers filed a reply this week.

The lawsuit itself alleges that Pitt discriminates based on sexual orientation by denying health insurance benefits to employees' gay and lesbian partners.

ACLU attorney Roslyn M. Litman, who represents the seven current and former Pitt employees who are complainants in the case, said the state statute was a special law targeted at the lawsuit against Pitt. That would make the legislation unconstitutional, she said.

The Pennsylvania statute prohibits city ordinances from requiring state-owned or state-related universities to provide employee health care benefits.

Litman said: "In a nutshell, what we're saying is: If Pitt is right in their interpretation of the November statute, saying that the statute's intention was to remove the city's jurisdiction — and that is Pitt's argument — then the legislation violates the equal protection clauses of both the U.S. and Pennsylvania constitutions. What the state is doing is putting at a disadvantage a classification of people, meaning gays and lesbians, who are unable to marry by state law, without advancing a rational basis for doing that."

Furthermore, she said, the action of the state legislature illegally undermines the city's right to make and enforce its own ordinances and the right of the HRC to exercise jurisdiction in a matter lawfully conferred upon it.

As the University Times went to press, University spokesperson Ken Service said that Pitt's legal counsel had not received a copy of the ACLU's filing, so he could not comment on it.

A copy of the filing was mailed June 20 to University lawyers. The mailing included a notice that Pitt must respond in writing within 20 days of receiving the filing.

Throughout the legal proceedings, the University has maintained that its health insurance benefits policy, which is based on employees' marital status, is legal and non-discriminatory.

In his April decision, Judge Gallo ruled that the Pennsylvania statute pre-empts any components of the 1990 city anti-discrimination ordinance on which the same-sex benefits suit is based.

In their June 20 response, ACLU attorneys wrote, "Were this Court to interpret the [state] Act to deprive municipalities of the power to require that same-sex couples be given access to the same health benefits available to opposite-sex couples, it would violate the equal protection provisions of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions."

The attorneys also stated that the legislation was unconstitutional "in that it purports to deprive employees of state-owned or state-related colleges or universities of the same right to acquire and possess property (e.g. insurance benefits) as those enjoyed by persons who are not employees" of those institutions.

The ACLU further said it was unconstitutional to "deprive [complainants] the rights already accruing to them prior to the enactment of the 1999 Act on which the University relies."

ACLU attorneys also challenged Gallo's ruling that continuing the HRC proceedings would cause "irreparable harm" to the University and its officers, a necessary finding to grant a preliminary injunction.

"As a matter of law," Henson's attorneys wrote, "a litigant's having to spend time in discovery and to participate in a hearing does not constitute 'irreparable harm.' On the contrary, any harm that will be suffered will be suffered by these [complainants] in having their rights to pursue a legitimate discrimination claim against the University revoked, in having to endure the consequent mental anguish and distress, and in having to be a witness to the extraordinary efforts undertaken by the University to derail their claims."

The lawyers noted that, at the time Pitt requested the preliminary injunction in Common Pleas Court, the HRC proceedings were "on a hearing/resolution track," with a Feb. 8 hearing date already established.

The ACLU is asking Common Pleas Court to deny the University a permanent injunction, dissolve the preliminary injunction and award payment of reasonable attorneys' fees to the complainants' lawyers.

Litman said the ACLU notified the Pennsylvania attorney general's office of its filing, which is required to do when constitutionality of a law is challenged.

–Peter Hart  


Leave a Reply