Employee ERISA Benefits after Goodridge V. Public Health: Do Same-Sex Marriages Qualify as Legal Marriages under Employer-Created ERISA Plans?

By Ripke, Jill Louise | Journal of Corporation Law, Fall 2005 | Go to article overview

Employee ERISA Benefits after Goodridge V. Public Health: Do Same-Sex Marriages Qualify as Legal Marriages under Employer-Created ERISA Plans?


Ripke, Jill Louise, Journal of Corporation Law


I. INTRODUCTION

Employee benefits in the United States are, in large part, dominated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), a federal statute.1 This Note analyzes how to interpret the terms of a plan governed by ERISA that provides benefits to employees' spouses where employees have legally married same-sex spouses in Massachusetts.2 This Note first discusses the background to both ERISA and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Part III examines possible interpretations courts could use when deciding whether an employer-created ERISA plan that references legal marriage3 includes same-sex marriage. Two views are possible, a broad view and a narrow view. Under the broad view, no same-sex marriage could be considered a legal marriage under an employer-created ERISA plan that references legal marriage. This is because the ERISA plan, under this view, falls within the category of federal provisions under DOMA. DOMA's provisions state a definition of marriage that excludes same-sex marriage when interpreting congressional acts and federal agency and bureau decisions.4

Under the narrow view, the determination of whether a same-sex marriage qualifies as a legal marriage for the purposes of an employer-created ERISA plan depends on the underlying state law. In states that have a statute or constitutional amendment that limits marriage to a union between a woman and a man, a court determining whether a samesex marriage qualified as a legal marriage under the ERISA plan would likely exclude the same-sex couple from receiving benefits. In states that do not have a statute or constitutional amendment that limits marriage, a court determining whether a same-sex marriage qualified as a legal marriage under the ERISA plan would look to three things. The court would look at the state's public policy, the full faith and credit provision of the Constitution, and DOMA to determine whether that state would recognize the marriage. In states that have mini-DOMA provisions, a court determining whether a same-sex marriage qualified as a legal marriage under the ERISA plan will not recognize the samesex marriage because of the mini-DOMA provision.

This Note recommends that courts looking at this issue adopt the narrow view of ERISA for purposes of DOMA and perform a state-by-state analysis to determine whether a same-sex marriage is a legal marriage. This Note recommends this view for three main reasons. First, this view allows each state to determine for itself whether a same-sex marriage should be recognized as a legal marriage, an area that has traditionally been under state control.5 second, this view is consistent with the purpose of DOMA because the drafters intended to allow each state to make a determination on the issue of same-sex marriage.6 Finally, this narrow view also correctly interprets the federal DOMA provision not to cover an employer-created ERISA plan.7

This Note also recommends what employers should do in the interim, before a court decides this issue. This Note recommends that employers should review their policies and think about how they want to handle this sensitive issue. Employers should assume courts will adopt the narrow view of DOMA and should therefore look to underlying state law for guidance.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Same-Sex Marriage in the United States

Same-sex marriage is a current topic of discussion in the United States. Both political candidates in the 2004 presidential election took a stand on the issue.8 Additionally, the Massachusetts judicial system recently dealt with the issue of same-sex marriage. The decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court is the first and only court decision that recognized same-sex marriage as legal under a state constitution. On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health9 looked at the issue of "whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Employee ERISA Benefits after Goodridge V. Public Health: Do Same-Sex Marriages Qualify as Legal Marriages under Employer-Created ERISA Plans?
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.