Page 1 of 1
The Supreme Court left one of its most high-profile decisions for the end of its term, holding today by a 5-4 vote that the Constitution requires states to recognize same-sex marriage. As a result, state bans against same-sex marriage are no longer permissible and all states are required to recognize same-sex marriages that take place in other states. Employers should update their FMLA policies and benefit plans to provide the same coverage for same-sex married couples as for other married couples. Obergefell v. Hodges.
Background
In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of the Federal Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA), which essentially barred same-sex married couples from
being recognized as “spouses” for purposes of federal laws, violated the Fifth
Amendment (United States v.
Windsor). On the heels of that case, same-sex couples sued their
relevant state agencies in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee to challenge
the constitutionality of those states’ same-sex marriage bans, as well as their
refusal to recognize legal same-sex marriages that occurred in other
jurisdictions.
For instance, the named plaintiff, James Obergefell, married a man named John Arthur in Maryland. Arthur died a few months later in Ohio where the couple lived, but Obergefell did not appear on his death certificate as his “spouse” because Ohio does not recognize same-sex marriage. Similarly, Army Reserve Sergeant First Class Ijpe DeKoe married Thomas Kostura in New York, which permits same-sex marriage. When Sgt. DeKoe returned from Afghanistan, the couple moved to Tennessee, but that state refused to recognize their marriage.
The plaintiffs in each case argued that the states’ refusal to recognize their same-sex marriages violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In all the cases, the trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and held that states’ bans on same-sex marriage and refusal to recognize marriages performed in other states did not violate Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process.
The Supreme Court accepted review of the controversy, focusing its analysis on whether the Constitution requires all states to recognize same-sex marriage, and whether it requires a state which refuses to recognize same-sex marriage to nevertheless recognize same-sex marriages entered into in other states where such unions are permitted.
Same-Sex
Marriage Is Guaranteed By The Constitution
In its ruling today, the Supreme Court sided with the plaintiffs and held that
marriage is a fundamental right; as such, same-sex couples cannot be deprived
of that right pursuant to the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
Practical
Impact On Employers: FMLA Policies and Benefit Documents Must Be Updated
Following Windsor, the Department of
Labor issued a Final Rule revising FMLA’s definition of “spouse” to ensure that
same-sex married couples receive FMLA rights and protections without regard to
where they reside. Specifically, the DOL’s Final Rule adopts a “place of
celebration” rule, meaning that when defining a spouse under the FMLA, it
refers “to the other person with whom an individual entered into marriage as
defined or recognized under state law for purposes of marriage in the State in
which the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into
outside of any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into
and could have been entered into in at least one State.” In other words, this
broad interpretation was intended to ensure that FMLA coverage existed for
same-sex couples even in states where same-sex marriage was banned.
The Final Rule had been temporarily enjoined in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Nebraska by a federal judge who ruled that the DOL did not have the authority to change the definition of “spouse,” and that the change “improperly preempts state law forbidding the recognition of same-sex marriages for the purpose of state-given benefits.” That litigation was on hold pending the outcome of this case. The Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell paves the way for the Final Rule to go into effect, which means that employers should update their FMLA policies accordingly.
Additionally, employers should review their benefit offerings and consider the impact this decision has on employees who are in same-sex marriages.
Ironically, the Obergefell decision does not change the fact that sexual orientation is still not a protected class under federal law for employment law purposes. Although many states and municipalities protect against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the proposed amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 remains in limbo.
The Department of Labor has issued a final rule that will allow an employee to takeFMLA leave to care for a same-sex spouse, regardless of whether the employee lives in a state that recognizes their marital status. This rule change will impact the manner in which employers administer FMLA leave.
Where We Were
The FMLA regulations have guided us since their inception that the term “spouse” was to be defined according to the law of the state in which an employee resides, as opposed to the jurisdiction where the marriage was entered. This distinction became particularly significant after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, which struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional. Before Windsor, that section restricted the definition of marriage for purposes of federal law to opposite-sex marriages. Consequently, federal FMLA leave was generally not available to same-sex married couples even in states that recognized gay marriage. Windsor effectively extended FMLA rights to same-sex married couples, but only if they resided in a state that recognized same-sex marriages, even if they were legally married in another state.
After the Windsor decision, President Obama instructed federal agencies such as the DOL to review all relevant federal statutes to implement the decision and, as expected, the DOL took it as an opportunity to apply Windsor to the FMLA regulations. In June 2014, the DOL adopted a proposed “state of celebration” rule, in which a spousal status for purposes of FMLA is determined not on the state in which the employee currently resides (as currently stated in the FMLA regulations), but based on the law of the state where the employee was married. Thus, if two individuals of the same sex get married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, they are considered to be married for federal FMLA purposes even if the state in which they live and work does not currently recognize same-sex marriage. For example, if the employee was married in New York, but now resides with his same-sex spouse in Texas, the employee will enjoy FMLA rights to care for his spouse as if he had resided in New York, since they were married in New York and that state recognizes the right of same-sex couples to marry.
Where We Are Now
After issuing its proposed rule in 2014, the agency now has announced that, on February 25, 2015, it will issue a new final rule (to take effect March 27, 2015) providing that the definition of “spouse” indeed is determined by the state in which a marriage is entered (i.e., the “state of celebration”). As the DOL points out, a place of celebration rule “allows all legally married couples, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, or married under common law, to have consistent federal family leave rights regardless of where they live.” The DOL notes that, as of February 13, 2015, 32 states and the District of Columbia (as well as 18 countries) extend the right to marry to both same- and opposite-sex partners.
A copy of the DOL’s fact sheet on the final rule can be accessed here.
What Does This Mean for Employers?
Here’s what employers need to know and do:
1. As an initial matter, determine whether the FMLA applies to you. If so, you should:
2. Whether or not FMLA applies to you, you should determine whether any state leave law applies to you. These laws may differ on their definitions of same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships, and may offer different leave rights depending on the protected category.
3. Keep in mind two particular FAQs on This New DOL Rule (taken, in part, from of the DOL Final Rule FAQs):
Q. Can employers require documentation to verify that a same-sex or common law marriage is valid?
A. The Final Rule makes no changes to the manner in which employers may require employees who take leave to care for a family member to provide reasonable documentation for purposes of confirming a family relationship. An employee may satisfy this requirement either by providing documentation such as a marriage license or a court document, or by providing a simple statement asserting that the requisite family relationship exists. 29 C.F.R. § 825.122(k)
Here’s the catch: It is the employee’s choice to provide a simple statement or another type of document. And DOL has us in a trick bag as to when we can and should ask for reasonable documentation. On one hand, the agency tells us in the final rule, “Employers have the option to request documentation of a family relationship but are not required to do so in all instances.” It also rejected calls for instituting a standard in which employers would be required to show that they requested this documentation in a consistent, non-discriminatory manner. Yet, on the other hand, the DOL is quick to point out that employers “may not use a request for confirmation of a family relationship in a manner that interferes with an employee’s exercise or attempt to exercise his or her FMLA rights.”
Thus, from a practical standpoint, shouldn’t employers institute a consistently-applied, non-discriminatory policy when asking for confirmation that a family relationship exists? In a word, yes. Otherwise, employers risk a claim that they are treating certain employees in a discriminatory manner, thereby interfering with their FMLA rights.
One thing is clear: If an employee has already submitted proof of marriage to the employer for another purpose, such as in electing health care benefits for the employee’s spouse, the DOL finds that “such proof is sufficient to confirm the family relationship for purposes of FMLA leave.” So, employers, no second bites at the apple if you already have this information!
Q. Does the Final Rule Change the Manner in Which Employees Take FMLA leave to care for a child to whom they stand in loco parentis?
A. No. In June 2010, the DOL recognized that eligible employees may take leave to care for the child of the employee’s same-sex partner (married or unmarried) or unmarried opposite-sex partner, provided that the employee meets the in loco parentis requirement of providing day-to-day care or financial support for the child. (You can find more on the in loco parentis rule in DOL Fact Sheet #28B.) In other words, this new rule has no impact on the standards for determining the existence of an in loco parentis relationship.
The Department of Labor announced on June 20th a proposed rule that would allow an employee to take FMLA leave to care for their same-sex spouse, regardless of whether the employee lives in a state that recognizes their marital status. As expected, the DOL has adopted a “state of celebration” rule, in which a spousal status for purposes of FMLA is determined not on the state in which the employee currently resides (as currently stated in the FMLA regulations), but based on the law of the state where the employee was married. For example, if the employee was married in New York, but now resides with his same-sex spouse in Indiana, the employee will enjoy FMLA rights to care for his spouse as if he had resided in New York.
DOL’s Interpretation of FMLA after U.S. v. Windsor
The FMLA allows employees to take leave from work to care for a family member with a serious health condition. Before U.S. v. Windsor abolished certain portions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), same-sex couples were not allowed to take FMLA leave to care for a same-sex spouse, since DOMA did not recognize the relationship. After the Windsor decision but before the recent announcement, employees were eligible to take FMLA leave to care for a same-sex spouse only if they have resided in a state in which same-sex marriage is legal.
According to the DOL’s notification, the proposed new FMLA regulation includes the following highlights:
The proposed rule would mean that eligible employees, regardless of where they live, would be able to:
The DOL announced the proposed changes on Friday in a press release, stating, ”The basic promise of the FMLA is that no one should have to choose between succeeding at work and being a loving family caregiver … Under the proposed revisions, the FMLA will be applied to all families equally, enabling individuals in same-sex marriages to fully exercise their rights and fulfill their responsibilities to their families.”
The Notice is Not Unexpected
It was only a matter of time before this regulatory announcement became reality. In fact, the DOL foreshadowed the move when it issued Technical Release 2013-04 in September 2013, at which time the agency took the position that — at least with respect to employee benefit plans — the terms “spouse” and “marriage” in Title I of ERISA and its implementing regulations “should be read to include same-sex couples legally married in any state or foreign jurisdiction that recognizes such marriages, regardless of where they currently live.”
Next Steps
As with other proposed regulatory changes, the public will be given the chance to provide comment directly to the DOL on the proposed change before the agency issues a final rule on the issue. After the final rule is adopted, employers should review and amend their FMLA policy and procedures, as well as all FMLA-related forms and notices.