Leave a Comment Sagesse
DOMA: Class-action lawsuit against Catholic hospital and Blue Cross Blue Shield challenges law; alleges ERISA violations
June 20, 2012
By Scottie Thomaston
A new class-action lawsuit has been filed in district court in the Southern District of New York challenging the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional and also alleging violations of ERISA (the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, providing employment benefit plans). A judge in the Southern District of New York just struck down DOMA as unconstitutional in another case, Windsor v. OPM, and an appeal has been filed by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group and by the Justice Department, to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. There is another challenge to DOMA under the Second Circuit’s jurisdiction, Pedersen v. OPM. That case has been fully briefed and argued and is awaiting a decision.
In this latest lawsuit, a lesbian employee is suing a Catholic hospital for its denial of spousal health benefits. This is the first lawsuit to challenge a Catholic hospital for denial of coverage under DOMA. The suit is also brought on behalf of all same-sex couples who are denied benefits under Blue Cross Blue Shield:
Plaintiffs brings this as a class action on behalf of all: (a) all persons who are participants in or beneficiaries of a BCBS insurance plan, and who were or might be denied medical benefits coverage as a result of an employer’s policy that excludes coverage for same sex spouses; and (b) all participants and beneficiaries of the Plan who were denied medical benefits coverage as a result of St. Joseph’s policy excluding coverage for same-sex spouses.
The complaint does not discuss the level of scrutiny that should be applied to laws like DOMA that are targeted at gays and lesbians as a class, but instead lists the recent decisions striking the law down as unconstitutional under equal protection principles. The complaint says:
Because DOMA unlawfully discriminates against same-sex spouses, it is unconstitutional and therefore should not be used as a basis to deny Plaintiffs their right to medical benefits under the Plan.
The complaint asks for the court to strike down the law as unconstitutional, or alternatively, allow the couples to receive their benefits despite DOMA.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
23 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Sagesse | June 20, 2012 at 10:08 am
@
2.
Bob | June 20, 2012 at 10:12 am
Good!!!!!!
3.
Steve | June 20, 2012 at 10:27 am
You can bet that they'll argue that as a "religious" hospital they deserve some kind of "religious exemption" to ignore any and all laws they don't like.
4.
Ed Cortes | June 20, 2012 at 10:53 am
It's time to get rid of their tax exemptions so they can't complain that they are being "persecuted" as a religulous institution.
5.
Lymis | June 20, 2012 at 10:57 am
I wonder if they could claim religious freedom as a Catholic hospital and deny equal coverage to Jewish employees, or declare that they don't honor someone's civil divorce and send half their pay to their ex-spouse.
6.
Carpool Cookie | June 20, 2012 at 11:07 am
"This is the first lawsuit to challenge a Catholic hospital for denial of coverage under DOMA."
Bring it, b!t@he$ ! ! !
My my my. This should be good. (Sorry, agnostic here…)
7.
sfbob | June 20, 2012 at 11:10 am
I'm sure that those would be laughed out of court. As should any similar defense in deny us our equality. Apart from the recent foolish compromise on birth control, I don't think religious exemptions go beyond hiring and firing decisions at the ministerial level.
Most hospitals receive Medicare and Medicaid payments; church affiliation or not, they are in reality public institutions. In some areas the only hospital available is a Catholic hospital. They should not be afforded any out when it comes to treating their employees with dignity and respect.
8.
Richard Lyon | June 20, 2012 at 11:17 am
I think that considering all of its many problems it's time for The Roman Catholic Church to have a going out of business sale.
9.
Bryce in DC and KS | June 20, 2012 at 1:50 pm
Don't you have the name of the Windsor case wrong? It isn't Windsor v. OPM, Theda wasn't hired by the OPM, she was a psychiatrist. The suit isn't over federal employee payments, it is over the inheritance tax.
10.
Bryce from DC and KS | June 20, 2012 at 1:53 pm
In other words: don't you mean Windsor v. USA?
11.
Jamie | June 20, 2012 at 2:29 pm
ROFL. See. something that Catholics actually could do to make divorce less desirable. Sorry, we don't recognize your new, hotter, younger wife. We'll let the REAL wife decide when to pull the plug.
12.
Jamie | June 20, 2012 at 2:30 pm
Who would want to buy all those tacky clothes and chalices?
13.
Scott Wooledge | June 20, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Which are you?
A hospital?
Or a Church?
You can't pick and choose the laws that apply based on your inclination.
PS. Churches can't collect Medicare funding to keep the lights on.
14.
Tyler O. | June 20, 2012 at 3:06 pm
All those high collars are fashion don'ts.
15.
Scott Wooledge | June 20, 2012 at 3:10 pm
I believe I've always seen it referred to as Windsor vs. USA. The primary complaint was with the IRS.
Though as the IRS passed the buck to DOMA, saying they could do nothing else, the judge found DOMA to be unconstitutional. This opens the door for the whole cornucopia of benefits, presumably this one too.
(Although the Windsor precedent isn't "ripe" yet. It must at least be affirmed at circuit level on appeal to be binding on subsequent cases.)
16.
Scott Wooledge | June 20, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Anglicans.
17.
Mark Mead-Brewer | June 20, 2012 at 3:55 pm
The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence could no doubt make good use of them
18.
Kathleen | June 20, 2012 at 4:13 pm
It's Windsor v. USA.
19.
Sagesse | June 20, 2012 at 4:25 pm
I recall reading somewhere that Catholic hospitals account for 20% of care in the US (20% by number of hospitals? 20% by number of patients?) If that's true, they employ an AWFUL lot of people, and treat an AWFUL lot of people, and collect an AWFUL lot of taxpayer money. They can't be denying benefits or care on a huge scale to people who may or may not share their religious beliefs.
20.
Reformed | June 20, 2012 at 6:07 pm
Nowhere in the bible is the church instructed to run a hospital. In fact there are no church ministries anywhere in the bible and certainly no stand alone ones like hospitals.
Don't get me wrong, catholic charities and hospitals do a lot of good, but it isn't like these services cannot be provided without discrimination. Or with, and without tax exemption.
21.
Don | June 20, 2012 at 9:36 pm
The Catholic Bishops & their hospitals collected just over 10.3 BILLION dollars from the federal government last year — that's your and my GAY TAX dollars going to religious bigots!
22.
Lee | June 25, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Thank God for the constitution! I am an Anglican and yes I would buy the chalices and the tacky clothing… and use them in my church wedding when my gay priest marries me and my boyfriend and the gay priest's partner (of 35 years) will be my best man! Take that U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops!!
We are a nation of laws not of people or churches!!
23.
John Buckley | October 5, 2012 at 11:26 pm
Never apologize for your non-belief in someone else's made up world. You have the power of reason and the strength of your own mind. They are among your proudest possessions and should be displayed prominently.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.