Domestic Partnership News Archive
February 21 - February 28, 2001

Wednesday, February 28, 2001

Indiana domestic partner can sue for denial of bereavement leave

A story published today in the Indianapolis Star reports that a state welfare employee denied paid funeral leave when her domestic partner's father died can press ahead with her lawsuit challenging the policy's constitutionality, an appellate court ruled Tuesday.

Jana Cornell, a family case manager in the Children's Services Division of the Marion County Office of Family and Children, is protesting the bereavement policy because it applies only to married state employees.

"I'm very excited about the possibility of going back to the trial court," Cornell said after hearing she had won the first round of her legal fight.

Cornell, who has worked for the agency since May 1988, wants the court to issue a legal declaration that the policy violates the "equal privileges and immunities" clause of the Indiana Constitution, which states: "The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens."

The state has never estimated the cost of extending employee benefits to domestic partners, said Keith Beesley, legal counsel for the State Personnel Department.

"Funeral leave obviously would only be a facet of it," Beesley said, noting such benefits as health insurance and pension coverage would be affected by broadening coverage.

The state policy, which Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter is defending, allows three days of paid leave upon the death of a spouse's father.

Cornell's immediate supervisor had agreed to give her the paid funeral leave in June 1999, although the supervisor knew Cornell was not married. But the decision was reversed by superiors within the state's Family and Social Services Administration, which oversees the local welfare office.

Cornell instead took paid vacation time, which she is seeking to recover.

With help from the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, Cornell filed suit last year against Katherine Humphreys, the head of the agency, and State Personnel Director D. Sue Roberson.

Marion Superior Court Judge Cynthia Ayres dismissed Cornell's complaint for lack of jurisdiction because Cornell had failed to file an administrative appeal or grievance before seeking a court review. But the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that it was not necessary for Cornell to take such a step because only the courts can rule on her constitutional claim.

Children of Canadian man's estate in legal battle with his survivor over the estate

A story published today in the Edmonton Sun reports that the estate of Larry Sand, a gay man, is the subject of a bitter lawsuit between his children and his domestic partner.

Nearly a year after his death, his family has gone to court over what's left of an estate that, when the dust settles, could be worth close to $1 million.

By all accounts, Sand was a doting father who looked out for his kids. He probably didn't want them warring over his money in court. So what did he want?

"It's not about the money," his daughter Janel, 17, insisted yesterday. "It's about what's right, morally.

"I don't think of Brent Johnson as my father's spouse. The money was a gift from my father to me and my sister. Nobody has the right to take it from us."   His partner, Brendt Johnson, feels otherwise.

Sand died last April in a car-pedestrian accident. Since he left no will, his estate gets divided under the Intestate Succession Act -- a law that makes no provision for common-law spouses of either gender.

Johnson has filed a Charter of Rights challenge against the act, claiming it discriminates against unmarried same-sex partners.

"I'm not going to talk about this until after the case (is settled)," Johnson said yesterday. His lawyer Julie Lloyd is also refusing comment.

The other half of Sand's family, meanwhile, is only too happy to talk. His ex-wife Connie Gabrieau said she won't be able to pay for her daughters' education unless they have first claim on their father's estate.

Sand and Gabrieau married in 1979, split up in '89 and divorced in 1991. After Sand started seeing Johnson, he made an effort to include both his daughters in his new life.

"I was seven when they split. I guess I found out he was (gay) a year later," said Melissa, 19.

"I was confused, I guess. For a few years it was like I didn't really know who my father was. But the last few years it felt like we were getting really close."

"My dad was great. He was like my best friend," said Janel. "We'd do everything together. Gardening, walking the dog. With Brent it was ... awkward. I accepted him, but he wasn't open and friendly like my dad. He'd come home from work, eat and go to bed."

Connie said the topic of Larry's $160,000 life-insurance policy came up in conversation when she and Brent met for the first time at Larry's bedside after the accident.

"I asked him if he thought the money should go to our daughters," she said. "He agreed with me, said he wouldn't (make a claim). He said he wouldn't do that to his partner's daughters."

"He told us he didn't want any confrontation, any fighting," said Janel.

If Johnson is successful, he'll be entitled to the first $40,000 of Sand's estate, plus a third of whatever's left over.

And the leftovers could be quite rich. Melissa is the administrator of her father's estate and through her the estate is filing a wrongful-death lawsuit against the woman who was driving the van that killed Sand.

The lawsuit claims $800,000 for the estate, plus another $177,000 apiece for the daughters. If he wins the charter challenge, Johnson might claim a spouse's share of the settlement as well.

And it wouldn't end there. Just a few years back, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the maintenance-support rules that apply to common-law heterosexual couples after a breakup also apply to same-sex couples.

That ruling forced the Ontario government to redraft many old laws that deal with division of property in marriages. The Sand estate case, said constitutional law professor June Ross, could be another incremental step in the rewriting of Alberta's marriage laws.

"In Ontario it happened all at once. Here, it's piecemeal," she said.

Czech parliament to debate same-sex partner bill

A story published today by the Rainbow Network reports that the Czech parliament will debate a bill giving gay couples many of the same rights as heterosexual couples.

The bill, drafted by the government, includes policies on inheritance and the obligation to support the other partner. However, the adoption of children by same-sex couples will not be allowed.

Libor Roucek, a spokesman for the government, said the law would be debated before June 30.

He was not sure the bill would get through parliament. Prime Minister Milos Zeman and his Social Democrat party form a minority government that stays in power with the tacit support of main opposition party, the Civic Democratic Party, led by former prime minister Vaclav Klaus.

Tuesday, February 24, 2001

Registry to be created for unmarried couples in London

A story published today in the London Times reports that unmarried couples will be able to register their relationships at city hall by the end of the year after Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, set aside £100,000 of council taxpayers' money for a register to recognize their relationships formally.

Livingstone wanted to limit the procedure to same-sex couples but decided to include unmarried heterosexual couples to overcome any Tory town hall resistance.

The move follows pressure from gay campaigners for equality with heterosexuals to ensure that there are no longer disputes over inheritance, pension rights and tenancies of shared homes. The union will have no legal standing.

Saturday, February 24, 2001

Scottsdale may give partner benefits to its employees

A story published today in the Arizona Republic reports that Scottsdale is again considering whether to extend health-care coverage to same and opposite sex partners of city employees.

Scottsdale officials floated a similar proposal two years ago, but it quietly died when an employee task force rejected the plan.

But a tight labor market and the spread of domestic-partner benefits in corporate America and other local governments encouraged Human Resources Director Daniel Schmidt to try it again.

"Recruitment and retention of employees for the city has become much more difficult," Schmidt said. "We feel we should remove barriers that prevent us from hiring the best-qualified people."

Tucson was the first Arizona city to adopt the policy in 1997, followed by Tempe, Pima County and Maricopa Community Colleges in 1999 and Phoenix in 2000.

Studies have shown that about 1 percent of the city's 2,000 employees could be expected to take advantage of the change, Schmidt said. Health-care costs likely would rise by about $41,000 and the city would cover about $34,000 of that increase, he added.

The issue will be discussed in detail during the city's budget review process in May and June.

City Manager Jan Dolan said it simply makes business sense. "It's important that we be an employer of choice," she said.

Thursday, February 22, 2001

Colorado lawmakers defeat same-sex partner inheritance bill

A story published today in the Denver Post reports that Senate Republicans rallied enough support from across the political aisle Wednesday to kill a bill that would have granted inheritance rights for gay couples who do not have a will.

SB 159, by Sen. Pat Pascoe, D-Denver, would have enabled the surviving "committed partner" in a same-sex partnership to inherit the couple's property after the partner dies, even without a will.

Pascoe said state law makes it easy for the family of the deceased partner to contest a will and take everything.

It was the third year the bill has been defeated.

Gay-rights activists were disappointed but expressed some hope. "This is the first time that a bill granting fundamental rights to committed partnerships has reached the floor of either chamber of the General Assembly," said Lori Girvan, executive director of Equality Colorado. "The bill is legally sound. It's good policy, and it's good for Colorado families and their children."