Lawsuit claims denying domestic partners benefits is violation of constitutional protections

PHOENIX -- Gay and lesbian state and university workers filed suit Tuesday to overturn a law which takes away their domestic partner benefits.
The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Phoenix claims the move amounts to a violation of constitutional protections that guarantee equal treatment of all individuals. Specifically, attorney Tara Borelli of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund said denying benefits to gay workers that are available to others amounts to paying them less for the same work.
"These gay and lesbian state workers just want the same thing that workers at the next desk, in the next patrol car, get,'' she said.
That argument was echoed by Tracy Collins, a senior patrol officer with the Department of Public Safety, one of the 10 plaintiffs in the lawsuit. If the change takes effect as scheduled next Oct. 1, she will lose the benefits that now go to her partner and the children they share.
"I do the exact same job all of the other officers do for the Arizona Department of Public Safety,'' Collins said. She said that her 10-year relationship with partner Diana Forrest proves she is in just as committed a relationship as married DPS staffers.
"I do believe that we deserve the same rights as every other officer does with a family,'' she said.
About 800 state and university workers now are entitled to get insurance coverage and other benefits for their domestic partners. But Alan Ecker, spokesman for the state Department of Administration which administers the benefits, said he did not know how many of those are same-sex couples, as the law does not restrict the gender of the partner.
Paul Senseman press aide to Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the legislation restricting who gets benefits, said she believes the law is constitutional.
There were no such benefits before last year when then Gov. Janet Napolitano directed the Department of Administration to changes its personnel rules.
Those benefits cost the state an extra $3 million a year on top of $625 million for other workers. But Bill Bell, who headed the agency at the time, said the state would save money in the long run by being able to attract and retain qualified workers who want the benefits.
The move, however, provoked heavy criticism from some legislators  who said the issue of who gets coverage should be decided by them in a public forum rather than unilaterally by the governor.
They got their chance to overturn the rule earlier this year, inserting language defining in statute who constitutes a family -- and who is entitled to benefits -- into a bill designed to cut state spending. It is that provision, which takes effect when existing health insurance contracts expire next Oct. 1, the lawsuit seeks to overturn.
Borelli said the move to strip the benefits is unfair to affected employees.
"They work hard, they pay their taxes, they clock in at their jobs, they put in their hours,'' she said. "They have the same responsibilities and the same worries about their loved ones becoming sick or needing to be able to see a doctor if they're ill.''
And she said her arguments are borne out by the law.
"The U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection means that the government has to treat people equally,'' Borelli said. "You can't decide that you're going to pay one group of employees one amount and then single out gay and lesbian employees and pay them less.''
Borelli acknowledged that Arizona voters just last year voted to constitutionally define "marriage'' as solely between one man and one woman. And the law she is seeking to overturn limits the benefits to married couples.
She said, though, that vote is legally irrelevant to her lawsuit.
"This is really a lawsuit about equal treatment in the workplace,'' Borelli said.
Her lawsuit does not seek relief for opposite-sex couples who also will lose benefits under the change. She said they legally can choose to wed and avail themselves of the benefits the state provides.
"The change that was done here was done in an intentionally discriminatory way on its face because it defined benefits for those people who can marry,'' she said.
"Gay and lesbian people clearly can't marry under Arizona law,'' Borelli continued. "So it was very clear what was done under this law. It was intentional and it was purposeful.''