ILNews

DTCI: The aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling on DOMA

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 

kemp By Laurie Kemp

In June 2013, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional. In essence, the court held that the Act denied same-sex couples the “equal liberty” guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. This decision has far broader impact than just the scope of the estate-tax issues raised in the case, and employers and benefit providers should be aware of the impact and aftermath of this ruling.

History

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton and bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages for purposes such as Social Security survivors’ benefits, insurance benefits, immigration and tax filing. Section 3 of the law defined marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” and a spouse as “a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” That provision had been struck down by eight lower courts before the 2013 Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in United States v. Windsor settled the matter. The Windsor decision means that legally married same-sex couples are now entitled to the same federal benefits as married opposite-sex couples.

The facts of the case

The state of New York recognized the marriage of New York residents Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, who were married in Canada in 2007. When Spyer died in 2009, she left her entire estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses but was barred from doing so by DOMA. As a result, Windsor paid $363,053 in estate taxes and sought a refund, which the Internal Revenue Service denied. Windsor filed suit, contending that DOMA violated the principles of equal protection set forth in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court’s decision

By a slim 5-4 majority, the Supreme Court struck down DOMA as unconstitutional. Writing on behalf of Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained the basis for striking down the law. “DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government.” He went on to state that “by creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same state, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect.”

The court acknowledged the extensive and daunting implications of DOMA on married same-sex couples, including preventing them from obtaining government health care benefits, benefiting from provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, and filing joint federal tax returns. The court also emphasized the social stigma the law places on couples and their families.

DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.

The aftermath of the Windsor ruling

The Windsor decision did not overturn or prohibit all laws excluding same-sex marriages and is clearly limited to federal law. The scope of its reach, however, is not insignificant. In fact, its holding has far-reaching implications for employers across the country who are governed by a number of federal employment and benefit laws.

FMLA

The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 requires an employer to grant unpaid leave to workers who need to care for the birth of a newborn child, the adoption or foster placement of a child, or to deal with their own serious medical condition or the serious health condition of an immediate family member. The law also allows for leave for exigent circumstances associated with military deployment or to care for a service member injured in the line of duty for family members of U.S. service members. For purposes of FMLA, immediate family members are parents, children and spouses. Until Windsor, FMLA defined “spouse” as “a husband or wife as defined or recognized under State law for purposes of marriage in the State where the employee resides, including common law marriage in States where it is recognized.” Although this definition would seem to include same-sex spouses in states that recognize same-sex marriage, the United States Department of Labor, which enforces FMLA, had previously held to the contrary. In a 1998 Opinion Letter, the DOL announced that DOMA, which was enacted subsequent to FMLA, established a federal definition of marriage. Because FMLA is a federal statute, the DOL opined that “only the Federal definition of marriage and spouse as established under DOMA may be recognized for FMLA leave purposes.” With this opinion, the DOL affirmed that although state or local governments could provide greater family or medical leave rights than those provided under FMLA, the statute did not grant any such rights to same-sex married couples.

With the Windsor ruling, same-sex spouses are now considered spouses under federal law if they are considered spouses under state law. Therefore, all federal laws and regulations that include spouses encompass the broader same-sex definition in those states where same-sex marriage is legal. Now that section 3 of DOMA has been overturned, employers covered by FMLA must grant to qualifying employees time off to care for their seriously ill or injured same-sex spouses. In fact, the DOL issued guidance in August 2013 and updated their fact sheet to specifically include same-sex spouses in the definition of “spouse.” The definition interprets “spouse” based upon the state law in which the employee resides. This residency requirement stems from the DOL’s FMLA regulations (issued before Windsor), which provide that marriage for FMLA purposes is determined by the state of residence. Thus, at this time, unless the DOL issues further guidance on this issue, FMLA rights have to be provided only to those same-sex married couples residing in states where their marriages are recognized.

ERISA

Beyond FMLA, President Obama also directed the attorney general to work with other members of the cabinet to review all relevant federal statutes to ensure the Supreme Court’s decision, including its implications for federal benefits and obligations, is implemented swiftly. Following consultation with the Department of Justice, the Department of the Treasury and other federal executive agencies, the DOL issued a technical release in September 2013 to provide guidance to employee benefit plans, plan sponsors, plan fiduciaries, and plan participants and beneficiaries on the meaning of “spouse” and “marriage” as these terms appear in the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code that the department interprets. In short, the DOL has taken 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.”

IRS

The Internal Revenue Service also issued guidance on the matter in August 2013 confirming its position that a same-sex couple is considered married (for federal tax purposes) so long as the couple was married in any state (or U.S. territory or foreign country) that recognizes same-sex marriage. Under the Internal Revenue Code, an employee’s gross income does not include employer-provided insurance coverage, including coverage for a spouse. Accordingly, if an employer offers its employees the benefit of putting their spouses on their health plan, those spousal benefits are not taxed. Before Windsor, this meant that spousal benefits for employees in opposite-sex marriages were not taxed, while spousal benefits for employees in same-sex marriages were taxed. Employers were required to impute the value of an employee’s same-sex spouse’s coverage into the employee’s income.

Now that section 3 of DOMA has been overturned, the IRS has reverted to its pre-DOMA interpretation of the IRC to determine how to interpret the term “spouse”; meaning that the IRS will defer to each state’s law regarding the definition of the term “spouse.” Thus, if an employee’s same-sex partner is considered a spouse under state law, the partner’s benefits are not to be considered part of the employee’s gross income and the IRS will not tax that partner’s health benefits. Consequently, the employee’s net income will decrease, resulting in a decrease in the amount of payroll taxes the employer and employee will be required to pay.

What’s next?

As of February, 17 states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington) and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage. (The Illinois law will not become effective until June 1.) Oregon recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states. In February, a Western District of Kentucky U.S. District judge ordered Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages consecrated elsewhere finding that Kentucky laws denying recognition violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. As the Indiana legislature considers presenting a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to the voters, it must also consider the impact the Windsor ruling (and recent ruling in Kentucky) will have on the scope of such an amendment.

Given these court rulings and the federal agency guidance that have been issued, now is the time for all employers covered by FMLA, or offering retirement and health and welfare benefits, to review and update their plan documents, payroll systems, and administrative procedures to comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling. Even if a company is located in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriages, benefits may still be extended to employees who either reside in states where same-sex marriage is recognized or who were married in such a state. The application of benefits is not clear-cut and employer obligations will vary from state to state and based upon the facts and circumstances of each employer and employee. Without question, employers with operations in multiple states will have to deal with a mixture of state laws governing what constitutes a spouse and must consider both the corporation’s location and the residency of its employees in determining the applicability of the federal laws to its employees.

Unfortunately, Windsor does not address whether pre-DOMA law will apply retroactively for tax or benefit plan purposes. Some unresolved issues, for example, include questions concerning claims for income tax refunds based upon the recognition of spousal status, as well as Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax refund claims by employees and employers and the rights to spousal benefits under pension and health plans. Employers must be alert to these issues and should monitor any further guidance from the IRS and DOL that will help direct how employers should address these spousal benefits and any retroactive application of Windsor.

We have not heard the last on this issue.•

Laurie Kemp is a partner in the New Albany office of Kightlinger & Gray LLP and chairs the DTCI Employment Law Section. Ms. Kemp practices throughout Kentucky and Indiana assisting clients with myriad employment-related issues as well as handling a variety of employment litigation cases stemming from discrimination, wrongful termination, harassment and retaliation claims. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  2. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  3. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

  4. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  5. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

ADVERTISEMENT