Supreme Court Review: Marriage, Health Care, Retirees
In their Labor Relations column, John P. Furfaro and Risa M. Salins review rulings pertaining to recognition of same-sex marriage, the validity of health-care subsidies issued by federal marketplaces under the Affordable Care Act, the tests for proving religious discrimination and pregnancy discrimination, and the standards governing claims for retiree benefits arising from collective-bargaining agreements.
August 06, 2015 at 03:58 PM
10 minute read
This is the second of two columns discussing U.S. Supreme Court decisions from the 2014-15 term in the area of labor and employment law. This month we review rulings pertaining to recognition of same-sex marriage, the validity of health-care subsidies issued by federal marketplaces under the Affordable Care Act, the tests for proving religious discrimination and pregnancy discrimination, and the standards governing claims for retiree benefits arising from collective-bargaining agreements.
Same-Sex Marriage
In the historic decision of Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 SCt 2584 (2015), the Supreme Court held on June 26, 2015, that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry in all states and all states must recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed in other states. The ruling has significant implications for employers, as same-sex spouses are now entitled to the rights extended to opposite-sex spouses under both federal and state law.
Obergefell comes exactly two years after the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor, 133 SCt 2675 (2013), that “spouse” includes same-sex spouses for purposes of federal law. However, Windsor addressed only the issue of whether the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages for federal law purposes. Obergefell was a consolidation of petitioners' separate lawsuits against state officials in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, claiming the states violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying petitioners the right to marry and by not recognizing their marriages that were lawfully performed in another state.
In the 5-4 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court concluded that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, the fundamental right to marriage applies with equal force to same-sex couples. Thus, laws banning the right of same-sex couples to marry were “in essence unequal” as they denied same-sex couples all the benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples. In finding states must recognize marriages performed elsewhere, Kennedy reasoned that “[b]eing married in one State but having that valid marriage denied in another is one of 'the most perplexing and stressing complication[s]' in the law of domestic relations.”
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRapper 50 Cent Sues NYC Jeweler for $5 Million Over Imitation Necklace, Use of Image
'Substantive Deficiencies': Judge Grants Big Law Motion Dismissing Ivy League Price-Fixing Claims
3 minute readAttorneys Ordered to Apologize to South Philadelphia Residents Following 'Scream Test' Experiment
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250