The U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, has ruled that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and that each state must also recognize such marriages legally entered into in other states. Departments and agencies will now universally have to recognize same-sex marriages, whether entered into in their state or in another state as the same as opposite sex marriages for purposes of benefit, retirement/pension, family leave, and similar purposes. Obergefell v. Hodges, #14-656, 2015 U.S. Lexis 4250.
     A federal employee of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) who worked as a criminal investigator appealed his termination to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), claiming that his firing constituted marital status discrimination. He agreed to withdraw that claim when the employer agreed to pay him a $50,000 settlement. Part of the settlement agreement provided that the OPM's director of human resources would be the contact for reference inquiries and only disclose the dates of his service, with a termination letter to be removed from his personnel file and both parties barred from disclosing the grievance of the settlement agreement. He later took a job with a private firm that contracts with federal agencies to carry out background investigations. He was suspended from the job without pay, however, when OPM employees, allegedly at the direction of the OPM's security office, discussed his termination with the employer. The OPM's director of human resources was not involved in that discussion. A MSPB ALJ found that the OPM had materially breached the settlement agreement, but found that the MSPB lacked jurisdiction to award damages for breach, so the only remedy available there would be to rescind the agreement and reinstate the initial appeal of the termination, along with the employee returning the $50,000 settlement amount. He did not want to accept that course of action, so the ALJ dismissed his enforcement action. A federal appeals court ruled that the employee was not barred from filing a breach of contract lawsuit for damages in the U.S. Court of Claims, since a damages remedy had not been available before the MSPB. Cunningham v. United States, #13-5055, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 6493 (Fed. Cir.).
     Terminating an employee because of adultery is not marital discrimination prohibited by state law. Such laws protect status, not conduct. Veenstra v. Washtenaw Country Club, #117985, 466 Mich. 155, 645 N.W.2d 643, 2002 Mich. Lexis 2888 (Mich. 2002). {N/R}
     Florida rejects claim of a man who claimed he was fired because his wife brought a lawsuit against his employer. Donato v. AT&T, #SC93534, 2000 Fla. Lexis 67, 81 FEP Cases (BNA) 1302. [2000 FP 55-6]
     A married police couple that was awarded $271,000 has settled for $184,000. State, Dept. Hum. Rts. v. City of Mnpls., 37 (1835) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1420 (10-21-1999). Originally, Minneapolis was ordered to pay a $1,500,000 civil penalty for pervasive sex discrimination in its police dept. A married police couple also had been awarded $271,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. Earlier report at 35 (1741) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1515. An appellate court reversed a $292,000 damage award and the $1,500,000 penalty for sex discrimination. State, Dept. Hum. Rts. v. City of Mnpls., #C8-98-363, 1998 WL 481891, 1998 Minn. App. Lexis 939. [2000 FP 15; 1998 FP 43-4, 168]
     Note: There are valid reasons for separating married police couples. One spouse is less likely to report the other for acts of corruption or excessive force; in some states, they cannot be compelled to testify against each other. Juries are less likely to believe contested testimony where both officers are husband and wife. Supervisors may be reticent to discipline one, when the punishment is likely to be resented by both. Their loyalties to each other is probably stronger than their loyalties to their employing entity.
     A state law banning marital status discrimination des not prohibit employer discipline of workers who date or cohabit. Waggoner v. Ace Hdwe., #65079-9, 134 Wash.2d 748, 953 P.2d 88, 1998 Wash. Lexis 206, 76 FEP Cases (BNA) 894. {N/R}
     Florida jury awards an unmarried police officer $56,250 because she was forced to work a Christmas shift in place of a married officer. Lupo v. City of Sunrise, #92-7124; 32 (1582) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1149 (C.D.Fla. 1994). [1995 FP 26-7]
     Federal appeals court upholds a First Amendment claim of intimate association of an employee who was outplaced because of her superior's dislike of her husband. Adkins v. Bd. of Ed., 982 F.2d 952 /at 955-56, 1993 U.S. App. Lexis 30, 61 FEP Cases (BNA) 252 (6th Cir.). {N/R}
     "Personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause." Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 /at 639, 94 S.Ct. 791 (1974). {N/R}
     See also: Nepotism and Consanguinity Regulations.