The male same-sex partner of a Missouri highway patrolman killed in the line of duty challenged two state statutes. The first provides benefits to the spouse of a state highway patrolman killed in the line of duty, while the second statutes provides that the word spouse in the first statute only refers to a marriage between a man and a woman. The plaintiff was denied survivor benefits and argued that he was denied his equal protection rights under the state Constitution on the basis of his sexual orientation. Rejecting this claim, the Missouri Supreme Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to survivor benefits because he was not married to the decedent, and that would be the case even if they had been a heterosexual couple but unmarried. The statute concerning benefits discriminated solely on the basis of marital status, not sexual orientation. The plaintiff did not have standing to challenge the ban on benefits for same-sex married couples as he was not a member of that class of persons. Glossip v. Mo. Dep't of Transp. & Highway Patrol Employees' Ret. Sys., #SC92583, 2013 Mo. Lexis 294.
     Supreme Court rejects an appeal from opponents of the District of Columbia's same-sex marriage law. In 2010, the District began issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples; it also recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Jackson v. Dist. of Col. Bd. of Elections, #10-CV-20, 999 A.2d 89 (D.C. App. 2010); cert. den. #10-511, 2011 U.S. Lexis 730 (Sup. Ct. 2011).
     Dept. of Interior agency and union agree to extend family and medical leave privileges to the domestic partners of Forest Service employees. 2010 bargaining agreement, Natl. Federation of Federal Employees and U.S. Forest Service.
     Federal court strikes down a voter-initiated measure that banned same-sex marriages in California. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, #C-09-2292, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 78817 (N.D. Cal.).
     Acting in two cases, a federal court in Boston strikes down Sec. 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S. Code §7. It defined marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman and therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause. Gill v. OPM, #1:09-cv-10309, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 67874 and Comm. of Mass. v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Serv., #1:09-cv-11156, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 67874 (D. Mass).
     New York's highest court rejects a taxpayer suit challenging a decision to pay health insurance benefits for the same-sex spouses of public employees. Although New York does not (yet) offer same-sex marriages, it recognizes the validity of same-sex marriages performed in Canada, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Iowa and Vermont. Godfrey v. Spano, #147, 2009 NY Slip Op 08474, 2009 N.Y. Lexis 4050.
      President Obama directs department heads to extend spousal benefits to same-sex domestic partners of federal employees, when consistent with law. Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination, FR Doc. E9–14737, 74 (118) Federal Register 29393 (6/22/2009).
    California Supreme Court upholds a voter initiative to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples, but rules that same-sex married couples do not lose their marital status. California also has an existing domestic partner law for same-sex couples. Strauss v. Horton, #S168047, 2009 Cal. Lexis 4709.
     Iowa becomes the third state to judicially recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry. Varnum v. Brien, #07–1499, 2009 WL 874044, 2009 Iowa Sup. Lexis 31.
Maine now authorizes and recognizes same-sex marriages. "An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom," Sec. 2. 19-A MRSA §650-A.
Vermont enacts a law replacing civil unions for same-sex couples, with full marriage rights. S. 115, an "Act to Protect Religious Freedom and Recognize Equality in Civil Marriage" (2009-2010 Session).
     New York appellate court holds, 3-to-2, that same-sex spouses of state employees who were married in other states are entitled to health insurance benefits, even though New York’s definition of marriage is limited to persons of the opposite sex. A recognition of a same-sex marriage celebrated elsewhere is not abhorrent to public policy. Lewis v. N.Y. Dept. of Civil Service, #504900, 2009 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 415, 2009 WL 137504, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 283 (3rd Dept.), citing a sister court’s panel opinion in Martinez v. Co. of Monroe, 50 App. Div. 3d 189, 850 N.Y.S.2d 740, 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 909 (4th Dept. 2008); appeal dismissed 10 N.Y.3d 856, 889 N.E.2d 617 (2008).
     Connecticut Supreme Court strikes a ban on same sex marriages in a 4-to-3 holding. "... in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm." Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, #SC 17716, 2008 Conn. Lexis 385..
     California Supreme Court joins Massachusetts in overturning the ban on same-sex marriages. In re Marriage Cases, #S147999, 2008 Cal. Lexis 6155. N.Y. Court rejects an attempt to block spousal benefits applying to same-sex marriage partners of public employees.
     Because same-sex marriages performed in Canada are valid in N.Y., civil service rules extending such benefits are constitutional and consistent with legislative policy, and is not an illegal expenditure of state funds. Lewis v. N.Y. State Dept. of Civil Services, #4078-07, 2008 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 1623, 239 NYLJ 52 (Albany Co.).
     Michigan appellate court holds that a voter-adopted constitutional amendment invalidated the recognition of unions similar to marriage "for any purpose," and that employers may not recognize partnership agreements for the purpose of providing health benefits to the domestic partners of employees (whether heterosexual or the same gender). The panel rejected the result reached in Alaska C.L.U. v St. of Alaska, 122 P.3d 781 (2005), because the Alaska marriage amendment did not contain the "for any purpose" or "similar union" language found in Michigan's marriage amendment. National Pride at Work v. Gov. of Michigan, #265870, 2007 Mich. App. Lexis 240 (2007). [N/R]
     Court in New Hampshire finds that gay and lesbian partners are unconstitutionally deprived of fringe benefits available to married employees. Because they cannot marry, the exclusion violates the state's law banning sexual orientation discrimination. Bedford v. N.H. Comm. Coll. Sys., #04-E-229 & -230, 98 FEP Cases (BNA) 663 (N.H. Super. 2006). {N/R}
     New Hampshire superior court holds that a public agency's denial of health insurance and leave benefits for same-sex couples violates the state's anti-discrimination statute, which includes a prohibition on sexual orientation discrimination. Bedford v. New Hamp. Cmty. Tech. Coll. Sys., 04-E-229, 2006WL 1217283 (N.H. Super. 2006). {N/R}
     A new Illinois Administrative Order extends health care benefits for most state employees to cover same-sex domestic partners (May 8, 2006).{N/R}
     Alaska Supreme Court overturns spouse-only policies for public employees benefit programs. Because homosexuals cannot marry, a state and municipal plans violate their equal protection rights under state law. Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. Alaska, #S-10459, 2005 Alas. Lexis 148, 96 FEP Cases (BNA) 1428 (2005). [2006 FP Jan]
     New Jersey Superior Court allows a registered domestic partner to recover damages for loss of consortium in a whistleblower suit brought by the claimant's same-sex partner. New Jersey, unlike California, Connecticut and Vermont, did not address the subject in its Domestic Partnership Act. Buell v. Clara Maass Med. Ctr., #5144-03, N.J. Law J. 5/23/2005 (Unpub. Essex Co. N.J. Super. Ct.) relying on language in Dunphy v. Gregor, 136 N.J. 99, 642 A.2d 374 (1994) allowing a fiancée to recover. {N/R}
     New York court allows a public employer to deny insurance benefits for the registered domestic partners of transit workers.. Rios v. Metropolitan Transit Auth., #13206/03, 6 Misc.3d 1006A, 2004 NY Slip Op 51738U, 2004 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 2884 (Richmond Co. Sup. Ct. 2004). [2005 FP May]
     A divided Montana Supreme Court allows gay and lesbian public employees to participate in a state agency's family insurance programs for employees, because unmarried heterosexual couples were eligible. Snetsinger v. Montana University System, # 2004 MT 390, 2004 Mont. Lexis 675 (2004). [2005 FP Mar]
    New Jersey becomes the fifth state to officially recognize same-sex couples. Domestic partner legislation also exists in California and Hawaii; Vermont has same-sex civil unions, and Massachusetts has legalized same-sex marriage. The New Jersey forms and certificates are similar to those used for marriage licenses, and residents can apply for a partnership in any municipality, not just the jurisdiction in which the couple lives. The law applies to same-sex adults and opposite-sex couples who are 62 and older. Last year, legislation was enacted that requires health service (N.J. Code §17:48E-35.26) and medical service corporations (§17:48A-7aa) to offer dependent coverage for the domestic partners of insured persons. The Domestic Partnership Act, which was passed in January 2004, took effect in July. {N/R}
     By 41 to 4, the New York City council overrides the mayor's veto of a bill to require firms who have business contracts with the city (for $100,000 or more) to offer domestic partner benefits to their employees. The ordinance, known as "Dominique's Law," was modeled on similar legislation enacted in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. Equal Benefits Bill #137-B, 175 Lab. Rltns. Rep. (BNA) 33. {N/R}
     California Supreme Court invalidates same-sex marriages performed in San Francisco. The court did not reach the constitutional issues, and only addressed the narrow issue of whether the mayor could defy state statutes regulating marriage licenses. Lockyer v. C&C of San Francisco, #S122923, 2004 Cal. Lexis 7238 (2004). {N/R}
     A trial court judge in Seattle, WA, has concluded that same-sex persons are entitled to marry for constitutional reasons. Andersen v. King County, #04-2-04964-4 (King. Co. Super. Ct. 2004). {N/R}
     Out-of-state same-sex marriages and officially-recognized domestic partnerships are likely to have legal and financial implications for public employers. [2004 FP Sep]
     After the Massachusetts Supreme Court struck down a state law requiring marital couples to be of the opposite gender, a second opinion is issued. The justices make clear that the legislature must allow full same-gender marriages, and not just civil unions. However, public employers will not be permitted to offer similar benefits to the domestic partners of their employees. Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, #SJC-09163, 440 Mass. 1201, 802 N.E.2d 565, 2004 Mass. Lexis 35 (Mass. 2004); prior opin. at Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, #SJC-08860, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N.E.2d 941, 2003 Mass. Lexis 814 (Mass. 2003). [2004 FP Apr]
     Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's sodomy decision in Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2472 (2003), Massachusetts has joined Vermont and Ontario in declaring laws that limit marriage to opposite gender couples is unconstitutional. Goodridge v. Dept. Public Health, #SJC-08860, 798 N.E.2d 941, 2003 Mass. Lexis 814 (Mass. 2003). {N/R}
     Ninth Circuit upholds a city ordinance, requiring city contractors to provide equal benefits to their employees regardless of marital or domestic partner status. A recent state law governing the creation and registration of domestic partnerships did not preempt the ordinance. Also see prior decision at 253 F.3d 461 (9th Cir. 2001) where the court upheld the Ordinance as consistent with state law, federal law, and the U.S. Constitution. S.D. Myers v. C&C of San Francisco, #02-16480, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 14985 (9th Cir. 2003). {N/R}
     Indiana appellate court denies leave to a state employee that wanted paid time off to bereave the death of her domestic partner's father. Cornell v. Hamilton, #49A02-0208-CV-635, 2003 Ind. App. Lexis 1206 (2003). {N/R}
     Ontario's Court of Appeals strikes down prohibitions against same gender marriages. Ontario begins issuing marriage licenses to Canadian and U.S. same gender couples. Halpern and Attorney General of Canada, #C39172 (Ont. App. 2003). Because Canadian citizenship is not required, U.S. employers and insurance carriers will be faced with requests for marital benefits from gay and lesbian workers who are married in Ontario. {N/R}
     Domestic partner rights are expected to expand after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that struck down the Texas sodomy law. Lawrence v. Texas, #02-102, 2003 U.S. Lexis 5013, 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003). The Court held, 6-to-3, that intimate physical relationships between consenting adults are a form of "liberty" that is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. {N/R}
     Because the term "domestic partner" was not defined in the CBA, and an ordinance referred only to same-gender partners for benefit purposes, an arbitrator holds that a heterosexual sergeant was not improperly denied paid leave to care for his ailing domestic partner.Vil. of Oak Park and IL FOP, FMCS Case #01/03578, 117 LA (BNA) 99 (Briggs, 2002). [2002 Oct. FP]
     Maryland appeals court upholds a county law that extended health, leave, and survivor benefits to the domestic partners of the county employees. Tyma v. Montgomery County,#20-2001, 801 A.2d 148, 2002 Md. Lexis 345 (2002). Note: A similar law was upheld in Washington state last year -- Heinsma v. Vancouver, #70895-9, 144 Wn.2d 556, 29 P.3d 709, 2001 Wash. Lexis 549 (Wash. 2001). The Virginia supreme court invalidated a domestic partner law the year before -- Arlington County v. White, #991374, 259 Va. 708, 528 S.E.2d 706, 2000 Va. Lexis 71 (Va. 2000) -- as did a trial court in Massachusetts, Catavolo v. City of Cambridge, Mass. Super. Ct., #00-1319, 38 (1887) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1297 (2000). {N/R}
     New law allows federal benefits for designated life insurance beneficiaries, including domestic partners, of unmarried and childless police officers or firefighters who are killed in the line-of-duty. The amendment to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 removes a condition that payment of the $250,000 benefit is limited to the spouse or children of the deceased. The law now allows same and opposite gender domestic partners to receive survivor benefits if they are listed as life insurance beneficiaries, and there is no surviving spouse or children. Pub. L. No. 107-196 (6-24-2002). {N/R}
     Domestic Partner Rights Congress funds domestic partner benefits for D.C. public employees. H.R. 2944, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, passed the House (302 to 84) and the Senate by (79 to 20) on Dec. 7, 2001. [2002 FP Mar]
     Anchorage court refuses to order domestic partner benefits for Alaska public employees. Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. State of Alaska, Superior Court, 3rd Judic. Dist. (16 Nov. 2001). [2002 FP Mar]
     By a 2-to-1 margin, voters in Miami Beach approved two ballot measures granting health coverage for the domestic partners of all city employees and survivor benefits for the domestic partners of police officers and firefighters. A domestic partner is someone in a "committed relationship between two people who consider themselves as a member of each other's immediate family" and who have registered their partnership with the city. Prior coverage was limited to an employee's spouse and dependent children. 39 (1935) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1206 (Nov. 6, 2001). {N/R}
     California overhauls its Domestic Partners Laws; Assembly Bill 25 (Oct. 2001). [2001 FP 166]
     Seventh Circuit holds that a school board's policy of providing health insurance benefits to cohabitating domestic partners of same-gender employees, but not to unmarried heterosexual employees, does not violate equal protection rights. Irizarry v. Bd. of Educ. of Chicago, #00-3216, 251 F.3d 604, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 9249; 85 FEP Cases (BNA) 1169, 69 L.W. 1732 (7th Cir. 2001). [2001 FP 133-4]
     Ninth Circuit upholds a city ordinance requiring firms doing business with the city to offer benefits to registered domestic partners on a nondiscriminatory basis. S.D. Myers v. C&C of San Francisco, #99-16397, 253 F.3d 461, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 13132, 85 FEP Cases (BNA) 1802 (9th Cir.). [2001 FP 118]
     Arbitrator refuses to grant spousal benefits for domestic partners, in spite of a ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Youngstown State Univ. and Ohio Educ. Assn., FMCS #000519/0336-6, 115 LA (BNA) 852 (Heekin, 2001). [2001 FP 85]
     Massachusetts court invalidates health coverage for the domestic partners of Cambridge city employees. Catavolo v. City of Cambridge, Middlesex Co. #00-1319, 38 (1887) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1297 (Mass. Super.Ct. 2000). [2001 FP 22]
     Domestic partner in California is allowed to bring a civil action for the death of her partner who was mauled by a dog. Cal. Civil Proc. Code 377.60 does not define “surviving spouses” for wrongful death litigation. Smith v. Knoller, Super. Ct. San Francisco Co., CA as rptd. in the S.F. Recorder 7-30-2001. {N/R}
     Arbitrator opts for union's proposal to grant family health benefits to Connecticut state employees union members. Connecticut and SEBAC, 38 (1848) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 183 (Golick, 2000). [2000 FP 70]
     Vermont Supreme Court extends the “benefits” of marriage to homosexual couples under the state constitution's Common Benefits Clause. A federal Equal Protection argument failed. Baker v. Vermont, #98-032, 744 A.2d 864, 1999 Vt. Lexis 406. [2000 FP 23-4]
     French law now allows unmarried same-gender couples to register their union and enjoy some of the tax, legal and welfare benefits associated accorded heterosexual married couples. The "Civil Solidarity Pact" (PACS) passed 315 to 249 (Nov. 1999). {N/R}
     Chicago did not discriminate against a male police officer, who was fired for taking leave after the death of his fiancée’s stepfather, even though the city would have allowed him to take bereavement leave if he had been a woman in a same-sex relationship. Cleaves v. Chicago, #98-C-1219, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16801 (amended opin.), 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14994, 68 F. Supp. 2d 963 (original) (N.D. Ill.). {N/R}
     Arbitrator upholds a city's denial of insurance benefits to unmarried live-in partners. Marion Schools and Marion Educ. Assn., 111 LA (BNA) 133 (Coyne, 1998). {N/R}
     California enacts domestic partners health benefits law for government employees who are the same sex, and heterosexual couples over age 62. Cal. Family Code Sec. 297. [2000 FP 41]
     Washington Public Employees Benefits Board extends health care benefits to same-sex domestic partners of state workers, beginning Jan. 1, 2001; 38 (1866) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 714. {N/R}
     Massachusetts rules that a state law allowing local governments to provide insurance coverage for the spouses and children of public employees did not permit coverage for their domestic partners. Local ordinances could not add to the list of beneficiaries. Connors v. Boston, #07945, 430 Mass. 31, 1999 Mass. Lexis 482, 714 N.E.2d 335. [1999 FP 150]
     Federal court in N.Y. allows employers to give partner benefits to gay workers but to deny them to heterosexual workers. Foray v. Bell Atlantic., 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 8494 (S.D.N.Y.). [1999 FP 120]
     Federal court rejects a police officer's claim that employee plans covering spouses and unmarried homosexual partners, but not unmarried heterosexual partners, constitutes sex discrimination in violation of Title VII. Cleaves v. City of Chicago, 21 F.Supp.2d 858 at 861, 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16543 (N.D. Ill. 1998). [1999 FP 120]
     NYC judge upholds city's domestic partner benefits law against a taxpayer challenge. Slattery v. City of New York, 179 Misc.2d 740, 686 N.Y.S.2d 683, 1999 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 35. [1999 FP 54-5]
     Oregon appellate court concludes it is unconstitutional to deny the partners of homosexual public employees the insurance benefits provided to the spouses of heterosexual public employees. It violated the state constitution's "Privileges and Immunities' clause. Tanner v. Oregon, 157 Ore.App. 502, 971 P.2d 435, 1998 Ore. App. Lexis 2183. [1999 FP 21]
     Ontario appellate court concludes that a gay or lesbian partner of a deceased employee is entitled to "spousal" death benefits under Canada's "equal protection and equal benefits" clause of the Canadian constitution. Rosenberg v. Canadian Hum. Rts. Cmsn., 1997 Ont. C.A. Lexis 782 (Released 1998). [1998 FP 103-4]
     Massachusetts joins other states that recognize domestic partnership rights between the parties, for purposes of dissolution and death. Parties urged to memorialize their rights in writing. Wilcox v. Trautz, 427 Mass. 326, 693 N.E.2d 141, 1998 Mass. Lexis 176 (1998). [1998 FP 100-1]
     California Labor Board orders a city to provide heterosexual employees with the same benefits it provides for the domestic partners of homosexual workers. Ayyoub v. City of Oakland, #9902937, 35 (1744) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1605 (Cal.Indus.Rel. 1997). {FP Doc 5655} [1998 FP 37-8]
     Hawaii trial court strikes down law requiring marital partners to be of the opposite gender. Baehr v. Miike, 65 LW 2399, 23 Fam.L.R. 1063 (Cir.Ct. 1996). {N/R}
     Article: "Sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace: a legal reference guide," 2 (1) Natl. J. of Sexual Orient. L 38-48 (an on-line electronic journal). Internet URL (11/96): sunsite.unc.edu/gaylaw/
     Alaska Supreme Court holds that a state university's failure to offer employees" domestic partners the same health insurance benefits offered to employees" spouses violates the Alaska Human Rights Act's prohibition of marital-status discrimination. Univ. of Alaska v. Tumeo, 933 P.2d 1147 (Alaska 1997). {N/R}
     Canadian Rights Tribunal upholds the claim of a gay federal employee for the full fringe benefits accorded married couples. Moore-Akerstrom -and- Dept. For Aff. & Int. Trade , #T.D. 8/96, 34 (1671) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 884 & 902 (Canada Hum.Rts. 1996). [1996 FP 137]
     Ø Note: in another ruling by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, it was held a private employer was not required to offer pension benefits to the partners of homosexual workers. Laessoe -and- Air Canada, #T.D. 10/96 (Canada Hum.Rts. 1996). {N/R}
     Oregon court orders state to include domestic partners of homosexual state employees in its health and life insurance plans. Tanner v. Ore. Health Sci. Univ., Multnomah Co. Cir. Ct. # 9201-00369, 34 (1679) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1270, 39 (10) ATLA L.Rptr. 396 (1996). [1996 FP 150-1]
     California administrative law judge concludes that "full university benefits for domestic partners... is [a] negotiable subject..." under the state's Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act, Cal. Govt. Code 3560 et seq. Sayre v. Regents U. of Cal., 20 PERC (LRP) #27,052; 1996 PERC (LRP) Lexis 48 (Cal. PERB). [1996 FP 151]
     Minnesota appellate court strikes down an ordinance that provided benefits to same-gender domestic partners and distant relatives of city employees; issue was one of statewide concern. Lilly v. City of Minneapolis, 527 N.W.2d 107, 67 FEP Cases 385, 1995 Minn.App. Lexis 120. [1995 FP 74]
     Arbitrator finds a denial of health coverage to a same-gender domestic partner did not violate anti sexual orientation discrimination provisions in the employment contract. Kent State University and AAUP, 103 LA (BNA) 338 (Strasshofer, 1994). [1995 FP 25-6]
     L.A. City Council includes domestic partners and their children within city employee health plans. L.A. City Council Minutes of Nov. 23, 1993, 31 (1543) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1585. [1994 FP 52]
     Minneapolis Cmsn. on Civil Rights rules that same-gender domestic partners cannot be denied health insurance benefits for their gay or lesbian partners. Each of three claimants awarded $8,500 punitive plus triple compensatory damages. Anglin v. City of Minneapolis, Mpls. Cmsn. Civ.Rts. #88180-EM-12, 30 (1493) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1620 (11/17/92). [1993 FP 26] See however Lilly v. Minneapolis, 1995 Minn.App. Lexis 120, a taxpayer suit which successfully challenged the ordinance (cited above).
     Hawaii becomes first state to hold that marriage laws which require celebrants to be of the opposite sex are unconstitutional. Decision could impact on the eligibility for health care benefits for the "spouse" of gay public employees. Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993). Note: in 1997 the state legislature H.B. 118, allowing couples to register with the state as reciprocal beneficiaries, and thus gain some of the same rights as spouses in certain circumstances. {N/R}
     Employer could deny health benefits to employee's "lover'; no "equal protection" violations for gay partners. Hinman v. Dept. of Personnel Administration, 167 Cal.App.3d 516, 213 Cal.Rptr. 410 (1985).
     Gay man gets $250,000 "widow's" benefits for death of his male lover, a public employee. Appeal of Earl H. Donovan, 12/12/83. Worker's Comp. App. Bd., Los Angeles.
     See also: Homosexual & Transgender Employee Rights; Family Medical Leave; Health Insurance.