Click here
to return to the March issue.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF
ALASKA
THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE
THE ALASKA CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION;
DAN CARTER and AL INCONTRO;
LIN DAVIS and MAUREEN LONGWORTH;
SHIRLEY DEAN and CARLA TIMPONE;
DARLA MADDEN and KAREN WOOD;
AIMEE OLEJASZ and
FABIENNE PETER-CONTESSE;
KAREN STURNICK and
ELIZABETH ANDREWS;
THERESA TAVEL and KAREN WALTER; and
CORIN WHITTEMORE and
GANI RUTHELLEN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE STATE OF ALASKA, and
THE MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE,
Defendants.
Case No. 3AN-99-_____ CIV
COMPLAINT
COME NOW the
Plaintiffs, the Alaska Civil Liberties Union; Dan Carter and Al Incontro; Lin
Davis and Maureen Longworth; Shirley Dean and Carla Timpone; Darla Madden and
Karen Wood; Aimee Olejasz and Fabienne Peter-Contesse; Karen Sturnick and
Elizabeth Andrews; Theresa Tavel and Karen Walter; and Corin Whittemore and
Gani Ruthellen, and for their cause of action against the Defendants, the State
of Alaska and the Municipality of Anchorage [henceforth "Defendants"
or "the State"], state as follows:
INTRODUCTION
The
Plaintiffs bring this action under the Alaska State Constitution to seek relief
from the intentional and severe discrimination that has been aimed at their
relationships by their employers, the divisions and agencies of the State of
Alaska, its cities and municipalities. Plaintiffs are eight gay and lesbian
couples, committed adults in long term, intimate relationships, sharing their
homes and their lives. In this action, they seek equal access to certain
health, pension and insurance rights and privileges that the State offers to
government employees for the promotion of stability and security in their
relationships. The statutes and regulations of Alaska now reserve those rights
and privileges exclusively to married heterosexual couples and deny them to
similarly situated gay and lesbian couples. Under the current state of the law
in Alaska, gay and lesbian couples are excluded from the institution of
marriage. As a result, Defendants’ use of marriage as the exclusive touchstone
for employment rights and privileges categorically excludes Plaintiffs from
receiving the support that the State offers to similarly situated heterosexual
couples. This disfavored treatment of gay and lesbian couples is fully
intentional; indeed, it is inscribed into the very statutes of Alaska.
The impact
that the State’s discrimination has upon the Plaintiff couples is profound. In
denying them health coverage, other forms of insurance, and equal participation
in pension and retirement plans, the State seriously hampers the Plaintiffs’
ability to conduct the primary activities of their lives. If a lesbian employee
of the State dies, the State does not allow her partner to have the full
measure of the pension that the employee has spent a lifetime earning, while a
married spouse in the same situation could receive the pension freely. If the
gay partner of a state employee falls ill, the State excludes him from the
security of his partner’s health care coverage, security that would be freely
available if he and his partner were married. The safety nets that other
couples in Alaska depend upon for security and financial stability in both the
lives that they build together and the retirements that they plan together are denied
to the Plaintiff couples, merely because they are gay.
Plaintiffs
do not challenge the Alaska Constitution’s exclusion of gay and lesbian couples
from marriage. Plaintiffs challenge the State’s additional decision to
predicate a vast array of employment-related rights and privileges exclusively
on marriage, which knowingly consigns gay and lesbian couples to second-class
status. This the State cannot do, for it violates one of the fundamental
principles enshrined in the Alaska Constitution: that invidious discrimination
is anathema to this State.
Such unfair
treatment of gay and lesbian relationships, which constitutes discrimination on
the basis of both sexual orientation and gender, would require careful
scrutiny, regardless of the precise nature of the rights and privileges at
stake. When such discrimination also results in the imposition of broad and
undifferentiated hardships as extraordinary as those in the present case, the
Alaska Constitution is even more deeply offended.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.
Plaintiffs are residents of the State of Alaska.
2. Venue in
this action is appropriate in the 3rd Judicial District at Anchorage.
This Court
has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to AS 22.10.020.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
Restrictions
on Marriage Under
Alaska Law
and the Alaska Constitution
3. On
January 3, 1999, Article I, section 25 of the Alaska Constitution took effect.
4. Article
I, section 25 provides: "To be valid or recognized in this State, a
marriage may exist only between one man and one woman."
5. The
purpose and effect of Article I, section 25 was to prevent same-sex couples
from entering into the legal institution of marriage in Alaska.
6. Alaska
law defines marriage as "a civil contract entered into by one man and one
woman." AS 25.05.011 (1998).
7. Under AS
25.05.011 and Article I, section 25 of the Alaska Constitution, all of the
Plaintiff couples are excluded from the institution of marriage.
Employment
Rights and Privileges
8. Under
applicable state statutes and regulations, an employee of a state or municipal
agency receives certain employment rights and privileges. These include
health-care coverage (e.g. AS 21.44.345; AS 14.25.168(d); AS 39.35.535(c)), and
participation in retirement and pension plans.
9. Under
applicable state statutes and regulations, an employee of a state or municipal
agency has the option of sharing these employment rights and privileges with
his or her married spouse. Employees of state and municipal agencies enjoy
employment privileges that, among other things, (i) cover their spouses under
the favorable state policy for health insurance; (ii) provide their spouses
with a joint and survivor annuity at retirement; (iii) provide pre-retirement
death benefits for their spouses; and (iv) continue full health insurance
coverage for their spouses upon retirement. In addition, employees may also
take advantage of options for long-term care and life insurance policies to
protect their spouses.
10. If the
Plaintiff couples were married, the state employees in the relationships would
be able to share these employment rights and privileges with their married
spouses.
11.
Applicable state statutes and regulations do not give employees the option of
sharing these employment rights and privileges with anyone other than a married
spouse, marriage is the exclusive touchstone for the conferral of these rights
and privileges.
12. An
Alaska statute expressly provides that "A same-sex relationship may not be
recognized by the state as being entitled to the benefits of marriage." AS
25.05.013(b).
13. Under AS
25.05.013(b), all of the Plaintiff couples are categorically excluded from the
employment-related rights and privileges afforded by the State to married
heterosexual couples.
14. As a
result, under applicable state statutes and regulations, the state and
municipal employees in the Plaintiff couples do not have the option of sharing
their employment rights and privileges with their partners and are unable to do
so.
15. The
state and municipal employees in the Plaintiff couples would share their
employment rights and privileges with their partners if they were able to do
so.
THE PLAINTIFFS
Dan Carter
and Al Incontro
16.
Plaintiffs Dan Carter and Al Incontro are fifty-two and sixty-eight years old,
respectively. They have been involved in an intimate, committed, loving
relationship for over thirty years and reside together as domestic partners in
Anchorage, Alaska, where they share the expenses of their home.
17. Carter
and Incontro share joint finances and a joint mortgage on both their primary
residence and an investment property in Florida. They list each other as
primary beneficiary on both their wills and their life insurance policies.
18. Carter
and Incontro consider themselves to be life partners and hold themselves out to
their families and their community as a couple participating in a committed
relationship.
19. Carter
is currently employed by the Department of Public Transportation of the Municipality
of Anchorage, Alaska, where he has worked for twenty years.
20. Incontro
is retired.
21. Carter
receives certain rights and privileges from his employment with the
Municipality. These include health insurance, retirement-related health coverage,
and a pension.
22. Carter
desires to share these employment-related rights and privileges with Incontro,
and Incontro would take advantage of these rights and privileges if he were
permitted to do so. Incontro specifically wishes to take advantage of Carter’s
health coverage (including dental coverage and a prescription drug program),
retirement plan, and death benefits. This coverage would substantially
supplement the retirement coverage that Incontro currently receives from his
former, private employer.
23. The
applicable laws permit Carter to share these employment-related rights and
privileges only with his "spouse." Therefore, Incontro cannot take
advantage of Carter’s health coverage, pension, or other rights and privileges.
24. As a
result of his inability to take advantage of Carter’s medical coverage,
Incontro receives inferior health-related services. As a result of his
inability to take advantage of Carter’s pension, Incontro must forego benefits
that the parties have accrued during their relationship and which, if the
parties were married, would belong to them jointly and would protect Incontro
in the event of Carter’s death.
Lin Davis
and Maureen Longworth
25.
Plaintiffs Lin Davis and Maureen Longworth are fifty-seven and forty-eight
years old, respectively. They have been involved in an intimate, committed,
loving relationship for eleven years and reside together as domestic partners
in Juneau, Alaska, where they share the expenses of their home.
26. Davis
and Longworth share joint finances and a joint mortgage on their home. They
have mutual wills and durable powers of attorney, and each has a life insurance
policy naming the other as beneficiary. They share joint checking and savings
accounts, joint credit cards, and both are listed on the titles of their two
cars.
27. Davis
and Longworth consider themselves to be life partners and hold themselves out
to their families and their community as a couple participating in a committed
relationship.
28. Davis is
currently employed by the State Department of Labor and Workforce Development,
an agency of the State of Alaska, where she has worked for three years.
29.
Longworth is not a city or state employee.
30. Davis
receives certain rights and privileges from her employment with the State.
These include health insurance, retirement-related health coverage, and a
pension.
31. Davis
desires to share these employment-related rights and privileges with Longworth,
and Longworth would take advantage of these rights and privileges if she were
permitted to do so. Longworth specifically wishes to take advantage of Davis’s
health coverage, as she must currently pay for her own insurance under a plan
with her private employer. This plan is both expensive and inferior to Davis’s coverage
from the State.
32. For
example, Longworth recently had approximately $20,000 worth of dental work
done. This work would have been covered under Davis’s insurance plan, but was
not covered under Longworth’s.
33. Davis
also specifically wishes to purchase a joint and survivor annuity for Longworth
when she retires, so that Longworth would be a beneficiary of her retirement
and pension.
34. The
applicable laws permit Davis to share these employment-related rights and
privileges only with her "spouse." Therefore, Longworth cannot take
advantage of Davis’s health coverage and pension.
35. As a
result of her inability to take advantage of Davis’s medical coverage,
Longworth must pay for her own health insurance. As a result of her inability
to take advantage of Davis’s pension, Longworth must forego benefits that the
parties have accrued during their relationship and which, if the parties were
married, would belong to them jointly and would protect Longworth in the event
of Davis’s death.
36. Davis
and Longworth are now in the process of planning for their retirement. Davis’s
inability to share her employment-related rights and privileges with Longworth
substantially interferes with the couple’s ability to plan a secure and
affordable retirement.
Shirley Dean
and Carla Timpone
37.
Plaintiffs Shirley Dean and Carla Timpone are forty-nine and fifty years old,
respectively. They have been involved in an intimate, committed, loving
relationship for twenty years and reside together as domestic partners in
Douglas, Alaska, where they share the expenses of their home.
38. Dean and
Timpone share joint finances and a joint mortgage on their home. They share
joint bank accounts, and both their names are listed on the cars that they own.
They have mutual wills and durable powers of attorney, and each has a life
insurance policy naming the other as beneficiary.
39. Dean and
Timpone consider themselves to be life partners and hold themselves out to
their families and their community as a couple participating in a committed
relationship.
40. Dean is
currently employed by the Department of Revenue, an agency of the State of
Alaska, where she has worked for ten years. She has been an employee of the
State of Alaska for approximately fifteen years.
41. Dean
receives certain rights and privileges from her employment with the State.
These include health insurance, retirement-related health coverage, and a
pension. Since she was a state employee starting before 1986, Dean is eligible
to share full medical coverage with her spouse at no cost.
42. Dean
desires to share these employment-related rights and privileges with Timpone,
and Timpone would take advantage of them if she were able to do so.
43. Dean
also wishes to purchase a joint and survivor annuity for Timpone when she
retires, so Timpone would be a beneficiary of her retirement plan and pension.
44. The
applicable laws permit Dean to share her employment-related rights and
privileges only with her "spouse." Therefore, Timpone cannot take
advantage of these health coverage and pension.
45. Timpone
is not currently employed with the State of Alaska. She resigned from a
position with the State less than a year ago so that she could care for her
father in New York after her mother fell ill and died. Because she cannot be
covered under Dean’s health insurance, she has had to find private medical
coverage on her own. Originally, Timpone purchased a private insurance plan
that covered only catastrophic illness. This plan was both expensive and
inferior to Dean’s coverage from the State. When this plan became too expensive
for her to afford, Timpone took part-time employment that includes medical
coverage.
46. Dean
will be eligible for early retirement soon. If she were able to share her employment-related
rights and privileges with Timpone as her spouse, the couple would enjoy full
medical coverage under Dean’s retirement plan.
47. As a
result of her inability to take advantage of Dean’s medical coverage, Timpone
must pay for her own health insurance and alter her employment decisions so as
to receive coverage. As a result of her inability to take advantage of Dean’s
pension, Timpone must forego benefits that she and Dean have accrued during
their relationship and which, if they were married, would belong to them
jointly and would protect Timpone in the event of Dean’s death. As a result of
her inability to take advantage of Dean’s retirement-related rights and
privileges, the couple’s ability to plan a secure and affordable retirement has
been substantially impaired.
Darla Madden
and Karen Wood
48.
Plaintiffs Darla Madden and Karen Wood are forty-two and thirty-three years
old, respectively. They have been involved in an intimate, committed, loving
relationship for eight years and reside together as domestic partners in
Juneau, Alaska, where they share the expenses of their home.
49. Madden
and Wood share joint finances and a joint mortgage on their home. They have
joint checking accounts, savings accounts and credit cards, and they list each
other as primary beneficiary on both their wills and their life insurance
policies.
50. Madden
and Wood consider themselves to be life partners and hold themselves out to
their families and their community as a couple participating in a committed
relationship.
51. Madden
is currently employed by the State Department of Health and Social Services, an
agency of the State of Alaska. Wood is currently employed by the Department of
Revenue, an agency of the State of Alaska.
52. Madden
and Wood receive certain rights and privileges from their employment with the
State. These include health insurance, retirement-related health coverage, and
a pension.
53. If
Madden and Wood were married, they could mutually cover each other as spouses
under the State’s medical insurance plan. If they each had both their own
policy and coverage through the other’s policy, each would have close to 100%
health coverage, as the second policy would pay nearly all expenses left
unreimbursed by the first policy. Because they are not married, however, each
must pay a significant portion of her own medical expenses.
54. Madden
and Wood desire to share these health- and pension-related rights and
privileges with each other, and each would take advantage of these rights and
privileges if she were permitted to do so.
55. The
applicable laws permit Madden and Wood to share these employment-related rights
and privileges only with their "spouses." Therefore, Madden and Wood
cannot take advantage of each other’s rights and privileges.
56. As a
result of their inability to take advantage of each other’s medical coverage,
Madden and Wood must pay higher rates for their health insurance. As a result
of their inability to take full advantage of each other’s pensions, they each
forego benefits that they parties have accrued during their relationship and
which, if the parties were married, would belong to them jointly, and would
protect them in the event of the other’s death.
Aimee
Olejasz and Fabienne Peter-Contesse
57.
Plaintiffs Aimee Olejasz and Fabienne Peter-Contesse are thirty-three and
thirty-eight years old, respectively. They have been involved in an intimate,
committed, loving relationship for nine years and reside together as domestic
partners in Juneau, Alaska, where they share the expenses of their home.
58. Olejasz
and Peter-Contesse share joint finances and a joint mortgage on their home.
Both their names are listed on the cars that they own, and they share joint
bank accounts and credit cards. They list each other as primary beneficiary on
both their wills and their life insurance policies.
59. Olejasz
and Peter-Contesse consider themselves to be life partners and hold themselves
out to their families and their community as a couple participating in a
committed relationship.
60.
Peter-Contesse is an employee of the Alaska State Department of Fish and Game,
where she has worked since 1998. She has worked for the State of Alaska for a
total of ten years.
61. Olejasz
is a licensed massage therapist and desires to pursue that profession on a
full-time basis. However, she is unable to work as a full-time massage
therapist because that work does not provide medical insurance and other forms
of coverage, which Olejasz needs and cannot otherwise afford. Olejasz has
worked for the State of Alaska since 1996 in order to secure these rights and
privileges. Since July 1999, she has been employed by the Alaska Department of
Military and Veteran’s Affairs. Prior to that, she was employed by the Alaska
Department of Transportation.
62.
Peter-Contesse receives certain rights and privileges from her employment with
the State. These include health insurance, retirement-related health coverage,
and a pension.
63.
Peter-Contesse desires to share these employment-related rights and privileges
with Olejasz in order to make available to Olejasz the option of leaving her
employment with the State and pursuing her career in massage therapy, and
Olejasz would take advantage of these rights and privileges if she were permitted
to do so.
64. The
applicable laws permit Peter-Contesse to share these employment-related rights
and privileges only with her "spouse." Therefore, Olejasz cannot take
advantage of these health coverage and pension.
65. As a
result of her inability to take advantage of Peter-Contesse’s
employment-related rights and privileges, Olejasz has been unable to pursue a
full-time career in her chosen profession. As a result of her inability to take
advantage of Peter-Contesse’s retirement coverage and pension, Olejasz must
forego benefits that the parties have accrued during their relationship and
which, if they were married, would belong to them jointly and would protect
Olejasz in the event of Peter-Contesse’s death.
Karen
Sturnick and Elizabeth Andrews
66.
Plaintiffs Karen Sturnick and Elizabeth Andrews are forty-two and forty-nine
years old, respectively. They have been involved in an intimate, committed,
loving relationship for seven years and reside together as domestic partners in
Juneau, Alaska, where they share the expenses of their home.
67. Sturnick
and Andrews own joint property together, including investment accounts and real
estate in New Mexico. Both their names are listed on the cars that they own,
and they share joint bank accounts and credit cards. They list each other as
primary beneficiary on both their wills and their life insurance policies.
68. Sturnick
and Andrews consider themselves to be life partners and hold themselves out to
their families and their community as a couple participating in a committed
relationship.
69. Andrews
is an employee of the Alaska State Department of Fish and Game, where she has
worked since 1981. She will be eligible to retire in January 2000.
70. Sturnick
is not a state or city employee.
71. Andrews
receives certain rights and privileges from her employment with the State.
These include health insurance, retirement-related health coverage, and a
pension.
72. Andrews
wishes to retire from her position with the State when she becomes eligible and
to build a home together with Sturnick on their property in New Mexico. Andrews
and Sturnick expect to be unable to do so, however, because Sturnick is not
eligible, as a spouse would be, to be covered under the state health insurance
plan during Andrews’ retirement. Instead, Sturnick must either obtain medical
insurance through a private employer (which she does now) or pay for private
coverage herself. The coverage that Sturnick currently receives from her
private employer is inferior to the policy she could receive under Andrews’
plan. Andrews’ inability to share her employment-related rights and privileges
with Longworth substantially interferes with the couple’s ability to plan a
secure and affordable retirement.
73. Andrews
also wishes to purchase a joint and survivor annuity for Sturnick when she
retires, so she would be a beneficiary of Andrews’ retirement and pension
plans.
74. The
applicable laws permit Andrews to share these employment-related rights and
privileges only with her "spouse." Therefore, Sturnick cannot take
advantage of these health and pension rights and privileges.
75. As a
result of her inability to take advantage of Andrews’ medical coverage,
Sturnick must pay for her own health insurance. As a result of her inability to
take advantage of Andrews’ pension and health coverage, Sturnick must forego
benefits that the parties have accrued during their relationship and which, if
the parties were married, would belong to them jointly and would protect
Sturnick in the event of Andrews’ death.
Theresa
Tavel and Karen Walter
76.
Plaintiffs Theresa Tavel and Karen Walter are forty-six and fifty-two years
old, respectively. They have been involved in an intimate, committed, loving
relationship for sixteen years and reside together as domestic partners in
Juneau, Alaska, where they share the expenses of their home.
77. Tavel
and Walter own a charter business together, which they operate jointly, and
they share ownership of a charter boat and other assets of that business. They
share joint finances, joint checking and savings accounts, joint credit cards,
and joint mortgages on both their home and boat.
78. Tavel
and Walter consider themselves to be life partners and hold themselves out to
their families and their community as a couple participating in a committed
relationship.
79. Walter
retired as an employee of the State of Alaska in 1998.
80. Tavel is
not a city or state employee. During the summer months, she runs the couple’s
charter sailing business. During the winter months, she works as a video
producer. In the fall months, she works for a private company for the sole
purpose of obtaining health coverage. If Tavel could be covered under Walter’s
medical insurance, she would change her work so she could be self-employed full
time.
81. Walter
receives certain rights and privileges from her employment with the State.
These include health insurance, retirement-related health coverage, and a
pension. Since she was a state employee starting before 1986, Walter is
eligible to share full medical coverage with her spouse at no cost.
82. Walter
desires to share these employment-related rights and privileges with Tavel, and
Tavel would take advantage of these rights and privileges if she were permitted
to do so.
83. The
applicable laws permit Walter to share these employment-related rights and
privileges only with her "spouse." Therefore, Tavel cannot take
advantage of these health- and pension-related rights and privileges.
84. As a
result of her inability to take advantage of Walter’s medical coverage, Tavel
has limited options for structuring her work life and business. As a result of
her inability to take advantage of Walter’s pension, Tavel must forego benefits
that the parties have accrued during their relationship and which, if the
parties were married, would belong to them jointly and would protect Tavel in
the event of Walter’s death.
Corin
Whittemore and Gani Ruthellen
85.
Plaintiffs Corin Whittemore and Gani Ruthellen are forty-eight and forty-four
years old, respectively. They have been involved in an intimate, committed,
loving relationship for over two years and reside together as domestic partners
(along with Whittemore’s daughter) in Juneau, Alaska, where they share the
expenses of their home.
86.
Whittemore and Ruthellen share joint finances. They have two joint savings
accounts, a joint checking account and a joint credit card, and both are listed
on the car that they own. Whittemore names Ruthellen, along with her daughter,
as a beneficiary in her will.
87.
Whittemore and Ruthellen consider themselves to be life partners and hold
themselves out to their families and their community as a couple participating
in a committed relationship.
88.
Whittemore is currently employed by the State Department of Administration,
Division of Finance, an agency of the State of Alaska. She has worked for
various agencies of the State for a total of over sixteen years.
89.
Ruthellen is not a city or state employee.
90.
Whittemore receives certain rights and privileges from her employment with the
State. These include health, retirement-related health coverage, and a pension.
91.
Whittemore desires to share these employment-related rights and privileges with
Ruthellen, and Ruthellen would take advantage of these rights and privileges if
she were permitted to do so. Ruthellen specifically wishes to take advantage of
Whittemore’s health coverage, as she must currently pay for her own coverage
under a COBRA program. This private coverage is expensive, inferior to the
coverage that she would enjoy under Whittemore’s plan, and will terminate at
the end of November 1999.
92. The
applicable laws permit Whittemore to share these employment-related rights and
privileges only with her "spouse." Therefore, Ruthellen cannot take
advantage of these health- and pension-related rights and privileges.
93. As a
result of her inability to take advantage of Whittemore’s medical coverage,
Ruthellen must purchase separate health insurance and accept coverage inferior
to that available under Whittemore’s plan. As a result of her inability to take
advantage of Whittemore’s pension, Ruthellen must forego benefits that the
parties have accrued during their relationship and which, if the parties were
married, would belong to them jointly, and would protect Ruthellen in the event
of Whittemore’s death.
The Alaska
Civil Liberties Union
94. The
Alaska Civil Liberties Union (AkCLU) is a non-profit corporation established in
1983 with its principal place of business in Anchorage, Alaska. The AkCLU is
the Alaska affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union. The AkCLU’s mission
is to preserve and defend the civil liberties guaranteed by the Alaska
Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. The AkCLU has members who are gay and
lesbian state and municipal employees and are affected by the laws challenged
in this case.
VIOLATION OF
ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 1, 3 AND 22
OF THE
ALASKA CONSTITUTION
95.
Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs
1- 95.
96. By using
marriage as the exclusive touchstone for the conferral of employment rights and
privileges upon the domestic partners of its employees, limiting those rights
and privileges to the married spouses of its employees, and denying those
rights and privileges to the Plaintiff couples-same-sex domestic partners who
are excluded from marriage under state law-the State is engaged in intentional
and invidious discrimination against the Plaintiff couples in violation of the
Alaska Constitution.
97. The
State discriminates against the Plaintiff couples both because they are gay men
or lesbians and because of the gender of the partners in each couple.
Therefore, the State’s maltreatment of Plaintiffs constitutes discrimination on
the basis of both sexual orientation and sex.
98. This
discrimination places severe and impermissible burdens upon the Plaintiff
couples’ intimate relationships. It jeopardizes their security and stability
and substantially interferes with their ability to structure the primary
activities of their lives together.
99. This
intentional, sweeping and continuing discrimination constitutes a violation of
Article I, sections 1, 3 and 22 of the Alaska Constitution.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE,
Plaintiffs pray for judgment in their favor and against Defendants as follows:
1. For a
declaratory judgment under applicable Alaska law declaring that the State’s
denial of employment rights and privileges to the Plaintiff couples violates
the Plaintiffs’ rights under Article I, sections 1, 3 and 22 of the Alaska
Constitution.
2. For a
declaratory judgment under applicable Alaska law declaring that the applicable
statutes and regulations violate Article I, sections 1, 3 and 22 of the Alaska
Constitution to the extent that they limit employment rights and privileges to
the married spouses of state employees and deny those rights and privileges to
same-sex domestic partners.
3. For a
permanent injunction requiring the State to provide employment rights and privileges
to the Plaintiff couples on terms identical to those that would apply if the
Plaintiff couples were legally married, for so long as the Plaintiff couples
remain domestic partners.
4. For such
other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
Dated this
twenty-seventh day of October, 1999
__________________________
Allison E.
Mendel
MENDEL &
ASSOCIATES
Alaska Bar
8310136
Attorney for
Plaintiffs
Cooperating
Attorney for the
Alaska Civil
Liberties Union
Tobias Barrington
Wolff
PAUL, WEISS,
RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON
1285 Avenue
of the Americas
New York, NY
10019-6064
212-373-3300
Cooperating
Attorney for the ACLU Lesbian & Gay Rights Project
Jennifer
Middleton
Michael
Adams
Matthew
Coles
AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION
125 Broad
Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY
10004
tel:
212-549-2627
fax:
212-549-2650
Click here
to return to the March issue