July 11, 2020

Volume X, Number 193

July 10, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 09, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Oregon’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional, Judge Rules

Oregon’s prohibition on same-sex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection, newly appointed U.S. District Court Judge Michael McShane has held in a case filed on behalf of four couples in Multnomah County. Geiger v. Kitzhaber, No. 6:13-cv-01834-MC (May 19, 2014).

Judge McShane explained the measure discriminates against same-sex couples. “The state’s marriage laws unjustifiably treat same-gender couples differently than opposite-gender couples. The laws assess a couple’s fitness for civil marriage based on their sexual orientation: opposite-gender couples pass; same-gender couples do not. No legitimate state purpose justifies the preclusion of gay and lesbian couples from civil marriage.”

A state Constitutional amendment, enacted pursuant to a 2004 ballot initiative organized and sponsored by the Defense of Marriage Coalition, had prohibited same-sex marriage, stating that only “marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.” This initiative and the subsequent Constitutional amendment were in response to the Multnomah County commissioner’s decision to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. During the Geiger litigation, Oregon’s Attorney General stated she found it impossible to legally defend the ban because “per- forming same-sex marriages in Oregon would have no adverse effect on existing marriages, and that sexual orientation does not determine an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and enduring relation- ship.” With Geiger, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor invalidating the federal Defense of Marriage Act, same-sex marriage is valid under Oregon state and federal law.

Further, although Oregon enacted a domestic partnership law in 2008, the Family Fairness Act, granting domestic partners similar rights and privileges to those enjoyed by married spouses, the Legislature acknowledged domestic partnerships did not reach the magnitude of rights inherent in the definition of marriage. For example, same-sex couples in Oregon were not entitled to the rights or benefits under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act because Department of Labor guidance recognizes same-sex marriage only if valid under the employee’s state of residence. The DOL, however, has proposed a rule expanding the term “spouse” and, if implemented, will recognize same-sex marriages when recognized in the couple’s state of residence or if performed in a state recognizing same-sex marriage. According to the Secretary of Labor, “The basic promise of the FMLA is that no one should have to choose between succeeding at work and being a loving family caregiver. Under the proposed revisions, the FMLA will be applied to all families equally, enabling individuals in same-sex marriages to fully exercise their rights and fulfill their responsibilities to their families.” No changes have been proposed, however, for purposes of the Employment Retirement Income and Security Act (“ERISA”), the federal law governing employee benefit plans. The DOL counsels employers that, for purposes of ERISA, same-sex marriage should be recognized if valid in the state it is performed.

While Geiger will simplify the legal landscape, employers should review policies, procedures, and benefit plans closely to ensure that same-sex spouses are treated equally in all respects. In addition, Oregon law further prevents employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and family status. Requiring same-sex couples to “prove their status” or take other similar measures that are not required of opposite-sex couples may increase the risk of potential litigation under these laws.

Mei Fung So contributed to this article. 

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2020National Law Review, Volume IV, Number 239

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Scott Oborne, Jackson Lewis, whistleblower retaliation attorney, non compete claims lawyer
Principal

Scott Oborne is a Principal in the Portland, Oregon, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. Mr. Oborne began his career in the firm's Chicago, Illinois, office and practiced for five years in the San Francisco, California, office before moving to Portland to open the new Jackson Lewis office dedicated to Oregon clients.

Mr. Oborne’s scope of expertise spans many of the firm’s core practice areas. Mr. Oborne represents both small and large employers in litigation ranging from sexual harassment and disability discrimination to...

(503) 229-0404
Bryan P. O'Connor, Jackson Lewis, gender discrimination lawsuits lawyer, sexual harassment attorney
Office Managing Principal

Bryan P. O’Connor is the Office Managing Principal in the Seattle, Washington, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He has practiced labor and employment law his entire legal career.

Mr. O'Connor serves in many different capacities depending upon client needs. He has advised and represented both large and small employers in all aspects of traditional labor law across numerous industries, including construction, manufacturing, retail, health care, utility, food distribution, and government-related services. His roles include advising and representing management in union organizing campaigns, elections and unfair labor practice proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board, other legal proceedings before federal and state courts, and other administrative agencies. He has served as a chief spokesperson and advisor for numerous employers involved in collective bargaining and contract administration, including grievance processing and arbitrations.

206-405-0404
Roger Kaplan employee drug testing attorney, Jackson Lewis Law Firm
Principal

Roger S. Kaplan is a Principal in the Long Island, New York, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He has worked with many employers to help assure their drug and abuse testing policies and procedures comply with the state and federal laws and to develop effective testing strategies. He has frequently addressed business and professional groups on substance abuse testing issues.

Mr. Kaplan has represented clients and appeared before executive departments and administrative agencies, such as the United States Department of Labor (...

631-247-4611