Employers in California need to adjust their benefit plans, plan documents, and corporate and human resources policies to accommodate employees’ same-sex spouses. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on June 28 lifted its stay on an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8, which had amended the California state constitution to define marriage as occurring between a man and a woman. The court had issued the injunction while the Hollingsworth v. Perry, the case concerning Proposition 8, was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The court acted faster than had been widely anticipated, since it had indicated in the wake of the Supreme Court’s June 26 holding in Hollingsworth v. Perry (No. 12-144, June 26, 2013) that it would not do so for 25 days. As soon as the 9th Circuit acted, the California Department of Public Health on the same day ordered all county clerks in California to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Since same-sex marriage is now legal in California, employers once again need to make the necessary adjustments to their policies, benefits plans and policies in order to extend coverage and recognition to employees’ same-sex spouses. They also need to make adjustments in light of different tax treatment of those benefits for purposes of state, and now also federal, law and regulation.
The Supreme Court’s June 26 finding in Hollingsworth, that the party that brought suit lacked standing to do so before it and the 9th Circuit, in effect allowed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s 2010 ruling against Proposition 8 to stand.
On Aug. 4, 2010 the district court ruled in Perry v. Schwarznegger, No. C 09-2292 VRW, which concerned Proposition 8. That court said that Proposition 8 violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.