Golinski v. United States Office of Personnel Management

Summary

Lambda Legal represents Karen Golinski, who was denied spousal health benefits by her employer, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. In January 2009, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski ruled that it violates the Ninth Circuit's employment policies prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation to deny the legally married Golinski the same benefits for her wife, Amy Cunninghis as heterosexual court employees receive for their lawful spouses. The federal Office of Personal Management (OPM)—an agency of the executive branch—responded that the law governing federal employees' health insurance and the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prevent coverage for the spouses of lesbian and gay federal employees, and instructed Golinski's insurer not to enroll Cunninghis. Lambda Legal is now suing the federal government to compel it to stop interfering with the orders of the federal appellate court's chief judge so that Golinski can be provided equal benefits for her wife.

History

• September 2, 2008 Karen Golinski submits an application to enroll her spouse Amy Cunninghis under her employer-provided insurance plan.
• October 2, 2008 Golinski files a compliant under the Ninth Circuit's Employment Dispute Resolution Plan that the denial of insurance coverage for her spouse constitutes prohibited discrimination.
• January 13, 2009 Chief Judge Alex Kozinski orders that Golinski be allowed to enroll Cunninghis om the Blue Cross/Blue Shiled plan that covers Golinski and her son.
• February 20, 2009 OPM announces it will ignore Kozinski's ruling and directs Blue Cross not to process Golinski's insurance application.
• November 19, 2009 Judge Kozinski again orders OPM to process Golinski's application and that she be compensated for back pay.
• December 18, 2009 OPM announces via press release it will ignore Kozinski's order.
• January 20, 2010 Lambda Legal files suit against the federal government in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
• December 17, 2010 Court hears oral argument.
• February 23, 2011 In response to an announcement that President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have concluded that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and inappropriate to defend, Judge Jeffrey White addresses a series of four questions to the government asking how it plans to proceed in Golinski v. OPM.
• February 28, 2011 Government attorneys reply that they intend to continue to enforce DOMA—and to fight rulings ordering benefits for Golinski—until a court orders them not to or until Congress itself repeals DOMA.
• March 3, 2011 Lambda Legal replies to the government's answers.
• March 16, 2011 Judge grants motion by government attorneys to dismiss the lawsuit, but sets an April 15 deadline for an amended complaint directly challenging the constitutionality of DOMA.
• April 14, 2011 Lambda Legal and co-counsel file amended complaint directly challenging the constitutionality of DOMA.
• July 1, 2011 The U.S. Justice Department files a strongly worded brief arguing that DOMA is unconstitutional.
• June 3, 2011 The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) intervenes on behalf of leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives to defend DOMA.  
• June 3, 2011 BLAG moves to dismiss Plaintiff's case.
• July 1, 2011 Plaintiff moves for summary judgment, asking the court for a final order holding DOMA unconstitutional.
• December 16, 2011 Court hears oral argument. 
• February 22, 2012 U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White declares DOMA unconstitutional as applied to Karen Golinski.