![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
by Brian M. Pinheiro, Alisa M. Huth, and Diane A. Thompson, Ballard Spahr LLP
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has ordered a profit sharing plan to pay death benefits to the same-sex spouse of a deceased employee. This decision is the first to address same-sex marriage since the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in U.S. v. Windsor that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as between a man and a woman only, was unconstitutional.
In Cozen O’Connor P.C. v. Tobits, [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers], both the spouse and the parents of the deceased claimed the full death benefit under the employee plan of the deceased’s employer. The plan, which was generally governed by Pennsylvania law except to the extent preempted by ERISA, required the death benefit to automatically pass to the surviving spouse. The court concluded that because the plan was subject to ERISA, the federal definition of "spouse" was controlling, based on the Windsor ruling. Accordingly, the deceased’s same-sex spouse was entitled to the death benefit.
The couple in Tobits, married in Canada, resided in Illinois, where their marriage was recognized as a valid civil union under state law. The opinion does not address a situation in which an employee lives in a state that prohibits same-sex unions, such as Pennsylvania, often referred to as a "mini-DOMA state." According to the court, however, "Windsor makes clear that where a state has recognized a marriage as valid, the United States Constitution requires that the federal laws and regulations of this country acknowledge that marriage." This seems to suggest that the court would also acknowledge a valid marriage license for a same-sex couple issued in any state.
If you have questions about providing benefits to same-sex couples or other aspects of retirement plan administration, contact Brian M. Pinheiro at 215.864.8511 or firstname.lastname@example.org, Alisa M. Huth at 215.864.8516 or email@example.com, or Diane A. Thompson at 424.204.4334 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Copyright © 2013 by Ballard Spahr LLP.http://www.ballardspahr.com/(No claim to original U.S. government material.)
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the author and publisher.
This alert is a periodic publication of Ballard Spahr LLP and is intended to notify recipients of new developments in the law. It should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own attorney concerning your situation and specific legal questions you have.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site