2:12-cv-10038 #88

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION
THERESA BASSETT and CAROL
KENNEDY, PETER WAYS and JOE
BREAKEY, JOLINDA JACH and
BARBARA RAMBER, DOAK
BLOSS and GERARDO ASCHERI,
DENISE MILLER, and MICHELLE
JOHNSON, Case No. 2:12-cv-10038-DML-MJH
Plaintiffs, Hon. David M. Lawson
Mag. Michael J. Hluchaniuk
vs.
RICHARD SNYDER, in his official
capacity as Governor of the State of
Michigan,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs Theresa Bassett, Carol Kennedy, Peter Ways, Joe Breakey,
JoLinda Jach, Barbara Ramber, Doak Bloss, Gerardo Ascheri, Denise Miller, and
Michelle Johnson, by counsel, hereby submit this Motion for Summary Judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
In compliance with Local Rule 7.1(a), on February 14, 2014, Plaintiffs
counsel conferred with Defendants counsel. Plaintiffs counsel explained the
nature of Plaintiffs motion and its legal basis, but Defendant did not concur in the
relief sought.
2:12-cv-10038-DML-MJH Doc # 88 Filed 02/17/14 Pg 1 of 49 Pg ID 3588
2
Dated: February 17, 2014 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John A. Knight
Michael J. Steinberg (P43085)
Jay D. Kaplan (P38197)
Kary L. Moss (P49759)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
American Civil Liberties Union Fund
of Michigan
2966 Woodward Ave.
Detroit, MI 28201
(313) 578-6814
msteinberg@aclumich.org
kaplan@aclumich.org
kmoss@aclumich.org
John A. Knight
Attorney for Plaintiffs
American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation
180 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 2300
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 201-9740
jaknight@aclu.org
Amanda C. Goad
Foundation
1313 West 8th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213) 977-9500
agoad@aclu.org
Donna M. Welch, P.C. (admission
pending)
Bradley H. Weidenhammer (admission
pending)
Amy E. Crawford
Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
300 North LaSalle St.
Chicago, IL 60654
(312) 862-2000
dwelch@kirkland.com
bweidenhammer@kirkland.com
amy.crawford@kirkland.com
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DENISE MILLER, and MICHELLE
JOHNSON, Case No. 2:12-cv-10038-DML-MJH
Plaintiffs, Hon. David M. Lawson
vs.
Michigan,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED............................................iv
CONTROLLING OR MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES..........v-vi
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................vii-xi
INTRODUCTION................................................................................1
UNDISPUTED FACTS........................................................................2
I. PASSAGE OF THE ACT AND ITS ECONOMIC IMPACT .....2
A. The History and Passage of the Act ..................................2
B. The Financial Impact of the Act........................................6
1. Initial Figures..........................................................6
2. Cost Savings to the State.........................................7
3. Cost Savings to Local Units of Government ...........10
II. THE LAWS IMPACT ON THE PLAINTIFFS .........................12
ARGUMENT........................................................................................15
I. PLAINTIFFS HAVE SUCCEEDED ON THE MERITS............16
A. The Act Violates Plaintiffs Rights to Equal Protection ....16
1. The Act Intentionally Targets Gay and Lesbian
Families for Differential Treatment on the Basis
of Sexual Orientation..............................................16
2. The Act Has No Rational Basis...............................18
a. The Act Does Not Cut the States Costs........18
iii
b. The Act Does Not Promote Traditional
Marriage or Enforce Existing Law...........22
3. The Act Was Motivated by An Impermissible
Purpose to Discriminate..........................................23
B. The Act Also Fails Under Heightened Scrutiny ................27
1. Gays and Lesbians Are a Suspect or a
Quasi-Suspect Class................................................27
2. The Act Fails Heightened Scrutiny .........................32
II. PLAINTIFFS WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM IF
THE ACT IS ENFORCED .........................................................32
III. THE BALANCE OF THE EQUITIES FAVORS ENTRY OF
AN INJUNCTION......................................................................34
IV. THE PUBLIC INTEREST FAVORS AN INJUNCTION...........34
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................35
iv
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED
1. Whether the undisputed material facts show that 2011 P.A. 297 (the Act)
intentionally discriminates against lesbian and gay public employees and
their domestic partners because of their sexual orientation.
2. Whether the Act violates Plaintiffs rights to equal protections in that it has
no rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest, including the
purported goals of costs savings, promoting traditional marriage, or
enforcing the marriage amendment and the Natl Pride at Work v. Governor,
748 N.W.2d 524 (Mich. 2008) decision.
3. Whether the Act violates Plaintiffs rights to equal protection in that it was
motivated by an impermissible purpose to discriminate against gays and
lesbians.
4. Whether gays and lesbians are a suspect or a quasi-suspect class.
5. Whether the Act fails strict or intermediate scrutiny.
6. Whether the Act must be permanently enjoined, because without an
injunction Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm and the balance of equities
and the public interest favor entry of an injunction.
v
CONTROLLING OR MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES
Court Rules:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56
Cases:
Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. Alaska,
122 P.3d 781 (Alaska 2005)
Bassett v. Snyder,
951 F. Supp. 2d 939 (E.D. Mich. 2013)
Bonnell v. Lorenzo,
241 F.3d 800 (6th Cir. 2001)
Collins v. Brewer,
727 F. Supp. 2d 797 (D. Ariz. 2010)
Dragovich v. United States Dept of the Treasury,
848 F. Supp. 2d 1091 (N.D. Cal. 2012)
Erie Cnty. Retirees Assn v. Cnty. of Eria, Pa.,
220 F.3d 193 (3d Cir. 2000)
Johnson v. New York,
49 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 1995)
Meml Hosp. v. Maricopa Cnty.,
415 U.S. 250 (1974)
Moore v. Detroit Sch. Reform Bd.,
293 F.3d 352 (6th Cir. 2002)
Planned Parenthood Assn of Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati,
822 F.2d 1390 (6th Cir. 1987)
Schalk v. Teledyne, Inc.,
751 F. Supp. 1261 (W.D. Mich. 1990)
vi
SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs.,
740 F.3d 471 (9th Cir. 2014)
Stemler v. City of Florence,
126 F.3d 856 (6th Cir. 1997)
Windsor v. United States,
699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012)
United States Dept of Agric. v. Moreno,
413 U.S. 528 (1973)
W. Tenn. Chapter of Assoc. Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. City of Memphis,
138 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (W.D. Tenn. 2000)
United States v. Windsor,
113 S. Ct. 2675 (2013)
vii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Court Rules:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) .............................................................................................15
Cases:
Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. Alaska,
122 P.3d 781 (Alaska 2005)........................................................................17
Alco Universal Inc. v. City of Flint,
192 N.W.2d 247 (Mich. 1971) ....................................................................25
Atty Gen. Bill Schuette v. Mich. Civil Serv. Commn,
No. 11-538 (Mich. Cir. Ct. Oct. 6, 2011) ......................................................4
Barbour v. Dept of Soc. Servs.,
497 N.W.2d 216 (Mich. App. 1993) ...........................................................30
Bassett v. Snyder,
951 F. Supp. 2d 939 (E.D. Mich. 2013) ...............................................passim
Baxtrom v. Herold,
383 U.S. 107 (1966)....................................................................................19
Bedford v. New Hampshire Cmty. Technical Coll. Sys.,
No. 04-E-229, 2006 WL 1217283 (N.H. Super. Ct. May 3, 2006) ..............18
Bonnell v. Lorenzo,
241 F.3d 800 (6th Cir. 2001)................................................................. 32-33
Bowers v. Hardwick,
478 U.S. 186 (1986)....................................................................................28
City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr.,
473 U.S. 432 (1985).........................................................................16, 28-29
Clark v. Jeter,
486 U.S. 456 (1988)....................................................................................32
viii
Collins v. Brewer,
727 F. Supp. 2d 797 (D. Ariz. 2010),
affd, 656 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2011) ..................................................... 18, 33
Davis v. Prison Health Serv.,
679 F.3d 433 (6th Cir. 2012).......................................................................27
Diaz v. Brewer,
656 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2011),
cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2884 (2013)........................................... 18, 21, 26-27
Dragovich v. United States Dept of the Treasury,
848 F. Supp. 2d 1091 (N.D. Cal. 2012)............................................18, 26-27
Elrod v. Burns,
427 U.S. 347 (1976).............................................................................. 32-33
Erie Cnty. Retirees Assn v. Cnty. of Eria, Pa.,
220 F.3d 193 (3d Cir. 2000)........................................................................17
Frontiero v. Richardson,
411 U.S. 677 (1973).........................................................................28-29, 32
Golden v. Kelsey-Hayes Co.,
845 F. Supp. 410 (E.D. Mich. 1994),
affd, 73 F.3d 648 (6th Cir. 1996) ...............................................................34
Golinski v. U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt.,
824 F. Supp. 2d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2012)............................................. 28, 31, 32
Griego v. Oliver,
316 P.3d 865 (N.M. 2013) ..........................................................................28
High Tech Gays v. Def. Indus. Sec. Clearance Office,
895 F.2d 563 (9th Cir. 1990).......................................................................29
In re Marriage Cases,
183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008) ...................................................................... 28, 31
ix
Johnson v. New York,
49 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 1995)............................................................................17
Jolivette v. Husted,
694 F.3d 760 (6th Cir. 2012).......................................................................15
Kerrigan v. Commr of Pub. Health,
957 A.2d 407 (Conn. 2008)....................................................... 28, 29, 30, 32
Lawrence v. Texas,
539 U.S. 558 (2003).................................................................. 19, 28, 29, 31
Lyng v. Castillo,
477 U.S. 635 (1986)................................................................... 28-29, 30, 31
Martin-Marietta Corp. v. Bendix Corp.,
690 F.2d 558 (6th Cir. 1982)................................................................. 34-35
Meml Hosp. v. Maricopa Cnty.,
415 U.S. 250 (1974)....................................................................................21
Moore v. Detroit Sch. Reform Bd.,
293 F.3d 352 (6th Cir. 2002).......................................................................24
Natl Pride at Work v. Governor,
748 N.W.2d 524 (Mich. 2008) .......................................................... 2, 19, 22
Obergefell v. Wymyslo,
No. 1:13-cv-501, 2013 WL 6726688 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 23, 2013) ................28
Pedersen v. Office of Pers. Mgmt.,
881 F. Supp. 2d 294 (D. Conn. 2012).................................................... 28, 29
Perry v. Brown,
725 F.3d. 1140 (9th Cir. 2013)....................................................................28
Perry v. Schwarzenegger,
704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010)............................................ 28, 31, 32
x
Planned Parenthood Assn of Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati,
822 F.2d 1390 (6th Cir. 1987).....................................................................34
Plyler v. Doe,
457 U.S. 202 (1982)....................................................................................16
Romer v. Evans,
517 U.S. 620 (1996).............................................................................. 23-24
Scarbrough v. Morgan Cnty. Bd. of Educ.,
470 F.3d 250 (6th Cir. 2006).......................................................................28
Schalk v. Teledyne, Inc.,
751 F. Supp. 1261 (W.D. Mich. 1990),
affd, 948 F.2d 1290 (6th Cir. 1991) ................................................33, 34-35
SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs.,
740 F.3d 471 (9th Cir. 2014).......................................................................28
Stemler v. City of Florence,
126 F.3d 856 (6th Cir. 1997)................................................................. 23-24
TriHealth, Inc. v. Bd. of Commrs, Hamilton Cnty., Ohio,
430 F.3d 783 (6th Cir. 2005).......................................................................16
United States v. Windsor,
133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013).....................................................................21, 23-24
United States Dept of Agric. v. Moreno,
413 U.S. 528 (1973)................................................................... 23-24, 25-26
Vance v. Bradley,
440 U.S. 93 (1979)......................................................................................19
Varnum v. Brien,
763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009)................................................................ 28, 29
Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Corp.,
429 U.S. 252 (1977)....................................................................................24
xi
W. Tenn. Chapter of Assoc. Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. City of Memphis,
138 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (W.D. Tenn. 2000) ............................................. 21-22
Washington v. Glucksberg,
521 U.S. 702 (1997)....................................................................................32
Windsor v. United States,
699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012).................................................................passim
Winter v. Natural Resources Def. Council, Inc.,
555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)..................................................................................32
Statutes and Ordinances:
2011 P.A. 152 .........................................................................................................8
2011 P.A. 297 ................................................................................................passim
I.R.C. 152 (2006) .................................................................................................5
M.C.L. 15.583....................................................................................................18
M.C.L. 18.1115(5), 18.1349...............................................................................7
M.C.L. 37.2102(1), 37.2202, 37.2302, 37.2402, 37.2502........................... 30-31
M.C.L. 141.913, 141.911 ...................................................................................7
M.C.L. 141.917....................................................................................................8
M.C.L. 700.2103..................................................................................................5
M.C.L. 750.158, 750.159, 750.338, 750.338a ..................................................29
Mich. Const. Art. 1, 25...................................................................................2, 30
Mich. Const. Art. IX, 10 ......................................................................................7
Mich. Const. Art. IX, 30 ......................................................................................7
1
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs are local government, public school, and community college
employees (Bassett, Ways, Jach, Bloss, and Miller (collectively, the Public
Employees)) and their committed life partners (Kennedy, Breakey, Ramber,
Ascheri, and Johnson (collectively, the Domestic Partners)). The government
bodies that employ the Public Employees offer health insurance benefits for other
qualified adults or some similar designation, which Public Employees have been
able to provide to their Domestic Partners. However, in December 2011, the Public
Employee Domestic Partner Benefit Restriction Act (the Act) became law. The
Act imposes a discriminatory ban on partner health insurance coverage while
leaving employers free to provide benefits not only to their heterosexual
employees spouses but also to a broad swath of other related or unrelated
individuals. 2011 P.A. 297 (codified at M.C.L. 15.581-15.585) (Ex. A). Many
of the Domestic Partners, some of whom have serious medical conditions such as
high blood pressure and glaucoma, lost their health insurance coverage because of
the Act, exposing them to potentially severe financial and health consequences.
Plaintiffs filed suit on January 5, 2012 and in March they moved to
preliminarily enjoin the enforcement of the Act. Defendant moved to dismiss
Plaintiffs complaint. On June 28, 2013, this Court denied Defendants motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs equal protection claim, granted Plaintiffs motion for a
2
preliminary injunction, and enjoined the enforcement of the Act. Bassett v. Snyder,
951 F. Supp. 2d 939 (E.D. Mich. 2013) (Docket No. 75). Now Plaintiffs move for
summary judgment and ask this Court to enter a permanent injunction against the
enforcement of the Act.
UNDISPUTED FACTS
I. PASSAGE OF THE ACT AND ITS ECONOMIC IMPACT
A. The History and Passage of the Act
After Michigan passed an anti-gay marriage amendment in 2004, Mich.
Const. Art. 1, 25 (the marriage amendment), Attorney General Mike Cox
issued an opinion stating that providing benefits to domestic partners violated the
marriage amendment when eligibility for benefits was characterized by reference
to the attributes of marriage. Mich. Atty. Gen. Op. 7171 (Mar. 16, 2005) (Ex. F).
Subsequently, in Natl Pride at Work v. Governor, 748 N.W.2d 524, 534-36 (Mich.
2008), the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that existing government plans for
providing health insurance coverage to same-sex domestic partners on the basis of
attributes similar to those of marriagesuch as the sex of the partnersviolated
the marriage amendment. Id.
Many Michigan public employers changed their benefits policies to conform
to the National Pride decision, by dropping coverage criteria that pertained to
attributes similar to marriage and instead provided benefits for other qualified
3
adults, other eligible adults, household members, or some similar
designation.
1
(See Exs. B-E (criteria used by Plaintiffs employers)). For example,
employers ended the policies limitation to same-sex domestic partners by
dropping all reference to the sex of the partners.
However, some Michigan lawmakers did not want same-sex partners to
receive health benefits even if they were provided pursuant to benefits plans that
conformed to National Pride. When Michigans Civil Service Commission
(Commission) announced in January 2011 that it would extend health insurance
benefits to unrelated designees of State workers with whom the workers had been
living for at least twelve months, Rep. Pete Lund, who later co-sponsored the Act,
disparaged this decision as an absolute abomination . . . that shifts peoples hard
earned dollars into the pockets of same-sex partners. Press Release, Michigan
House Republicans, Lund Calls to Abolish Civil Service Commission (Jan. 27,
2011) (Ex. G-2).
2
Representative Dave Agema, the Acts lead sponsor, declared:
The people of this state, the Attorney General and the Michigan Supreme Court
have all decided in recent years that marriage is between one man and one woman
1
For the sake of simplicity, this brief refers to all such benefits as other qualified
adult or OQA benefits.
2
Defendant has stipulated that Exhibits G-1 to G-13 are true, correct and authentic
copies of the originals issued by the legislators and limits his objection to their
admissibility to relevance and prejudice. (Ex. 19 2-14). They are relevant to
show the legislatures discriminatory animus towards gays and lesbians. Bassett,
951 F. Supp. 2d at 96.
4
and to extend health benefits to unions that do not fall into that category is
disrespectful to the people. Press Release, Michigan House Republicans, Agema
Calls CSC Ruling Utterly Irresponsible (Jan. 26, 2011) (Ex. G-1). When the
House failed to obtain a two-thirds majority to reverse the Commissions decision
in March 2011, Agema again accused the Commission of act[ing] as if it is above
the law and disregard[ing] the state constitution in its daily work by [e]xtending
health benefits to the live-in partners and roommates of state employees. Press
Release, Michigan House Republicans, Agema Appalled by Dems No Votes
(Mar. 23, 2011) (Ex. G-3). In May 2011, Attorney General Bill Schuette filed suit
in Michigan state court to enjoin the Commissions provision of benefits to other
eligible adult individuals (OEAIs), claiming that granting the benefits exceeded the
States authority.
3
In June 2011, Agema introduced the Public Employee Domestic Partner
Benefit Restriction Act. H.B. 4770, 96th Leg. (Mich. 2011). As its name makes
plain, the Acts only objective is to prevent public employees domestic partners
from receiving health insurance.
4
The relevant portion of the Act reads:
3
The court rejected Schuettes argument and ruled that the Commission was within
its authority to offer benefits to OEAIs. Atty Gen. Bill Schuette v. Mich. Civil Serv.
Commn, No. 11-538 (Mich. Cir. Ct. Oct. 6, 2011) (Ex. H), affd, slip op., No.
306685 (Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2013), 2013 WL 85805, appeal denied, 493 Mich. 974
(2013).
4
The House Fiscal Agencys analysis of the Act discussed the continued provision
of domestic partner benefits after the marriage amendment and the National Pride
5
(1) A public employer shall not provide medical benefits or other fringe
benefits for an individual currently residing in the same residence as a
public employee, if the individual is not 1 or more of the following:
(a) Married to the employee.
(b) A dependent of the employee, as defined in the internal
revenue code of 1986.
(c) Otherwise eligible to inherit from the employee under the laws
of intestate succession in this state.
(2) A provision in a contract entered into after the effective date of this
act that conflicts with the requirements of this act is void.
2011 P.A. 297 (Ex. A). The Act aims to slam the door on benefits for employees
partners while leaving it wide open to benefits for employees distant relatives
(regardless of whether they live with the employee or depend on the employee for
support) and even to unrelated people who meet the IRSs definition of
dependent. See M.C.L. 700.2103 (establishing intestate succession to
descendants of decedents grandparents, which encompasses blood relatives as
distant as first cousins several times removed, grandnieces and their offspring,
etc.); I.R.C. 152 (2006); see also Internal Revenue Service, Exemptions,
Standard Deductions, and Filing Information, No. 501, at 16 (2011) (noting, as an
example, that an unrelated friend and her 3-year-old child can be a taxpayers
dependents under certain circumstances). Further demonstrating that the Act is
irrationally aimed at domestic partners, the Act applies only to adults who resid[e]
in the same residence as a public employee, such that employers could legally
case as the Apparent Problem solved by the Act. House Fiscal Agency, Prohibit
Domestic Partners Benefits and Exclude from Collective Bargaining 1-4 (Sept. 6,
2011) (Ex. I) (Ex. 19 15).
6
offer benefits to unmarried partners of employees so long as they do not live with
the covered employees.
The Act was signed into law by Defendant in December 2011. Defendant
issued a signing statement clarifying that the provisions of the bill do not extend
to university employees or state employees under civil service, consistent with the
limitations of the Michigan Constitution. (Ex. J at 2) (Ex. 19 16).
B. The Financial Impact of the Act
1. Initial Figures
The legislature passed the Act based on false and inflated estimates and with
no information about its actual financial impact. The Office of the State Employer
(OSE) provided an initial estimate of how much the Act would save the State,
but it assessed the cost of coverage only to State employees, who are not covered
by the Act. (Ex. J. at 1-2). And the initial estimate the OSE providedsavings as
high as $8 million (Ex. I at 5 n.3) (Ex. 19 15)turned out to be inflated and was
later revised to less than $893,000 by the Senate Fiscal Agency. (Ex. K at 2) (Ex.
19 17). Thus when the Legislature passed the Act, it had no information about the
supposed cost savings of eliminating benefits to those employees actually covered
by the Act. (Ex. I at 6 (Comprehensive data are not available, so estimates cannot
be made for what the savings would be for other public employers defined in the
bill (i.e. city, village, township, county, political subdivision, school district,
7
community college, public university, etc.)); Ex. 3.A at 1-6, Ex. 3.G at 1-2; Ex.
3.J at Bates No. SOM 1076).
2. Cost Savings to the State
The Act will not save the State money. The State funds local units of
government according to formulas unrelated to health care benefits, and local units
of government have discretion to allocate those funds. Put simply, the amount of
money the State will expend in a given fiscal year is exactly the same with the Act
as without it. (Ex. 7 at 2 (admitting that [n]o impact on the State or its budge[t]
have resulted from the preliminary injunction being entered in this case.)).
State funds are allocated to local units of government by formulas set by the
Michigan Constitution and statutes.
5
These formulas are based largely on
population (for cities, villages, townships, and counties) or number of pupils (for
schools).
6
These calculations do not take into account the number of public
employees employed by that unit of government, the number of public employees
receiving health insurance benefits, or the number of insureds covered by the unit
5
Under state law, the State must direct at least 48.97% of all spending to local
governmental units. Mich. Const. Art. IX, 30; M.C.L. 18.1115(5), 18.1349;
State Budget Office, Statement of the Proportion of Total State Spending from
State Sources Paid to Units of Local Government (Legal Basis), at 4 (2011) (Ex. L)
(Ex. 19 18).
6
The State provides funds to cities, villages, townships, and counties through
revenue-sharing payments, allocated largely by population. See Mich. Const. Art.
IX, 10; M.C.L. 141.913, 141.911. Public school districts are funded through
the School Aid Fund, which is allocated on a per-pupil funding formula. House
Fiscal Agency, Background Briefing: School Aid 9-10, 22-28 (2014) (Ex. 10).
8
of government. As such, the type of insurance benefits local units of government
choose to provide their employees does not affect the amount of state funding that
they receive, as Defendant admits. (Ex. 3.F at 3-11).
Moreover, if local units of government are forced to stop offering other
qualified adult (OWA) benefits, the money they spent on those benefits will not
be returned to the State. The state funding provided to local units of government is
generally unrestricted, which means that these entities can spend state money in the
ways they feel are most appropriate for their specific communities.
7
M.C.L.
141.917 (noting that revenue-sharing money is given to a citys, villages, or
townships general fund); (Dolehanty Decl. 30 (Any cost savings associated
with an involuntary termination of OQA benefits to the five employees resulting
from [the Act] would accrue to [Ingham] County or potentially to the federal
government, not to the state.) (Ex. 11)); Comsa Dep. at 40-41 ([T]he source of
the funds to pay for [OQA benefits] would be our general funds.) (Ex. 13);
Skrobola Dep. at 35 (Ex. 16); Ex. 3.A at 1-7, 11; Ex. 3.I at 19, 21; Ex. 8 at 53).
7
In 2011, the Legislature enacted 2011 P.A. 152, which placed some limitations on
how much local entities can pay for employee health insurance benefits. Local
units either can keep their benefits spending below a hard cap defined in the statute
or can elect to pay only 80% of their employees health benefits costs. 2011 P.A.
152 3, 4. Local units that do not comply with P.A. 152 have a small portion of
their state funding from state sources reduced by ten percent. Id. 9. Unlike the
Act challenged here, P.A. 152 does not single out a specific group to be excluded
from coverage. Further, local governments can actually vote to opt out of the
restrictions in P.A. 152. Id. 8.
9
If anything, the Act is likely to diminish the state fisc. Many public
employees pay state income tax on their employers contributions to their partners
benefits; if employers can no longer offer these benefits, the State will lose this tax
revenue. (Badgett Decl. and Report at 9-10 (Ex. 9); Ex. 15 at 22; Ex. 11 16).
Also, to the extent that individuals affected by the Act lack access to other
insurance, they will rely on Medicaid or other government-sponsored health care
programs. (Badgett Report at 10-11 (Ex. 9).
The testimony of Defendants expert, Dr. Price, provides no factual support
for a claim of cost savings to the State. He asserts that [r]estricting partner health
benefits to married couples creates an additional incentive for couples to marry and
this decision to marry produces economic benefits for the state of Michigan.
(Price Report 1, 9, 42 (Ex. 14, dep. ex. 1)). He agrees that the relevant
comparison for purpose of evaluating the economic impact of the Act are marriage
versus cohabitation, (Price Dep. at 134, 137-39 (Ex. 14)), but admits that he has no
empirical basis to assert that marriage generates any positive outcomes versus
cohabitation. (Price Dep. at 124, 126, 139, 157-58, 160-61, 207, 230-31, 239, 248-
49 (Ex. 14)). Further, he has no empirical basis to assert that the marriages
allegedly caused by the Act would generate the same outcomes as marriage
generally. (Ex. 14 at 162-68, 170, 172, 203, 205). Finally, he analyzed only
hypothetical benefits of the Act, not costs, in violation of his own stated
10
methodology. (Ex. 14 at 33, 34, 37, 39, 42, 105-07, 206-07, 210, 217-18, 220). See
also Pls M. to Exclude Test. of Dr. Joseph Price. Moreover, all of the economic
benefits that Dr. Price asserts result from denying OQA benefits to different-sex
domestic partners. Different-sex domestic partners only began to receive health
insurance coverage as a consequence of the States efforts to deny legal protections
to same-sex couples and health insurance coverage to the same-sex domestic
partners of public employees. (Ex. 15 at 11-12; Ex. 1 4-5; Wilkerson Decl. 12
(Ex. 12)).
3. Cost Savings to Local Units of Government
The Act will also result in only minimal, if any, cost savings to local units of
government, who dedicate only a portion of their total expenditures to employee
health care benefits. Ann Arbor Public Schools, for example, spent only 10.04% of
its 2012-13 general fund budget on employee health care benefits. (Ex. 13, Comsa
dep. ex. 6; Ex. 13 at 28-29).
Moreover, OQA benefits comprise only a tiny fraction of these employers
spending for health care, since only a tiny fraction of public employees have
enrolled OQAs in employer-sponsored benefit plans. For example, of the 689
employees of the City of Kalamazoo, only six had added an OQA to their health
plan as of late 2011 (Ex. V-1 1, 7) and the number of OQAs had not changed as
of February 2014 (Ex. 15 at 31-32). Of approximately 1,800 full-time Ann Arbor
11
Public Schools employees, 33 had enrolled other eligible adults as of January
2012 (Ex. V-2 2, 5) while only twenty were enrolled in February 2014. (Ex. 13
at 21-22, 24 and Comsa dep. ex. 2). (See also Ex. 1 7, 8 (three OQAs out of 832
eligible Ingham County employees in 2012); Ex. 11 at 7, 8 (five of 798 in
Ingham County in 2014); Ex. 2.B at 17, 20-21, Ex. 2.C 3, 13 (one OQA of 402
employees eligible to participate in group health insurance at Kalamazoo Valley
Community College in 2012)). These numbers are consistent with broader
evidence indicating that few employees use partner benefits. (Badgett Report at 8
(Ex. 9) (noting that only 0.3% to 1.8% of employees eligible to sign up an other
qualified adult actually took advantage of the coverage)). Thus, any savings from
eliminating these benefits would be a sliver of each local unit of governments total
budget. (See also Ex. V-1 12 (City of Kalamazoo costs for OQA benefits was
0.45% of total 2011 health insurance costs); Ex. 16 at 20-21 and Skrobola dep. ex.
1 (estimated Kalamazoo OQA costs went down between 2011 and 2012); Ex. V-2
11 (Ann Arbor Public Schools costs for other eligible adults (OEA) coverage
were expected to be 1.2% of health insurance costs in 2011-2012); Ex. 13 at 32 and
Comsa dep. ex. 2 (costs for OEA coverage dropped for 2013 from two previous
calendar years); Ex. 11 at 13 (projected cost of Ingham County 2014 OQA
coverage ($22,163) represents .2% of the 2014 approximate health insurance costs
12
($10,035,000)
8
).
In addition, the Act may impose additional costs on employers. Local units
of governments offer OQA benefits because they have decided that doing so is
central to attracting and retaining the best and the brightest. (Ex. V-1 20-25; Ex.
15 at 25-29 (Jerome Post chose City of Kalamazoo job over private sector job
offers because of availability of benefits for same-sex domestic partners); Ex. 15 at
54-57; V-2 15-19; Ex. 13 at 17-21; Ex. 1 23-27; Ex. 12 16-19). Not
offering such benefits may increase employee attrition, raising the cost to local
employers of attracting and retaining talented employees. (Badgett Report at 12-15
(Ex. 9); Ex. V-1 23-25; Ex. V-2 18-19; Ex. 15 at 56-57; Ex. 1 25; Ex. 12
17). The Act may even cause couples who rely on partner benefits to move out of
state (Ways Decl. 11 (Ex. 18.C); Breakey Decl. 12 (Ex. 18.D)), which further
burdens local employers and deprives the State of tax revenue.
As such, the cost savings from the Act to local units of government will be
negligible at best. Yet the local units of government do not seek these negligible
cost savingsrather, they have determined that providing these benefits is a
worthwhile expenditure.
II. THE LAWS IMPACT ON THE PLAINTIFFS
Plaintiffs are gay or lesbian public employees and their domestic partners.
8
The declaration incorrectly states that the percentage is .002%.
13
On average, the plaintiff couples have been in their loving, committed relationships
for close to 20 years.
9
Plaintiffs relationships are founded on mutual pledges of
emotional and financial support: each couple is financially interdependent, and
nearly all of the Plaintiffs have provided a durable power of attorney to their
partners.
10
Three of the couples (Theresa Bassett and Carol Kennedy, Peter Ways
and Joe Breakey, and JoLinda Jach and Barbara Ramber) are raising children
together.
11
The Public Employees receive health insurance through their jobs with a
county, city, school district, or community college in Michigan.
12
Each Public
Employee has job duties and responsibilities that are equivalent to the duties and
responsibilities of their heterosexual colleagues with comparable jobs.
13
The Public
Employees employers allow them to enroll their partners as OQAs (or similar
designation). (Exs. B-E). Each of the Domestic Partners isor wasenrolled in
9
(Bassett Decl. 4 (Ex. 18.A), Kennedy Decl. 3 (Ex. 18.B) (27 years); Ways
Decl. 3 (Ex. 18.C), Breakey Decl. 3 (Ex. 18.D) (22 years); Jach Decl. 4 (Ex.
18.E), Ramber Decl. 3 (Ex. 18.F) (19 years); Bloss Decl. 4 (Ex. 18.G), Ascheri
Decl. 3 (Ex. 18.H) (20 years); Miller Decl. 4 (Ex. 18.I), Johnson Decl. 3 (Ex.
18.J) (10 years)).
10
(Ex. 18.A 4-5; Ex. 18.B 3-4; Ex. 18.C 3, 5; Ex. 18.D 3-4; Ex. 18.E
4-5; Ex. 18.F 3-4; Ex. 18.G 4-5; Ex. 18.H 3, 5; Ex. 18.I 4-5; Ex. 18.J
3-4).
11
(Ex. 18.A 6; Ex. 18.B 5; Ex. 18.C 4; Ex. 18.D 5; Ex. 18.E 6; Ex. 18.F
4).
12
(Ex. 18.A 7; Ex. 18.C 7; Ex. 18.E 9; Ex. 18.G 7; Ex. 18.I 6-7).
13
(Ex. 18.A 2; Ex. 18.C 4; Ex. 18.E 2; Ex. 18.G 2; Ex. 18.I 2).
14
one of these plans as his or her sole health insurance.
14
If a permanent injunction is not granted, Plaintiffs will lose not only a
valuable employment benefit but also the security and peace of mind that come
with family health insurance coverage. The couples will be forced to allow the
Domestic Partners to go without coverage or to find individual health insurance for
the partner that, in each case, will be significantly more costly and/or less
comprehensive than the coverage under their partners plans.
15
For example,
between the time Barbaras coverage with the City of Kalamazoo ended on
December 31, 2012 and was restored because of the preliminary injunction on
August, 1, 2013, the couple paid $1,798 in premiums for individual coverage for
Barbara that had higher deductibles ($5,000 compared to $200 for in network
care), larger medication and office visit co-pays, and no dental coverage. In
contrast, after the injunction was entered, JoLinda could cover Barbara on her City
of Kalamazoo family medical plan without an increase in the monthly premium
and could provide her dental care coverage for $6 a month.
16
During the ten
months between the time Gerardos OQA coverage ended on December 31, 2012
and was restored on November 1, 2013, Doak and Gerardo paid $4,595 in
premiums for an individual policy for Gerardo and $993 in out-of-pocket costs for
14
(Ex. 18.B 7, 8; Ex. 18.D 6, 7; Ex. 18.F 6; Ex. 18.H 6; Ex. 18.J 5).
15
(Ex. 18.A 9; Ex. 18.B 9; Ex. 18.C 9; Ex. 18.D 9; Ex. 18.E 11; Ex. 18.F
8; Ex. 18.G 10; Ex. 18.H 8; Ex. 18.I 9; Ex. 18.J 8).
16
(Ex. 18.E 8, 9, 11; Ex. 18.F 6, 8).
15
his medication, deductibles, and dental care as compared to the $1830 in premiums
he would have paid for OQA coverage that included dental care.
17
Several of the Domestic Partners cannot afford a lapse of insurance coverage
because they have conditions that require ongoing, uninterrupted care. For
example, Barbara Ramberwhose partner JoLinda Jach works for the City of
Kalamazoosuffered an eye injury and has developed glaucoma.
18
Without
medication, Barbara is in danger of going blind.
19
Gerardo Ascheriwhose partner
Doak Bloss works for Ingham Countyhas high blood pressure and high
cholesterol, which require ongoing medication and monitoring.
20
ARGUMENT
Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on their claim for permanent
injunctive relief because there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). This
Court previously concluded that Plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on the
merits; here, the uncontested facts show Plaintiffs actual success on their claim
that the Act violates their Constitutional rights to equal protection. See Jolivette v.
Husted, 694 F.3d 760, 765 (6th Cir. 2012) (In general, [t]he standard for a
preliminary injunction is essentially the same as for a permanent injunction with
17
(Ex. 18.G 7, 10; Ex. 18.H 8).
18
(Ex. 18.E 10; Ex. 18.F 7).
19
(Ex. 6 at 19-20).
20
(Ex. 18.G 9; Ex. 18.H 7).
16
the exception that [for a preliminary injunction] the plaintiff must show a
likelihood of success on the merits rather than actual success.) (inner quotation
marks and citations omitted).
I. PLAINTIFFS HAVE SUCCEEDED ON THE MERITS.
The Act violates Plaintiffs rights to equal protection by treating them
differently than similarly situated families on the sole basis of their sexual
orientation.
A. The Act Violates Plaintiffs Rights to Equal Protection.
The Equal Protection Clause commands that no State shall deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, which is essentially
a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike. City of
Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985) (citing Plyler v.
Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982)); TriHealth, Inc. v. Bd. of Commrs, Hamilton
Cnty., Ohio, 430 F.3d 783, 788 (6th Cir. 2005). The Act targets gay and lesbian
families for differential treatment without any legitimate justification and thus
violates the Equal Protection Clause.
1. The Act Intentionally Targets Gay and Lesbian Families for
Differential Treatment on the Basis of Sexual Orientation.
The Public Employees do the same work, have the same qualifications, and
show the same dedication as their heterosexual colleagues, and are therefore
entitled to equal compensation. Yet the Act intentionally burdens gay and lesbian
17
public employees and their partners because of their sexual orientation.
The Act creates a classification based on sexual orientation because it
both explicitly incorporates statutes that draw classifications based on sexual
orientation and renders access to benefits legally impossible only for gay and
lesbian couples. Bassett, 951 F. Supp. 2d at 963. It incorporates the definitions in
the Michigan marriage amendment and the intestacy statute, which distinguish
between opposite-sex couples, who are permitted to marry and can inherit under
intestacy, and same-sex couples, who cannot. Id. It is therefore discriminatory on
its face. See, e.g., Johnson v. New York, 49 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir. 1995) (striking a
classification as facially discriminatory because it incorporated another law that
distinguished on the basis of age); Erie Cnty. Retirees Assn v. Cnty. of Erie, Pa.,
220 F.3d 193, 211 (3d Cir. 2000) (determining that a classification based on
Medicare eligibility was an age-based facial classification because only persons
over sixty-five are eligible for Medicare).
Numerous courts (including this Court) have found that statutes restricting
benefits on the basis of marriage intentionally classify on the basis of sexual
orientation when gays and lesbians are explicitly excluded from marriage. Alaska
Civil Liberties Union v. Alaska, 122 P.3d 781, 788-89 (Alaska 2005) (applying
Alaska Constitution) (restriction of benefits to spouses was facially
discriminatory because states definition of spouse excluded same-sex couples);
18
Bedford v. New Hampshire Cmty. Technical Coll. Sys., No. 04-E-229, 2006 WL
1217283, at *6 (N.H. Super. Ct. May 3, 2006) (applying New Hampshire law);
Collins v. Brewer, 727 F. Supp. 2d 797, 803 (D. Ariz. 2010) (Because employees
involved in same-sex partnerships do not have the same right to marry as their
heterosexual counterparts, Section O has the effect of completely barring lesbians
and gays from receiving family benefits[, burdening] State employees with same-
sex domestic partners more than State employees with opposite-sex domestic
partners.), affd sub nom. Diaz v. Brewer, 656 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2011), cert.
denied, 133 S. Ct. 2884 (2013); Dragovich v. U.S. Dept of the Treasury, 848 F.
Supp. 2d 1091, 1100 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (law limiting benefit to married couples,
when same-sex couples cannot marry, discriminates on the basis of sexual
orientation).
The Acts intentional targeting of gays and lesbians is further underscored
by considering what the Act does not prohibit. Same-sex partnerswho under
existing law can neither marry their partners nor inherit from them under intestacy
lawcannot access employer-provided benefits. However, public employers
remain free to extend health care to a broad range of other relatives and
dependents. M.C.L. 15.583. The narrowness of the burden imposed by the statute
demonstrates that the Act was aimed at same-sex domestic partners. Because the
Act focuses on burdening lesbians and gays, rational basis review must be
19
conducted with closer scrutiny than the deference given other legislative
classifications. Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 97 (1979) (rational-basis review is
deferential absent some reason to infer antipathy); Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S.
558, 580 (2003) (OConnor, J., concurring) (When a law exhibits such a desire to
harm a politically unpopular group, [the Supreme Court has] applied a more
searching form of rational basis review to strike down such laws under the Equal
Protection Clause.).
2. The Act Has No Rational Basis.
As the Supreme Court has pointed out, equal protection require[s] that a
distinction made have some relevance to the purpose for which the classification is
made. Baxtrom v. Herold, 383 U.S. 107, 111 (1966). However, singling out gay
and lesbian families for differential treatment has no rational relationship to the
purported goals of saving costs, promoting traditional marriage, or enforcing the
marriage amendment and the National Pride decision.
a. The Act Does Not Cut the States Costs.
The desire to cut costs does not provide a rational basis for the Act. First,
the cost justification is fake, since the legislature considered only exaggerated
figures for state employee health insurance coverage rather than evaluating the
costs for local employees. See Undisputed Facts (Facts), supra, I.B.1. Second,
the decisions of local governments to provide OQA benefits will have no impact
20
on the amount of money the State provides those local governments whereas
banning OQA benefits will put an end to the tax revenue the State receives on the
value of those benefits and may increase the States costs for government-
sponsored health care programs. See Facts, supra, I.B.2. Finally, the Act will save
only a tiny fraction of local government employers health insurance outlays and
none of these savings would be recouped by the State. Any savings to local
governments will be offset by increased costs to the public employers and are
unwanted by the employers themselves, as demonstrated by the fact that they chose
to offer these benefits in the first place. See Facts, supra, at I.C.2-3.
Defendants expert has opined that the Act will save State money by
encouraging different-sex OQAs to marry, but then admits that he only looked at
studies and data comparing married couples to single persons and that he has no
empirical basis to assert that moving people from cohabitation to marriage saves
the State money. (Ex.14 at 124, 126, 139, 157-58, 160-61, 207, 230-31, 239, 248-
49). Second, Dr. Price admits that he has no factual support for his claim that the
marriages that purportedly result from the Act will result in cost savings for the
State. (Ex. 14 at 162-68, 170, 172, 203, 205). Third, Dr. Price admits that he
analyzed only hypothetical benefits of the Act without addressing costs, (Ex. 14 at
33, 34, 37, 39, 42, 105-07, 206-07, 210, 217-18, 220), and that he has no basis for
his assertion that the benefits he claims will result from incentivizing marriage will
21
outweigh the costs from the Act. (Ex. 14 at 218-19). Finally, these hypothetical
cost savings from the Acts impact on unmarried different-sex couples fail to
justify the injury the Act causes to same-sex domestic partners. (Id. at 223-25). The
history of the Act makes it impossible to credit a state interest derived solely from
the laws theoretical impact on different-sex couples where disadvantaging same-
sex domestic partners was more than an incidental effect of the Act but was its
essence. United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2693 (2013).
While cost savings can be a legitimate state interest, such slight and
hypothetical cost savings cannot salvage a discriminatory bill such as this. See
Diaz v. Brewer, 656 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2011) (statute stripping same-sex partners
of benefits was properly enjoined as lacking rational basis, despite the states
asserted cost justification, where evidence showed that the cost of such benefits
were between 0.06% and 0.27% of the states total spending on health care
benefits). Even if the State could show some marginal savings, it may not protect
the public fisc by drawing an invidious distinction between its classes of citizens.
Meml Hosp. v. Maricopa Cnty., 415 U.S. 250, 263 (1974). Therefore, these
incidental cost savings cannot justify an otherwise discriminatory policy. W. Tenn.
Chapter of Assoc. Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. City of Memphis, 138 F. Supp.
2d 1015, 1028 (W.D. Tenn. 2000) ([C]onsiderations of the Citys financial health
and administrative efficiency cannot run roughshod over plaintiffs constitutional
22
rights.).
b. The Act Does Not Promote Traditional Marriage or
Enforce Existing Law.
To the extent that the Defendant is arguing that the Act promotes traditional
marriage, he has already abandoned that argument. (Def.s Am. Mot. To Dismiss,
Docket No. 17, at 24 ([I]t strains credulity to believe that a couple would marry
simply to obtain health benefits, or would acquiesce to participation in a
relationship they might not otherwise choose in order to qualify for the benefit.)).
Additionally, promotion of traditional marriage fails to explain the burden the
Act places on same-sex domestic partners who are unable to marry in Michigan.
Instead, it references a history of discrimination against the relationships of same-
sex couples of which the Act is the most recent chapter. Moreover, contrary to
what the Acts sponsors claimed, offering OQA benefits to domestic partners does
not violate the marriage amendment or National Pride. (See Ex. I at 6; Facts,
supra, at I.B). National Pride did not bar public employers from offering benefits
to same-sex partners; the Michigan Supreme Court held unconstitutional only
those plans that defined the relationship between the employee and the covered
individual by the same-sex nature of the partnership and by reference to attributes
similar to those of marriage. National Pride, 748 N.W.2d at 533-37. Putting aside
the question of whether this holding is consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment,
National Pride simply does not impose an absolute bar on the provision of benefits
23
to anyone other than a public employees spouse, blood relatives, or IRS
dependents.
In reality, the reference to the marriage amendment and the National Pride
case by the Acts proponents is shorthand for their plain intent to discriminate
against gay and lesbian families. Not content with prohibiting same-sex marriage
in Michigan, these lawmakers wanted to make sure that not a single state or local
tax dollar could be used to benefit same-sex partnersa purpose that strikes at the
heart of local employers attempt to promote workplace equality and has nothing to
do with protecting the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
(Ex. G-2 (referring to partner benefits as an absolute abomination . . . that shifts
peoples hard earned dollars into the pockets of same-sex partners)). Rep.
Agemas assertion that it is disrespectful to the people of Michigan to extend
health benefits to unions other than those between one man and one woman
(Ex. G-1) lays bare the intent to codify discrimination against lesbian and gay
public employees families based on social disapprobation for homosexuality. This
the Constitution does not permit. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 635 (1996).
3. The Act Was Motivated by An Impermissible Purpose to
Discriminate.
The Equal Protection Clause prohibits legislative classifications whose
primary purpose and effect is to harm an identifiable group. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at
2693; United States Dept of Agric. v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534 (1973) (equal
24
protection prohibits classifications based on the bare . . . desire to harm a
politically unpopular group.); Romer, 517 U.S. at 634; Stemler v. City of
Florence, 126 F.3d 856, 873-74 (6th Cir. 1997). In Windsor, the Court determined
the purpose of a statute by considering its history of . . . enactment and the
statutes own text. 133. S. Ct. at 2693-94. And a law whose primary purpose and
effect is to harm an identifiable group is unconstitutional, even if it incidentally
serves a neutral governmental interest. Id. at 2694 ([DOMAs] principal purpose
[was] to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency[,]
and no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and
injure same-sex couples and their families). The Sixth Circuit has directed courts
to look to a number of factors to determine whether a statute has an invidious
discriminatory purpose: (1) the impact of the official action on a particular group,
(2) the historical background of the challenged decision, especially if it reveals
numerous actions being taken for discriminatory purposes, (3) the sequence of
events that preceded the state action; (4) procedural or substantive departures from
the governments normal procedural process; and (5) the legislative or
administrative history. Moore v. Detroit Sch. Reform Bd., 293 F.3d 352, 369 (6th
Cir. 2002) (citing Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Corp., 429 U.S. 252,
266 (1977)).
Here, these factors show that the Act was the result of a legislative desire to
25
harm a politically unpopular group:
The burden of the Act falls directly and exclusively on employees with
same-sex partners. The Act expressly allows benefits for a wide range of
individuals outside the heterosexual nuclear family, while only lesbian and
gay families are left with no ability to gain benefits. (Unmarried different-
sex couples can marry to obtain benefits.)
The historical background and legislative history of the Act demonstrate
animus. See Background, supra, at I.A. Following passage of the marriage
amendment, opponents of gay rights sought and won an interpretation of the
amendment to bar benefits contingent on the existence of a same-sex
domestic partnership. But the Acts sponsors went further, expressing
disgust and outrage that gay public employees were receiving the same
partner benefits as their married colleagues. (Ex. G-2 (quoting Rep. Lund
(who co-sponsored the Act) as saying it was an absolute abomination to
provide benefits to public employees same-sex partners)).
The Act is a unique departure from the States strong tradition of allowing
municipalities to govern their own affairs (a concept known as home rule).
Alco Universal Inc. v. City of Flint, 192 N.W.2d 247, 249 (Mich. 1971)
(Michigan is a strong home rule state.). Never before has the legislature
prevented a class of people from bargaining with local public employers
(individually or collectively) for benefits. The Act is an unprecedented
expansion of state control over local public employers. (Ex. 3.F at 1, 2).
Thus there is strong direct and circumstantial evidence that the Act has no rational
basis, but instead is the product and expression of the legislatures purpose to harm
lesbians and gays.
United States Dept of Agric. v. Moreno also presented a situation in which
government benefits were conditioned on family structure and motivated by
impermissible purposed to discriminate. 413 U.S. 528. There, the Supreme Court
struck down a statute that barred individuals from receiving food stamps if they
26
lived in a household with other unrelated individuals. The desire to harm a
politically unpopular group, hippies, could not constitute a legitimate basis for
upholding the law. And although the government had a rational interest in
preventing food stamp fraud, the practical operation of the amendment would
allow the hippies allegedly abusing the system to change their housing
arrangements to retain eligibility while categorically barring only those persons
who are so desperately in need of aid that they cannot even afford to alter their
living arrangements so as to retain their eligibility. Id. at 538. Such a
classification was wholly without a rational basis. Id.
Similarly, in Diaz and Dragovich, laws that conditioned access to benefits
on family structures were found to be motivated by a desire to harm gays and
lesbians. Both involved laws that excluded unmarried people from access to
benefits. These cases held that the challenged provision serve[d] no legitimate
government interest and the enactment [was] tainted by animus against a politically
unpopular group. Dragovich, 848 F. Supp. 2d at 1103-04; Diaz, 656 F.3d at 1014-
15 (law was motivated by bare . . . desire to harm). The Diaz court added that
barring health coverage for unmarried partners may actually present a more
compelling scenario than Moreno because the plaintiffs were barred from
eligibility not by their financial circumstances but by operation of law. 656 F.3d at
1014.
27
The Act in question here is even more clearly unlawful than those at issue in
Diaz and Dragovich since the classification herethe family structure of same-sex
domestic partners, as compared not only to married heterosexual couples (Diaz) or
close family members (Dragovich) but to a broad group of familial relationships
that are far less intimateis even more attenuated from any legitimate purpose
than the classifications in those cases. The uncontested facts show that the Act was
motivated by an impermissible purpose to disadvantage lesbians and gays.
B. The Act Also Fails Under Heightened Scrutiny.
Although the Act fails even rational basis review, the Act should be
reviewed under heightened scrutiny because the Act discriminates against gays and
lesbians, a suspect or quasi-suspect class that has been subject to widespread
historical discrimination in Michigan and elsewhere.
1. Gays and Lesbians Are a Suspect or a Quasi-Suspect Class.
This Court has already concluded that [g]ays and lesbians as a group would
seem to satisfy each of the[ ] factors used to assess whether a class is suspect or
quasi-suspect and that [t]he tarnished provenance of Davis [v. Prison Health
Serv., 679 F.3d 433 (6th Cir. 2012)] and the cases upon which it relies provides
ample reasons to revisit the question of whether sexual orientation is a suspect
classification but that rational basis is the current standard applicable in the Sixth
Circuit. Bassett, 951 F. Supp. 2d at 961. Plaintiffs reassert their argument for
28
heightened scrutiny to preserve it for appeal.
The Sixth Circuits ruling in Davis that gays and lesbians are not a suspect
class relied on Scarbrough v. Morgan Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 470 F.3d 250, 261 (6th
Cir. 2006), which in turn relied on other case law following Bowers v. Hardwick,
478 U.S. 186 (1986), before it was overruled by Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 580. In the
wake of Lawrence and Windsor, two federal courts of appeals, four state supreme
courts, and numerous federal district courts have recognized that gays and lesbians
are entitled to heightened scrutiny as a class. See, e.g., SmithKline Beecham Corp.
v. Abbott Labs., 740 F.3d 471, 480-84 (9th Cir. 2014); Windsor v. United States,
699 F.3d 169, 181-85 (2d Cir. 2012); Griego v. Oliver, 316 P.3d 865, 880-84
(N.M. 2013); Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, 885-96 (Iowa 2009); In re
Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384, 441-44 (Cal. 2008); Kerrigan v. Commr of Pub.
Health, 957 A.2d 407, 425-31 (Conn. 2008); Obergefell v. Wymyslo, No. 1:13-cv-
501, 2013 WL 6726688, *14-*18 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 23, 2013); Golinski v. U.S.
Office of Pers. Mgmt., 824 F. Supp. 2d 968, 985-90 (N.D. Cal. 2012); Pedersen v.
Office of Pers. Mgmt., 881 F. Supp. 2d 294, 310-33 (D. Conn. 2012); Perry v.
Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921, 997 (N.D. Cal. 2010), appeal dismissed sub
nom. Perry v. Brown, 725 F.3d. 1140 (9th Cir. 2013).
The Supreme Court has identified four factors used to determine whether a
class is suspect or quasi-suspect so as to warrant heightened scrutiny: (1) whether
29
the class has suffered a history of discrimination; (2) whether the classs members
are a minority or politically powerless; (3) whether the class exhibits distinguishing
or immutable characteristics that define them as a discrete group; and/or
(4) whether the characteristic that defines the class bears no relation to ability to
perform or contribute to society. Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 686
(1973) (plurality opinion); Lyng v. Castillo, 477 U.S. 635, 638 (1986); Cleburne,
473 U.S. at 440-41. All four factors are met here.
First, there can be no dispute that gays and lesbians have historically
experienced discrimination, both nationwide and in Michigan. See, e.g., Windsor,
699 F.3d at 182; Pedersen, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 318; High Tech Gays v. Def. Indus.
Sec. Clearance Office, 895 F.2d 563, 573 (9th Cir. 1990); Varnum, 763 N.W.2d at
889; Kerrigan, 957 A.2d at 432. Until the Supreme Courts 2003 decision in
Lawrence, states were able to demean [gays and lesbians] existence or control
their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Lawrence, 539 U.S.
at 578.
21
This history of discrimination against gays and lesbians continues today in
Michigan. See generally Williams Institute, MichiganSexual Orientation and
21
Lawrence effectively brought an end to a series of state laws criminalizing same-
sex intimacy, including a Michigan statute that imposed lengthy prison sentences
for consensual sexual activity. See M.C.L. 750.158. Although Lawrence
precludes their enforcement, Michigans laws criminalizing private, adult,
consensual, noncommercial conduct have never been formally repealed. Id.; see
also M.C.L. 750.158, 750.159, 750.338, 750.338a .
30
Gender Identity Law and Documentation of Discrimination 2-4 (2009) (Ex. Q)
(documenting discrimination against gays and lesbians in Michigan in various
areas). Michigan's constitution denies gay and lesbian couples legal recognition of
a marriage or similar union. Mich. Const. Art. I, 25. Michigans civil rights
statutes provide no remedy for sexual orientation-based harassment and
discrimination in the workplace. Barbour v. Dept of Soc. Servs., 497 N.W.2d 216
(Mich. App. 1993). In 2012, crimes targeting gays, lesbians and bisexuals
constituted twelve percent of all reported Michigan hate crimes. Michigan State
Police, 2012 Hate/Bias Crime Report (Ex. 17). One recent study found that gays
and lesbians have a twenty-seven percent likelihood of experiencing discrimination
in obtaining housing in Michigan. Pam Kisch and Pat Winston, eds., Sexual
Orientation and Housing Discrimination in Michigan (2006) (Ex. S).
Second, although lack of political power is not essential for recognition as a
suspect or quasi-suspect class, Windsor, 699 F.3d at 181, gays and lesbians lack
the strength to politically protect themselves from wrongful discrimination. Id. at
184; Kerrigan, 957 A.2d at 444. See Lyng, 477 U.S. at 638. This is true both at a
national level and within Michigan. For example, in Michigan, gays and lesbians
have been thus far unable to secure protection under Michigans civil rights act,
which prohibits discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations,
or education based on height, weight, and eight other characteristics. See M.C.L.
31
37.2102(1), 37.2202, 37.2302, 37.2402, 37.2502; see also Golinski, 824 F.
Supp. 2d at 989 (reviewing recent developments nationwide and concluding that
the gay and lesbian community lacks meaningful political power).
Third, gays and lesbians have obvious, immutable, or distinguishing
characteristics that define them as a discrete group. Lyng, 477 U.S. at 638. Sexual
orientation is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a
discrete, socially visible group. See Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 568 (tracing emergence
of sexual orientation as a discrete identity category in the late 19th century).
Immutability is not required for a characteristic to garner heightened scrutiny,
Windsor, 699 F.3d at 813 n.4, but evidence shows that sexual orientation is in fact
immutable. See Golinski, 824 F. Supp. 2d at 986 ([T]he consensus in the scientific
community is that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic); Am.
Psychological Assn, Report of the American Psychological Association Task
Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation, at v (2009),
available at http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf
(efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve
some risk of harm).
22
22
Moreover, sexual orientation is a core component of a persons identity that no
person should be required to change to avoid discrimination. Perry, 704 F. Supp.
2d at 964 (Sexual orientation is fundamental to a persons identity.); In re
Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d at 442 ([A] persons sexual orientation is so integral an
aspect of ones identity [that] it is not appropriate to require a person to repudiate
32
Fourth, sexual orientation bears no relation to [anyones] ability to perform
or contribute to society. Frontiero, 411 U.S. at 686. [H]omosexuality is not a
characteristic[ ] . . . that may arguably inhibit an individuals ability to contribute
to society[.] Windsor, 699 F.3d at 681; Kerrigan, 957 A.2d at 434; Golinski, 824
F. Supp. 2d. at 986; Perry, 704 F. Supp. 2d at 1002.
2. The Act Fails Heightened Scrutiny.
For the same reasons the Act fails rational basis review, it is plainly
unconstitutional under a heightened level of scrutiny. The Act cannot survive strict
scrutiny because the State cannot show that it is narrowly tailored to achieve a
compelling government interest. See, e.g., Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S.
702, 721 (1997). Nor can the Act survive intermediate scrutiny, as the State cannot
prove that it is substantially related to any important governmental interest. See,
e.g., Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456, 461-62 (1988).
II. PLAINTIFFS WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM IF THE ACT
IS ENFORCED.
If the Court does not enjoin the Acts enforcement, Plaintiffs will suffer
irreparable harm. Winter v. Natural Resources Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20
(2008). [I]f . . . a constitutional right is being threatened or impaired, a finding of
irreparable injury is mandated. Bonnell v. Lorenzo, 241 F.3d 800, 809 (6th Cir.
or change his or her sexual orientation in order to avoid discriminatory
treatment.).
33
2001) (citing Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)). The Act impairs
Plaintiffs equal protection rights, and therefore, the irreparable harm requirement
is easily met. Moreover, the potential risk to the plaintiffs health resulting from
the loss of medical insurance qualifies as irreparable harm. Bassett, 951 F. Supp.
2d at 970; Schalk v. Teledyne, Inc., 751 F. Supp. 1261, 1268 (W.D. Mich. 1990)
(company decision to shift premium payments to retirees, allegedly in violation of
collective bargaining agreement, would impose irreparable harm in the form of
uncertainty [of] how much money will be needed to cover medical expenses and
financial planning burden), affd, 948 F.2d 1290 (6th Cir. 1991); Collins, 727 F.
Supp. 2d at 812-13, affd, 656 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2011).
Monetary damages would not remedy the harm Plaintiffs will suffer if they
are unable to obtain medical care. Plaintiffs Ramber and Ascheri have chronic
conditions that, if left untreated, will likely lead to serious and potentially
irreversible health consequences. See Facts, supra, II at notes 18-20. Plaintiffs will
be forced to contend with the increased financial burden of obtaining alternative
insurance coverage by enrolling in a high-deductible plan or a plan with limited
coverage, limiting their doctors visits, switching to inferior medications or
foregoing medications, or working more to pay for higher insurance costs. See
Facts, supra., II at notes 15-17.
34
III. THE BALANCE OF THE EQUITIES FAVORS ENTRY OF AN
INJUNCTION.
First, because the evidence shows that the Act is unconstitutional, the State
cannot legitimately claim that the balance of harms favors the denial of an
injunction. Planned Parenthood Assn of Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati, 822
F.2d 1390, 1400 (6th Cir. 1987) (where there is a likelihood that [a law] will be
found unconstitutional, it is questionable whether the [State] has any valid
interest in enforcing [it]). Second, the Act generates de minimis savings that, in
any event, redound to other public employers and not the State, while denying an
injunction would place[ ] significant financial, emotional, and medical burdens on
the plaintiffs that outweigh any slight increase in cost to the State. Bassett, 951 F.
Supp. 2d at 971; Schalk, 751 F. Supp. at 1268 (balance of harms favored plaintiff
retirees interest in keeping health benefits over defendants interest in saving
money by shifting costs to the retirees); Golden v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., 845 F. Supp.
410, 416 (E.D. Mich. 1994) (same), affd, 73 F.3d 648 (6th Cir. 1996).
IV. THE PUBLIC INTEREST FAVORS AN INJUNCTION.
Finally, the public interest favors granting an injunction[,] since the
public has an interest in ensuring that only constitutional laws are enforced.
Bassett, 951 F. Supp. 2d at 971 (citing Planned Parenthood, 822 F.2d at 1400;
Martin-Marietta Corp. v. Bendix Corp., 690 F.2d 558, 568 (6th Cir. 1982); and
since [t]he public has an interest in the preservation of a healthy population.
35
Bassett, 951 F. Supp. 2d at 971 (quoting Schalk, 751 F. Supp. at 1268). The public
interest is also served by giving local authorities autonomy over the use of
employment benefits to attract and retain the most qualified workforce, and to
promote diversity within their own communities.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant
Plaintiffs summary judgment and enjoin the enforcement of the Public Employee
Domestic Partner Benefit Restriction Act.
Dated: February 17, 2014 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John A. Knight
Michael J. Steinberg (P43085)
Jay D. Kaplan (P38197)
Kary L. Moss (P49759)
American Civil Liberties Union Fund
of Michigan
2966 Woodward Ave.
Detroit, MI 28201
(313) 578-6814
msteinberg@aclumich.org
kaplan@aclumich.org
kmoss@aclumich.org
John A. Knight
Foundation
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 201-9740
jaknight@aclu.org
36
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 17, 2014, I electronically filed the
foregoing PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT with the
Clerk of the Court using the ECF System, which will provide electronic copies to
counsel of record.
/s/ John A. Knight
John A. Knight
Foundation
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 201-9740
jaknight@aclu.org
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DENISE MILLER and MICHELLE
JOHNSON,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Michigan,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
Case No. 2:12-cv-10038
Hon. David M. Lawson
INDEX OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS
1
Ex. Description
A Public Employee Domestic Partner Benefit Restriction Act
B Kalamazoo, Other Qualified Adult Criteria
C Ann Arbor Public Schools, Other Eligible Adult Benefits Fact Sheet
D Ingham County, Other Qualified Adult Criteria
E Kalamazoo Valley Community College, Household Member Program
F Attorney General Opinion No. 7171
G-1 Agema Calls CSC Ruling Utterly Irresponsible
G-2 Lund Calls to Abolish Civil Service Commission
G-3 Agema Appalled by Dems No Votes
1
Many of these exhibits were originally filed in support of Plaintiffs Motion for
Preliminary Injunction and retain those exhibit numbers, although some have been
omitted for this filing.
2:12-cv-10038-DML-MJH Doc # 88-1 Filed 02/17/14 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 3637
2
Ex. Description
G-4 Yonker to House Democrats: This is Disgusting
G-5 Rep. Hooker Shocked by House Democrats Failure to Respect
Michigan Residents
G-6 Lyons Calls Upholding Civil Service Commission Decision Negligent
G-7 McMillin: Shame on House Democrats for Backing Irresponsible $11.4
Million Benefit Increase by Civil Service Commission
G-8 Taxpayers Cant Afford Health Care Benefits for Roommates of State
Employees
G-9 McMillin: Reclaiming Michigans Future Requires a Team Effort
G-10 Attempt to Overturn Irresponsible Civil Service Commission Spending
Blocked by House Democrats
G-11 Rep. Eileen Kowall Confronts Civil Service Commissions Fiscal
Irresponsibility
G-12 Rep. Eileen Kowall Criticizes Failure to Overturn Civil Service
Commissions Runaway Spending
G-13 House Votes Against Taxpayer-Funded Healthcare for Roommates
H Schuette v. Mich. Civil Serv. Commn
I House Fiscal Agency Legislative Analysis
J Letter from Rick Snyder, Governor, to Michigan House of
Representatives
K Senate Fiscal Agency Bill Analysis
L State Budget Office, State Spending from State Sources Paid to Units of
Local Government
Q Williams Institute Memorandum
S Sexual Orientation and Housing Discrimination in Michigan
V-1 3/7/12 Declaration of Kenneth P. Collard in Support of Plaintiffs
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
V-2 3/6/12 Declaration of David A. Comsa in Support of Plaintiffs Motion
for Preliminary Injunction
V-2A Ann Arbor Public Schools, Other Eligible Adult Benefits Fact Sheet
V-2B Board of Education Resolution
1 7/27/12 Corrected Declaration of Mary Lannoye in Support of
Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction
2.B 5/25/12 Sandra Bohnet Deposition Excerpts: pgs. 5, 13, 17, 20-21, 23,
27-30, 35-37, 39-40, 42-43, 45-47, 49-52
2.C KVCC, Dr. Marilyn J. Schlack and Sandy Bohnets Documents
Produced in Response to Plaintiffs Document Requests
3.A 4/27/12 Defendants Answers to Plaintiffs Interrogatories
3
Ex. Description
3.F 4/16/12 Defendants Answers to Plaintiffs Requests for Admissions
3.G 4/27/12 Defendants Supplemental Answers to Plaintiffs
Interrogatories Number 1 and 15
3.H 5/29/12 Defendants Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 10
3.I 6/6/12 Defendants Answers to Plaintiffs Second Set of Interrogatories
6 8/7/12 Preliminary Injunction Hearing Transcript Excerpts pgs. 8-24
7 1/31/14 Defendants Answers to Plaintiffs Third Set of Interrogatories
8 1/22/14 Defendants Responses to Plaintiffs Second Set of Requests for
Admissions
9 2/16/14 Supplemental Declaration and Expert Report of M.V. Lee
Badgett
10 2014 House Fiscal Agency, Background Briefing: School Aid
11 1/27/14 Declaration of Timothy J. Dolehanty
12 2/12/14 Declaration of Robyn Wilkerson
13 2/13/14 David Comsa Deposition Excerpts: pgs. 8-9, 17-22, 24-26, 28-
32, 34, 40-41 and Deposition Exhibits 2, 3 and 6
14 2/3/14 Joseph Price Deposition Excerpts: pgs. 33-34, 37, 39-40, 42,
105-107, 124, 126, 134-135, 137-139, 157-158, 160-168, 170-172, 203,
205-207, 210, 217-220, 230-231, 239, 248-249 and Deposition Exhibit
1
15 2/6/14 Jerome Post Deposition Excerpts: pgs. 4, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 20-22,
25-32, 37, 39-41, 45, 54-59, 63-65
16 2/6/14 Thomas Skrobola Deposition Excerpts: pgs. 5, 8-12, 14, 17-21,
26-27, 29, 35 and Deposition Exhibit 1
17 Michigan Incident Crime Reporting, 2012 Hate/Bias Crime Report
18 Plaintiffs Declarations
18.A 2/12/14 Declaration of Theresa Bassett
18.B 2/12/14 Declaration of Carol Kennedy
18.C 2/14/14 Declaration of Peter Ways
18.D 2/14/14 Declaration of Joe Breakey
18.E 2/14/14 Declaration of JoLinda Jach
18.F 2/14/14 Declaration of Barbara Ramber
18.G 2/13/14 Declaration of Doak Bloss
18.H 2/13/14 Declaration of Gerardo Ascheri
18.I 2/14/14 Declaration of Denise Miller
18.J 2/14/14 Declaration of Michelle Johnson
19 1/23/14 Plaintiffs and Defendants Stipulation Regarding Authenticity
and Admissibility of Documents
2:12-cv-10038-DML-MJH Doc # 18-2 Filed 03/07/12 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 245 2:12-cv-10038-DML-MJH Doc # 88-2 Filed 02/17/14 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 3640

Exhibit B

City of Kalamazoo
Program Criteria: OTHER QUALI FI ED ADULT

The City of Kalamazoos medical and dental coverage shall extend to Other Qualified Adults who meet
the eligibility requirements set forth below:

1. Evidence that the Employee and Other Qualified Adult share a common principal residence,
having done so for at least twelve (12) consecutive months;

2. Other Qualified Adult is not eligible to inherit from the Employee under the laws of intestate
succession in the state of Michigan;

3. Both the employee and Other Qualified Adult are unmarried, single persons;

4. Other Qualified Adult is not an employee of the City nor a renter, boarder, landlord or tenant of
the City employee.

5. Neither the employee nor Other Qualified Adult are a dependent, as that term is defined by the
Internal Revenue Service, of the other; and

6. Eligibility to continue coverage for another qualified adult ceases at the end of a month in which
any of the above criteria are not met. Employees are required to immediately notify the City of
Kalamazoo Human Resources Department of a change in eligibility status.

.


City of Kalamazoo
AFFIDAVIT OF OTHER QUALIFIED ADULT

The undersigned understand and acknowledge:

1. If it is determined that any of the qualifying criteria listed above are not true and that benefits paid
as a result should not have been paid, the undersigned are jointly and individually responsible to
fully reimburse the City for the value of the benefits paid. If such reimbursement is not paid, the
City may file suit against one or both individuals. If the City receives a judgment for all or part
of the amount sought, the City shall also be entitled to recover costs, interest and reasonable
attorney fees incurred in the effort.

2. If any of the above listed criteria cease to be true one or both persons shall, within 14 days, notify
the City in writing. Failure by the employee to do so may be grounds for disciplinary action up to
and including termination.

3. The extending by the City of benefits to one or both of the parties because of this certificate may
have tax consequences (e.g., the benefit may be deemed income, giving rise to income tax).
Any such liabilities shall not be the responsibility of the City.

_____________________________________ ____________________________________
Employee Name Other Qualified Adult Name

_____________________________________ ____________________________________
Social Security Number Social Security Number

__________________________________________________________________________________
Home Address (street, city, state, zip code)

_____________________________________ ____________________________________
Employee Signature Other Qualified Adult Signature

___________________________ ______________________________
Date Date

STATE OF MICHIGAN }
}ss.
COUNTY OF KALAMAZOO }

Subscribed and sworn to before me this

___________________________ day of _____________________________,

200__.

__________________________________________
, Notary Public

Kalamazoo County, Michigan

My Commission expires: _________________


City of Kalamazoo
AFFIDAVIT OF TERMINATION OF
OTHER QUALIFIED ADULT

I, ___________________________________________________, affirm that the Other

Qualified Adult described in my affidavit dated ___________________, terminated as of

_______________________________.

I hereby agree to mail a copy of this Affidavit to my surviving former other qualified adult.

____________________________________ ___________________________
Employee Signature Date

STATE OF MICHIGAN }
}ss.
COUNTY OF KALAMAZOO }

Subscribed and sworn to before me this

___________________________ day of _____________________________,

200__.

__________________________________________
, Notary Public

Kalamazoo County, Michigan

My Commission expires: _________________

Revised: 5/16/08

HR-33

Exhibit C


Exhibit D

Other Qualified Adult Criteria
Please review these criteria carefully to determine if another adult in your household might be a Other Qualified
Adult (OQA) and be eligible to receive health insurance benefits through Ingham County (the OQA only may be
eligible, but not minors or other dependants of the OQA). If you believe that a OQA may be qualified, complete
attached the demographic form and questionnaire.

1. The other qualified adult is at least 21years of age, and is mentally competent to consent to
contract.
2. The employee and the proposed Other Qualified Adult (OQA) must have continuously
shared a residence for a minimum of 18 months immediately prior to the date coverage is
requested.
3. Other Qualified Adult is not eligible to inherit from the Employee under the laws of
intestate succession in the State of Michigan.
4. Other Qualified Adult is not related by blood to a degree of closeness than would prevent
legal marriage in Michigan.
5. Neither Employee nor Other Qualified Adult is married (even if legally separated).
6. The OQA adult is not eligible for coverage through Ingham County as an employee or
retiree.
7. Evidence that at least THREE (3) of the following are true (three of A, B, C, or D) (please
check which ones apply):

A. Employee and Other Qualified Adult have a common or joint ownership of\
their primary residence (home, condominium, or mobile home)
-OR-
B. Employee and Other Qualified Adult have at least TWO (2) of the following
arrangements (two of 1, 2, 3, or 4) (please check which ones apply):
1) Joint ownership or lease of a motor vehicle; or

2) Joint bank account(s); or

3) Joint credit card account; or

4) A lease for a residence identifying both the Employee and Other
Qualified Adult as tenants
-OR-
C. The Other Qualified Adult has been designated as the primary beneficiary for
at least TWO (2) of the following (two of 1, 2, or 3) (please check which ones apply):

1) Employees life insurance; or

2) Employees will or living trust; or

3) Employees MERS retirement contract
-OR-
D. Evidence that the Employee and Other Qualified Adult have mutual durable
power of attorney for health care and financial management for each other.

8. Other Qualified Adult is not eligible for coverage under any other insurance plan
providing medical benefits that the County of Ingham contributes toward the premium,
whether through another County employee or a County retiree.

9. Other Qualified Adult is not covered by, or eligible for coverage, under any other
insurance plan providing comparable medical benefits through any other employer, or
through a federal, state, or local plan (such as Medicare, Veterans Administration, etc.)


Exhibit E


Exhibit F

The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of
Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us)

STATE OF MICHIGAN
MIKE COX, ATTORNEY GENERAL
MARRIAGE:
CONST 1963, ART 1, 25:
Constitutionality of city providing same-sex domestic
partnership benefits

Const 1963, art 1, 25 operates as a limitation on government conduct and therefore applies to state and local governmental
entities, including the City of Kalamazoo.
Const 1963, art 1, 25 prohibits state and local governmental entities from conferring benefits on their employees on the basis of a
"domestic partnership" agreement that is characterized by reference to the attributes of a marriage. Accordingly, the City of
Kalamazoo's Domestic Partner Benefits Policy is contrary to the mandate of Const 1963, art 1, 25.
Const 1963, art 1, 25 does not invalidate a state or local governmental entity's existing contractual obligations but does apply to
its future contracts.
Opinion No. 7171
March 16, 2005
Honorable Jacob W. Hoogendyk, Jr.
State Representative
The Capitol
Lansing, MI 48913
You have asked to what extent Const 1963, art 1, 25, the recent amendment to Michigan's Constitution involving same-sex
marriages and similar unions, affects the City of Kalamazoo's ability to provide domestic partnership benefits to its city employees
both under its current contracts and under new contracts.
The City has informed this office that, in accordance with its Domestic Partner Benefits Policy (the City's Policy), it provides
insurance and other benefits to the same-sex "domestic partners" of city employees "identical to those provided to spouses of City
employees." The City's Policy, incorporated in its collective bargaining agreements, defines "domestic partners":
For the purposes of the City of Kalamazoo's program, the definition and use of the term domestic partner shall only include couples
of the same sex. To be considered as domestic partners, the individuals must:
A. Be at least 18 and mentally competent to enter into a contract;
B. Share a common residence and have done so for at least six (6) months;
C. Be unmarried and not related by blood closer than would prevent marriage;
D. Share financial arrangements and daily living expenses related to their common welfare;
E. File a statement of termination of previous domestic partnership at least six (6) months prior to signing another Certification of
Domestic Partnership. [City of Kalamazoo, Domestic Partner Benefits Policy, I. (Emphasis in original.)]
The City's Policy requires a notarized Certification of Domestic Partnership, which affirms the criteria listed in paragraphs A
through E and requires proof of "mutual economic dependence" and evidence of "common legal residence." Id., at III, B and C.
The City's Policy explains that the "identical" benefits provided are:
A. Hospital/medical coverage
Opinion #7171 http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/2000s/op10247.htm
1 of 10 3/1/2012 2:01 AM
B. Dental care
C. Sick leave
D. Funeral and critical illness leave
E. COBRA continuation coverage
F. Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provisions
G. Retiree medical coverage
H. Pension benefits
The partners have an obligation under the City's Policy to notify the City when there has been a change in any of the circumstances
that qualify the couple as a domestic partnership.
On November 2, 2004, Michigan voters approved Proposal 04-2
[1]
, adding art 1, 25 to Michigan's Constitution.
[2]
Const 1963,
art 1, 25 states:
To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union
of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for
any purpose.
Your request, therefore, requires consideration of whether, by entering into a contract that incorporates the City of Kalamazoo's
Domestic Partner Benefits Policy, the City recognizes a partnership of persons of the same sex as a "marriage or similar union for
any purpose" within the meaning of, and contrary to the mandate of, Const 1963, art 1, 25.
To ascertain the meaning of a constitutional provision, the courts have laid down a number of controlling rules of interpretation. It
must never be forgotten that "it is a Constitution we are expounding," and that "[e]ach provision of a State Constitution is the direct
word of the people of the State, not that of the scriveners thereof." Michigan United Conservation Clubs v Secretary of State, 464
Mich 359, 373; 630 NW2d 297 (2001) (Young, J., concurring) (citations omitted). Thus, the primary rule of construction is to give
effect to the intent of the people of the State of Michigan who ratified the Constitution by applying the rule of "common
understanding." Wayne County v Hathcock, 471 Mich 445, 468; 684 NW2d 765 (2004). The Michigan Supreme Court reiterated
its long-standing reliance on Justice Thomas Cooley's discussion in his treatise Constitutional Limitations to explain the basis for
this rule:
"A constitution is made for the people and by the people. The interpretation that should be given it is that which
reasonable minds, the great mass of the people themselves, would give it. 'For as the Constitution does not
derive its force from the convention which framed, but from the people who ratified it, the intent to be arrived at is
that of the people, and it is not to be supposed that they have looked for any dark or abstruse meaning in the
words employed, but rather that they have accepted them in the sense most obvious to the common
understanding, and ratified the instrument in the belief that that was the sense designed to be conveyed.'"
[3]
Ordinarily, the common understanding of constitutional text is understood by applying each term's plain meaning at the time of
ratification. But if the constitution employs technical or legal terms of art, those terms must be construed according to their
technical or legal sense because, "in ratifying a constitution, the people may understand that certain terms used in that document
have a technical meaning within the law." Hathcock, 471 Mich at 469 n 48. See also Michigan Coalition of State Employee
Unions v Michigan Civil Service Comm, 465 Mich 212, 222-223; 634 NW2d 692 (2001).
A second important rule of constitutional construction requires consideration of the circumstances surrounding the provision's
adoption and the purpose sought to be accomplished. House Speaker v Governor, 443 Mich 560, 580; 506 NW2d 190 (1993).
The historical origins of the provision are relevant in following this rule. Federated Publications, Inc v Michigan State Univ Bd
of Trustees, 460 Mich 75, 85; 594 NW2d 491 (1999). The provision must also be interpreted to give reasonable effect to all, not
just some, of its parts. House Speaker, 443 Mich at 579.
A threshold issue that must be considered in light of these governing principles is to whom art 1, 25 applies and whether, in
particular, it applies to cities, such as the City of Kalamazoo. Analysis of this question begins with an examination of the precise
language used in art 1, 25:
To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union
of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for
any purpose. [Const 1963, art 1, 25.]
2 of 10 3/1/2012 2:01 AM
The plain text of this provision is general in scope. It clearly mandates that the union of one man and one woman shall be the only
agreement "recognized" as a marriage or similar union, but it does not specifically identify what entities or persons, public or
private, are bound by its terms. Its placement in Article 1 of Michigan's Constitution is legally significant, however, in that Article
1, entitled "Declaration of Rights," generally articulates limitations on government conduct.
The Michigan Supreme Court elaborated on this point in Woodland v Michigan Citizens Lobby, 423 Mich 188; 378 NW2d 337
(1985), in which the issue presented was whether the free speech guarantees of Const 1963, art 1, 3 and 5
[4]
applied to limit
only state action or were directly applicable against private entities as well. The case involved a challenge brought by citizens'
groups whose members had been blocked in their efforts to solicit signatures for an initiative petition drive in large shopping malls.
In ruling that privately owned shopping malls were not prohibited from denying or restricting access to private individuals, the
Court concluded that these provisions of Article 1 were implicitly limited to state action:
The Michigan Constitution's Declaration of Rights provisions have never been interpreted as extending to purely private conduct;
these provisions have consistently been interpreted as limited to protection against state action. [423 Mich at 205.]
The Woodland case rejected any presumption that would find certain constitutional provisions applicable to private individuals or
entities in the absence of direct language requiring it:
In light of traditionally accepted notions of the limited reach of constitutionally guaranteed individual rights, the
past decisions of this Court, the documented history of Michigan's most recent constitutional convention, and
the underlying rationale of the state action limitation, it may not be presumed that the constitutional provisions
here in question are intended to apply against private individuals or entities. If any presumption is to be raised it
is to the contrary: that unless otherwise expressed, constitutionally guaranteed protections are applicable only
against government. [Id., at 212.]
Accordingly, addressing the precise question raised, it is clear that art 1, 25's extension of constitutional protection to the "union
of one man and one woman in marriage" to "secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations
of children" is applicable against the government. Municipal corporations, including cities, are creatures of the State of Michigan
and are, therefore, governmental entities. Sinas v City of Lansing, 382 Mich 407, 411; 170 NW2d 23 (1969). Their actions are
"subject to the constitution and law." Const 1963, art 7, 22, quoted in Mack v Detroit, 467 Mich 186, 194; 649 NW2d 47 (2002)
(emphasis omitted).
It is my opinion, therefore, that Const 1963, art 1, 25 operates as a limitation on government conduct and therefore applies to state
and local governmental entities, including the City of Kalamazoo.
Analysis of your question next turns to the core issue of whether the City's contracts that incorporate its Domestic Partner Benefits
Policy violate the mandate of art 1, 25. To the extent the City recognizes a same-sex partnership "agreement" as a "marriage" or
"similar union" for "any purpose," it contravenes the provision. Under the primary rule of constitutional construction, the common
understanding of the meaning of each of these operative terms must be ascertained. Analysis will begin with the term on which this
amendment is focused: marriage.
The word "marriage" appears three times in art 1, 25 and is reasonably understood in both a common sense and a technical or
legal sense. In chapter 551 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, "marriage" is defined as a "civil contract between a man and a
woman, to which the consent of parties capable in law of contracting is essential. Consent alone is not enough to effectuate a legal
marriage . . . . Consent shall be followed by obtaining a license . . . and solemnization . . . ." MCL 551.2. "Marriage" is further
described in MCL 551.1:
Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state
has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting that unique relationship in order to promote,
among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between
individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state.
Under MCL 551.3, the Legislature prohibits marriage between a man and certain listed family members, blood relations, and other
persons, including another man, and under MCL 551.4, the Legislature prohibits marriage between a woman and certain listed
family members, blood relations, and other persons, including another woman. Chapter 551 also prohibits bigamy, MCL 551.5,
and creates a minimum age for marriage at 16 years of age, MCL 551.51. It further provides the terms for obtaining marriage
licenses. MCL 551.101 et seq.
3 of 10 3/1/2012 2:01 AM
These statutory provisions recognize that the term "marriage" has social and legal connotations. Michigan courts have recognized
that the public policy of the State of Michigan favors marriage. Van v Zahorik, 460 Mich 320, 332; 597 NW2d 15 (1999). This
principle is deeply entrenched in our law. Id., at 332 n 4. As observed by the Michigan Supreme Court over a century ago,
"society rests upon marriage and the family as its foundation." Wagoner v Wagoner, 128 Mich 635, 638; 87 NW 898 (1901).
Moreover, the courts make it clear that marriage is not like any other private contract, but it creates a legal relation in which the
spouses and the State have a vested interest. For example, addressing the validity of a marriage, the Court in Hess v Pettigrew,
261 Mich 618, 621-622; 247 NW 90 (1933), observed:
Marriage is a civil contract, but it is not a pure private contract. It is affected with a public interest and by a public
policy. The status of children, preservation of the home, private morality, public decency, and the like afford
ample grounds for special treatment of marriage as a contract, by statute and decision. In recognition of its public
and social nature, courts have cast about it the protecting mantle of presumptions, sustaining validity of marriage,
said to be the strongest known to the law. Any rule concerning it must favor the validity of an intended marriage if
it may be done without violence to the essentials of the civil contract. [Citation omitted.]
See also Maynard v Hill, 125 US 190, 210-211; 8 S Ct 723; 31 L Ed 654 (1888) ("It is also to be observed that, whilst marriage
is often termed by text writers and in decisions of courts a civil contract . . . it is something more than a mere contract").
A simple, working definition of marriage that accords with Michigan law is the "[l]egal union of one man and one woman as
husband and wife." This is the definition given "marriage" in Black's Law Dictionary (6
th
ed), p 972, and is consistent with the
standard dictionary definition: "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and
contractual relationship recognized by law."
[5]
Although the meaning of "marriage" is well established, art 1, 25 states in its first clause that its purpose is "[t]o secure and
preserve the benefits of marriage for society and our children." (Emphasis added.) Because any examination of the question
whether the domestic partnership defined in the City's Policy constitutes a "similar union" to a marriage must be pursued in light of
the purpose sought to be accomplished by art 1, 25, attention now turns to the meaning of this first clause of the amendment.
Two broad categories of "benefits" that stem from marital relationships can be identified: social or societal benefits and legal or
financial benefits. With regard to the societal benefits of marriage, the United States Supreme Court has described marriage as "the
foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress." Maynard, supra, 125 US
at 211. Other acknowledged benefits of marriage are that it "confers economies of scale and of joint consumption, minimizes
sexually transmitted disease, and provides a stable and nourishing framework for child rearing." Irizarry v Bd of Educ, 251 F 3d
604, 607 (CA 7, 2001). The promotion of procreation and child-rearing within a stable environment is among the most often-cited
societal benefits of marriage. Gard v Gard, 204 Mich 255, 267 (1918) ("It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the
great purposes of marriage is procreation. . . . All true, but there are other purposes of marriage beyond the perpetuation of the
species. One of the purposes is the maintenance of the sacred institution called home").
With regard to the legal or financial benefits associated with marriage, the Citizen's Research Council of Michigan summarized
some of the major benefits conferred by federal law in its Publication No. 1076 (September 2004) (CRC Memorandum), which
was available to voters during the November 2004 general election:
According to the U.S. General Accounting Office, there are over 1,000 references in the U.S. Code to marital
status. Selectively, these include social security benefits, low income housing and food stamp programs, as well
as veterans' and military benefits, taxation implications, employment benefits, and immigration and naturalization
status. Statutory protections for married couples are also numerous, including legal protections such as the right
to not have to testify against one's spouse, domestic violence statutes, custody and child support, and probate
statutes, to name just a few. Michigan statutes contain over 400 references to marriage. [CRC Memorandum, State
Ballot Issues on the November General Election Ballot, p 6, citing Government Accounting Office, Defense of
Marriage Act, GAO/OGC-97-16 (Washington, D.C.; January 31, 1997); footnote omitted.]
Michigan law also confers benefits attendant to marriage. For example, Michigan recognizes the common law estate called a
tenancy by the entireties, which only a husband and wife can hold. Sanford v Bertrau, 204 Mich 244; 169 NW 880 (1918).
[6]
A
select sampling of the Michigan statutes that confer benefits associated with marriage include those involving taxation,
[7]
death
4 of 10 3/1/2012 2:01 AM
and sickness,
[8]
custody and support,
[9]
property rights,
[10]
certain legally recognized privileges and presumptions,
[11]
adoption,
[12]
eligibility for crime victims compensation and certain veterans' benefits,
[13]
and retirement and related rights.
[14]
Thus, Michigan has historically afforded a combination of social, legal, and financial benefits uniquely to married men and
women. It is reasonable to conclude that average citizens when casting their votes at the November 2004 election commonly
understood that, to secure and preserve to our society the benefits derived from the institution of marriage, Proposal 04-2 would
reserve that unique recognition to the union of one man and one woman in marriage and not allow its extension to similar unions.
Three terms remain for consideration before turning to the amendment's application to the City's Policy: "similar union,"
"recognized," and "for any purpose." Under the rule of construction requiring an interpretation that gives reasonable effect to all,
not just some, of the parts of a constitutional provision, each of these terms must be given full effect. See House Speaker, supra,
443 Mich at 579.
With regard to "similar union," the Supreme Court has made clear that words in a constitutional provision must be given their plain
meaning if they are obvious on their face. Phillips v Mirac, Inc, 470 Mich 415, 422; 685 NW2d 174 (2004). The meaning of
"similar union" is clear: a union similar to a marriage. A union is similar to a marriage if it is not a marriage but is characterized
by reference to the attributes of a marriage.
[15]

Where the words of a provision are as clear as "a similar union," resort to the circumstances surrounding adoption of the provision
to assist in clarifying meaning is not necessary. This is especially true in light of the guidance provided by the Supreme Court that
surrounding circumstances may be relevant, but are not controlling. Lapeer County Clerk v Lapeer Circuit Court, 469 Mich 146,
156; 665 NW2d 452 (2003). Nevertheless, the historical origins of art 1, 25 and the circumstances surrounding its adoption lend
further support to the view that the term "similar union" was understood to have a meaning similar to, but distinct from, marriage.
As stated in the September 2004 CRC Memorandum, the Proposal 04-2 initiative was "part of a national trend of attempts at
strengthening same-sex marriage prohibitions by amending state constitutions." [CRC Memorandum at p 1.] The Citizens Research
Council noted that Michigan was one of 11 states where the electorate was asked to amend its state constitution. Id. Similar
proposed amendments appeared on the ballots in 10 other states, all of which passed.
[16]

After Proposal 04-2 was officially declared part of the November 2004 ballot,
[17]
numerous reports, articles, and editorials
appeared in the media regarding the amendment. The legal implications of passage were widely discussed, including the continued
legality of domestic partner benefits, same-sex or otherwise. The difference in interpretation among the various views expressed
on this subject was attributable to the clause "or similar union for any purpose" and the effect the clause would have on domestic
partner benefits if the amendment passed. Id.
Looking at the circumstances surrounding adoption of Proposal 2, therefore, the issue of domestic partner benefits based on a union
similar to marriage was at the forefront of the public debate as voters prepared to go to the polls. Regardless of whether there was
agreement regarding the effect the proposal might have on domestic partner benefits, one thing that would clearly have been evident
to voters was that benefits provided based on the recognition of a "similar union" were at issue and might be eliminated if the
measure passed.
Of greatest significance, however, is the plain language of the amendment itself. Looking at the words "a similar union" in the
"sense most obvious to the common understanding," combined with the historical context in which they arose, leads inescapably to
the conclusion that "similar union" means a union similar to a marriage but not a marriage.
The final terms of art 1, 25 to examine are "recognized" and "for any purpose." The term "recognized" appears in conjunction
with the term "agreement." When read in context, it is reasonable to conclude that it means "to acknowledge the existence, validity,
authority or genuineness of." Webster's New World Dictionary (1988). The phrase "for any purpose" modifies the word
"recognized." "The word 'any' means just what it says. It includes 'each' and 'every'. It comprehends 'the slightest'." Sifers v
Horen, 385 Mich 195, 199 n 2; 188 NW2d 623 (1971) (citations omitted). See also In re Forfeiture of $ 5,264, 432 Mich 242,
250; 439 NW2d 246 (1989) ("Webster defines the adjective 'any' to mean 'every'"). Thus, giving this phrase its plain meaning, and
in the absence of any contextual limitation in the amendment, its meaning is clear and requires no further interpretation: for each and
every, or any, conceivable purpose.
5 of 10 3/1/2012 2:01 AM
Considering these interpretations as a whole, the operative clause of art 1, 25, "the union of one man and one woman in marriage
shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose," is best interpreted as prohibiting the
acknowledgement of both same-sex relationships and unmarried opposite-sex relationships. More simply, the only relationship that
may be given any recognition or acknowledgement of validity is the union of one man and one woman in a marriage.
Applying art 1, 25 to the City of Kalamazoo's Domestic Partner Benefits Policy, the intent of the City is to accord same-sex
partners the same health- and retirement-related benefits accorded to married spouses. The policy's threshold criterion requires
that only "couples of the same sex" may apply for the benefits. To obtain the benefits, the City requires the individuals to fill out a
"certification" attesting to their domestic-partnership status. It also requires that the persons applying be "unmarried" and "not
related by blood closer than would prevent marriage." These criteria parallel the State of Michigan's definitions in MCL 551.3 and
MCL 551.4 that a person may not legally marry a person within one's family. The City's Policy establishes a minimum age
requirement as does MCL 551.51. Finally, the certification of domestic partnership requires that any previous domestic partnership
have been terminated, which is similar to the State's prohibition of bigamy. See MCL 551.5.
The City's Policy accords same-sex "domestic partnerships" a "marriage-like" status. The clear design of the City of Kalamazoo's
policy is to establish a special status for "domestic partners" of the same sex, who share a common residence and financial
arrangements, and to use this as a basis on which to confer benefits on the "partner" of the city employee. In the words of art 1,
25, the City's Policy recognizes same-sex domestic partnerships as a "similar union" to marriage. Given the broad language of the
amendment, there can be little doubt that conferring these benefits constitutes recognition or the acknowledgement of the validity of
these same-sex relationships. Conferring these health- and retirement-related benefits also falls within the all-encompassing "for
any purpose" language.
Thus, the City's policy of offering benefits to same-sex domestic partners violates the amendment's prohibition against recognizing
any "similar union" other than the union of one man and woman in marriage. The City's contracts fall squarely within the scope of
what the amendment prohibits. The provision of benefits itself does not violate the amendment, but the benefits cannot be given
based on the similarity of the union or domestic partnership agreement to a legal marriage. In other words, Const 1963, art 1, 25
does not prevent the City of Kalamazoo, if it elects to do so, from conferring benefits on persons a city employee may wish to
designate as a recipient as long as the benefits are not dependent on the existence of a union that is similar to a marriage as defined
by Michigan law.
It is my opinion, therefore, that Const 1963, art 1, 25 prohibits state and local governmental entities from conferring benefits on
their employees on the basis of a "domestic partnership" agreement that is characterized by reference to the attributes of a
marriage. Accordingly, the City of Kalamazoo's Domestic Partner Benefits Policy is contrary to the mandate of Const 1963, art 1,
25.
The remaining question, then, is whether the amendment applies to existing contracts or only to future contracts. The City may not
act contrary to constitutional mandate
[18]
and, thus, art 1, 25 prohibits the City from offering domestic partnership benefits, as
the City's Policy is currently written, in future contracts. It is basic contract law that a contractual provision that violates the law is
void. Nelson v Galpin, 277 Mich 529, 541; 269 NW 586 (1936), citing American Trust Co v Michigan Trust Co, 263 Mich 337,
340; 248 NW 829 (1933).
With respect to existing contracts offering these benefits, it is "a general rule [that] constitutional amendments operate prospectively
and not retroactively." People v Gornbein, 407 Mich 330, 334; 285 NW2d 41 (1979) (emphasis added), citing 16 CJS,
Constitutional Law, 40, pp 121-122; Toole v State Bd of Dentistry, 300 Mich 180; 1 NW2d 502 (1942); City of Lansing v
Michigan Power Co, 183 Mich 400, 416; 150 NW 250 (1914). For the purpose of this analysis, "retroactive" refers to an
application of the amendment that would act as a bar to the future enjoyment of benefits afforded by a contract entered into before
the amendment's effective date.
In Michigan Power Co, the City of Lansing sought to compel the defendant utility company to remove from the city's streets all
poles, wires, and other equipment installed by the company on the basis that the former franchise agreement between the city and
the company had expired, and that statutory law authorizing the company to use the city's streets in this way was abrogated by a
subsequent constitutional amendment. Id., at 402-406. The trial court concluded that once the company invested money and effort
into supplying the city with electricity by constructing poles upon city streets, the company had a "contract by user" under the
statute, and although the subsequent constitutional amendment abrogated the statute, it did not apply retroactively to this existing
contract. Id., at 406-410. In its opinion as quoted approvingly by the Supreme Court, the trial court explained:
"It is claimed that the act of 1905 has been abrogated or repealed by section 28, art. 8, of the Constitution of
1909 [now commonly cited as Const 1908] . . . .
6 of 10 3/1/2012 2:01 AM
* * *
This provision of the Constitution is a wise and radical change in the policy of exercising the sovereign power
over the streets, and upon its adoption it at once superseded the act of 1905 and rendered that act from that
time inoperative.
The Constitution of 1909 did not revoke and terminate existing user of the streets under Act 264 of 1905. The
Constitution did abrogate the law of 1905, but it did not and could not revoke existing contracts under that
act arising out of beneficial user of the streets for public utility purposes.
Constitutional provisions, as well as legislative enactments, must be held prospective in operation only,
unless they carry upon their face an intention to be retrospective." [Id., at 408-409; emphasis added.]
[19]
The Michigan Supreme Court concurred in the trial court's conclusion with respect to this issue and further explained:
After examining the many authorities cited by counsel, we are satisfied that the provisions of the new
Constitution, cited and referred to in the briefs and arguments, are prospective in their operation. The rule is
well stated in volume 6, Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.), at page 917, as follows:
"Constitutions are construed to operate prospectively only, unless on the face of the instrument a contrary
intention is manifest beyond reasonable question."
See, also, the many cases there cited. The same rule is applied to statutes. [Id., at 416; see also 16 Am Jur 2d
Constitutional Law 46 and Traverse City v Michigan Railroad Comm, 202 Mich 575; 168 NW 481 (1918);
emphasis added.]
Accordingly, in determining whether a statute or a constitutional amendment should be applied retroactively, "the primary and
overriding rule is that . . . intent governs. All other rules of construction and operation are subservient to this principle." Lynch v
Flex Technologies, Inc, 463 Mich 578, 583; 624 NW2d 180 (2001) (internal citations omitted). A constitutional or statutory
provision will be presumed to operate prospectively unless a contrary intent is clearly manifested. Id.; Michigan Power Co,
supra. This is especially so if retroactive application of the statute or amendment would impair vested rights,
[20]
create a new
obligation and impose a new duty, or attach a disability with respect to past transactions. Lynch, supra, 463 Mich at 583;
Gornbein, supra, 407 Mich at 334 ("[C]onstitutional amendments operate prospectively and not retroactively. This is particularly
so where the constitutional amendment would affect a substantive right.")
There is nothing in the text of art 1, 25 that clearly manifests an intention that the amendment apply retroactively. Again, the
amendment states, "[t]o secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union
of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."
The words "secure" and "preserve" do not suggest retroactive application. Thus, there is no language in art 1, 25 that manifests
beyond a reasonable question that it was intended to apply retroactively. Michigan Power Co, supra.
Moreover, art 1, 25 does not fall within the recognized "exception" to prospective application for laws "which operate in
furtherance of a remedy or mode of procedure and which neither create new rights nor destroy, enlarge, or diminish existing
rights." Lynch, supra, 463 Mich at 584 (internal citations omitted). The provision is clearly an expression of public policy, and
not a remedial or procedural law that would fall within the exception. Indeed, its retroactive application could "change
significantly the substance of the parties' agreement and unsettle their expectations." Id., at 585-586.
[21]

Thus, in accordance with these general principles and in the absence of any contrary indications in the amendment or the
circumstances surrounding its passage, Const 1963, art 1, 25 applies prospectively only. Generally, depending on the specific
terms of the various contracts entered into and the surrounding factual circumstances, any new contractual obligations taking effect
on or after December 18, 2004, including extensions and renewals of contracts entered into before that date, must comply with the
mandate of art 1, 25. Similarly, with respect to those employees who work for the City pursuant to an employment policy or
implied contract, a definitive answer depends on the actual facts and circumstances. Generally, however, for those employees not
covered by a collective bargaining agreement, personal services contract, or other formal contractual arrangement, art 1, 25
7 of 10 3/1/2012 2:01 AM
prohibits the continuation of domestic partnership benefits on or after December 18, 2004, except with respect to those benefits
already accrued or vested and provided that the employer gives affected employees reasonable notice of the policy change.
[22]

It is my opinion, therefore, that Const 1963, art 1, 25 does not invalidate a state or local governmental entity's existing contractual
obligations but does apply to its future contracts.
MIKE COX
Attorney General

[1]
Of 4,602,396 votes cast, 2,698,077 voted in favor of the amendment and 1,904,319 voted against the measure. See
http://miboecfr.nicusa.com/election/results/04GEN/90000002.html..
[2]
By constitution, Proposal 2 became effective December 18, 2004, "at the end of 45 days after the date of the election at which
it was approved." Const 1963, art 12, 2.

[3]
Hathcock, 471 Mich at 468, quoting Traverse City School Dist v Attorney General, 384 Mich 390, 405; 185 NW2d 9 (1971),
in turn quoting from 1 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (6
th
ed), p 81 (emphasis omitted). See also American Axle & Mfg, Inc v
Hamtramck, 461 Mich 352, 362; 604 NW2d 330 (2000).
[4]
Const 1963, art 1, 3 states: "The people have the right peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, to instruct
their representatives and to petition the government for redress of grievances." Const 1963, art 1, 5 states: "Every person may
freely speak, write, express and publish his views on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right; and no law shall be
enacted to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press."
[5]
Meriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.meriam-webster.com%20/. See also Baker v Vermont, 170 Vt 194, 199; 744
A2d 864, 868 (2000) ("Although it is not necessarily the only possible definition, there is no doubt that the plain and ordinary
meaning of 'marriage' is the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife"); Adams v Howerton, 486 F Supp 1119, 1122
(CD Cal, 1980) (Concluding that "marriage" is "a contract, a status, and a relationship between persons of different sexes").
[6]
See Michigan Land Title Standards (5
th
Ed), State Bar of Michigan, Standard 6.5. Lands held as tenants by the entireties
cannot be conveyed to others or encumbered without the consent of both husband and wife. Arrand v Graham, 297 Mich 559; 298
NW 281 (1941); Nurmi v Beardsley, 275 Mich 328; 266 NW 368 (1936). Neither can judgment-creditors obtain execution against
such interests unless the judgment debt is one for which both spouses are liable. Sanford, supra; Muskegon Lumber & Fuel Co v
Johnson, 338 Mich 655, 658; 62 NW2d 619 (1954).
[7]
See, e.g., MCL 205.93 (exemption from use tax for transfer of personal property); MCL 205.202 (tax exemption for transfer of
property); MCL 205.202c (tax exemption for surviving spouse benefits); and MCL 206.514, 206.520 and 206.522 (tax credits for
senior citizens and spouses).
[8]
See, e.g., MCL 257.236 (right to transfer title of deceased spouse's vehicle); MCL 333.2855 (right to request autopsy); MCL
333.10102 (authority to make gift of deceased's body); MCL 333.20201 (right of nursing home resident to meet privately with
spouse, right of married residents to reside in same room, and right of spouse of terminally ill resident to stay at facility 24 hours a
day); MCL 338.847 and 338.1076 (right to carry on business of deceased spouse holding certain licenses for 90 days after death);
MCL 390.1243 and 390.1263 (higher education tuition waiver for spouse of police officer, firefighter, or correction officer killed
in line of duty); MCL 419.203 (death benefits for spouse of firefighter); MCL 550.2003 (eligibility for prescription drug coverage
under the Elder Prescription Insurance Coverage program); MCL 28.634 (death and disability benefits for spouses of public safety
officers); MCL 32.49d, 32.810, and 32.811 (death benefits for spouses of military officers and enlisted persons); MCL 500.3708
(coverage under small employer health benefit plans).
[9]
See, e.g., MCL 552.15 and 552.16 (child custody, parenting time, and child support); MCL 552.18 and 552.101 (rights to
8 of 10 3/1/2012 2:01 AM
spouse's pension, annuity, and retirement benefits upon annulment, divorce, or judgment of separate maintenance); MCL 552.19
(property rights upon annulment, divorce, or judgment of separate maintenance); MCL 552.23 (spousal and child support); MCL
722.124 (right to place child in control and care of another person i.e., daycare/child care centers); and MCL 552.401 (award of
property upon decree of divorce or separate maintenance).
[10]
See, e.g., MCL 558.1 558.14 (rights to dower in lands); MCL 700.2201-700.2206 (elective share of surviving spouse in
deceased spouse's estate); and MCL 700.2301 (rights in spouse's estate).
[11]
See, e.g., MCL 600.2162 (spousal privilege) and MCL 700.2114 (presumption that spouses are the natural parents of children
born during marriage).
[12]
See, e.g., MCL 710.24.
[13]
See MCL 18.354 and 18.361 (crime victims' compensation) and MCL 36.31 (spouse of veteran qualified for residence in
veterans' facility).
[14]
See, e.g., MCL 38.27 and 38.31 (interest in spouse's retirement allowance under state employee retirement system); MCL
38.556 (interest in spouse's retirement allowance, disability and death benefits under firefighters and police officers retirement
system); MCL 38.1024 (interest in spouse's retirement allowance under legislative retirement system); MCL 38.1050a (life
insurance benefits under legislative retirement system); MCL 38.1050b (health insurance benefits under legislative retirement
system); MCL 38.1391 (health care benefits under school employee retirement system); MCL 38.1389 and 38.1390 (interest in
spouse's retirement allowance and worker's disability compensation under school employee retirement system); MCL 38.1391
(health insurance benefits under school employee retirement system); MCL 38.1624 - 38.1630 (interest in spouse's retirement
allowance under state police retirement system); and MCL 38.2508 (interest in spouse's retirement allowance under judges
retirement system); MCL 38.2669 (health insurance benefits under judges retirement system).
[15]
No Michigan statute recognizes a relationship that could be considered a "similar union." Other states do have such statutes,
however. For example, Vermont's "civil union" statute, 18 VSA 5160 et seq, and California's "domestic partner" act, Cal Fam
Code 297 et seq, which allow couples of the same sex, and opposite-sex couples under certain circumstances, to achieve state-
licensed relationships would appear to fall within the "similar union" category. Other states offering certain benefits to same-sex
couples include Hawaii (Reciprocal Beneficiaries Act, 1997 PA 383), and New Jersey (Family Equality Domestic Partnership
Act, 2003 NJ ALS 246, 2). Massachusetts now offers full marital benefits to same-sex married couples pursuant to the holding in
Goodridge v Dep't of Public Health, 440 Mass 309, 322-325; 798 NE2d 941 (2003). See also Baehr v Lewin, 74 Haw 530, 561;
852 P2d 44 (1993) and Baker v Vermont, 170 Vt 194, 220-222; 744 A2d 864 (2000).
[16]
The other states were Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah.
Louisiana held a ballot issue vote on September 18, 2004, which resulted in passage of the amendment. (La Const, Art XII, 15.)
See CRC Memorandum No. 1076, at http://www.crcmich.org/PUBLICAT/2000s/2004/memo1076.pdf. The courts have relied on
the work of the Citizens Research Council in the past. See Advisory Opinion re Constitutionality of 1972 PA 294, 389 Mich 441,
474; 208 NW2d 469 (1973); Butcher v Grosse Ile Twp, 387 Mich 42, 75; 194 NW2d 845 (1972); WPW Acquisition Co v City of
Troy, 250 Mich App 287, 312; 646 NW2d 487 (2002).
[17]
A lawsuit filed before the election resolved challenges regarding whether the proposal was properly placed before Michigan
voters. See Citizens for Protection of Marriage v Bd of State Canvassers, 263 Mich App 487; 688 NW2d 538 (2004), aff'd ___
Mich ___; 2004 Mich. LEXIS 2072 (2004).
[18]
Const 1963, art 7, 22; Mack v Detroit, supra, 467 Mich at 194; Mich Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners v City of
Ferndale, 256 Mich App 401, 406-407; 662 NW2d 864 (2003).
[19]
When the Michigan Constitution of 1963 was adopted, it made clear that its provisions applied prospectively: "[a]ll writs,
actions, suits . . . contracts, claims, demands . . . existing on the effective date of this constitution shall continue unaffected except as
modified in accordance with the provisions of this constitution." Mich Const 1963, sched 2.
[20]
"Vested rights" have been defined as "an interest that the government is compelled to recognize and protect of which the
holder could not be deprived without injustice." Detroit v Walker, 445 Mich 682, 699; 520 NW2d 135 (1994). But there can be
no vested right in an existing law that precludes its change or repeal. Harsha v Detroit, 261 Mich 586, 594; 246 NW 849 (1933).
See also New York CR Co v White, 243 US 188, 198; 37 S Ct 247; 61 L Ed 667 (1917).
9 of 10 3/1/2012 2:01 AM
[21]
This opinion does not address the issue of whether retroactive application of art 1, 25 would violate the Contract Clauses of
the Federal and Michigan Constitutions, which generally prohibit the enactment of state laws that impair existing contractual
obligations. US Const, art I, 10; Const 1963, art 1, 10; Allied Structural Steel Co v Spannaus, 438 US 234, 242; 98 S Ct 2716;
57 L Ed 2d 727 (1978). Article 1, 10 of the Michigan Constitution provides, "[n]o bill of attainder, ex post facto law or law
impairing the obligation of contract shall be enacted." An amendment to the state constitution is a law for purposes of the Contracts
Clause. State Hwy Comm'r v Detroit City Controller, 331 Mich 337, 354; 49 NW2d 318 (1951); Public Service Comm v
Cheboygan, 324 Mich 309, 321; 37 NW2d 116 (1949). Such a determination can only be made on a case-by-case basis and is
dependent on a number of factual and legal variables that are beyond the scope of this opinion.
[22]
See In re Certified Question, 432 Mich 438, 456-457; 443 NW2d 112 (1989) (An employment policy is "not a perpetually
binding contractual obligation" and, therefore, the employer may "unilaterally change" such policies). For a discussion of the
circumstances under which an implied contract may be found and deemed enforceable against an employer, see Toussaint v Blue
Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 408 Mich 579; 292 NW2d 880 (1980), and Manning v City of Hazel Park, 202 Mich App 685;
509 NW 2d 874 (1993).

http://opinion/datafiles/2000s/op10247.htm
State of Michigan, Department of Attorney General
Last Updated 11/10/2008 14:49:34
10 of 10 3/1/2012 2:01 AM

Exhibit H

2:12-cv-10038-DML-MJH Doc # 21 Filed 03/08/12 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 320 2:12-cv-10038-DML-MJH Doc # 88-10 Filed 02/17/14 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 3706

Exhibit J


Exhibit L


Exhibit Q


MEMORANDUM
From: Williams Institute

Date: September 2009
RE: Michigan Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law and
Documentation of Discrimination

I. OVERVIEW
Currently, Michigan has not enacted any statewide legislation prohibiting
employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
1
The
Michigan Civil Rights Act (hereinafter referred to as the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights
Act),
2
which prohibits employment discrimination based on various categories,
including religion, race, and sex, does not prohibit discrimination based upon sexual
orientation or gender identity. Indeed, in Barbour v. Department of Social Services,
3
the
Michigan Court of Appeals held that harassment and discrimination based upon a
persons sexual orientation is not an activity proscribed by the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights
Act.
4
The Barbour court, however, did hold that a gender discrimination claim brought
pursuant to the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act may be based on incidents of homosexual
advances that directly relate to the employees gender.
5
More recently, a bill was
introduced in J anuary 2007 to include sexual orientation and gender identity or
expression, but that bill did not go beyond the J udiciary Committee.
6

Several executive orders issued between 2003 through 2007 prohibit employment
discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity or expression, but are
limited to protecting only state employees and do not provide for a private right of
action.
7
Several municipalities in Michigan have passed ordinances banning employment
practices, housing practices, and public accommodation practices that discriminate based
on sexual orientation and gender identity.

1
See Sarah Sprague, Employment Discrimination Prevalent Issue for LGBTs, MICH. DAILY, Apr. 4, 2005,
http://bit.ly/BEHiL (illustrating the fear many members of the LGBT community experience when
searching for a job, and once in the workplace, due to the lack of legal protection afforded LGBT
employees under Michigan law).
2
MICH. PUB. ACTS 453 (1976).
3
497 N.W.2d 216 (Mich. App. 1993).
4
Id. at 217-18.
5
Id. at 218.
6
HB 4160 (Mich. 2007).
7
Exec. Order No. 24 (2003); Exec. Order No. 24 (2007); and Exec. Order No. 22 (2008).
1

MICHIGAN
Williams Institute
Employment Discrimination Report
Documented examples of employment discrimination by government employers
on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity or expression in Michigan include:
In 2008, a gay police officer reported that he was forced to resign because of his
sexual orientation.
8

In 2007, a professor filed suit against the University of Michigan Law School for
unlawfully denying him tenure based on his sexual orientation. He alleged that he
was the first openly gay professor to be considered for tenure at the University of
Michigan Law School, and the first man in the history of that institution to be
denied tenure. He was denied tenure by a faculty vote, which at 18-12 in favor of
tenure, fell two votes short of the 2/3 majority required by the school's rules. He
had been recommended for tenure with a 4-1 vote from the tenure committee. His
complaint alleges breach of contract, predicated on representations of non-
discrimination during pre-employment negotiations, as well as University policies
and by-laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual-orientation. Rather
than building an affirmative case that no discrimination took place, the
Universitys initial stance was to maintain that its by-laws and non-discrimination
policies had no legal meaning and created no rights. The Law School filed
motions for summary judgment were denied. The trial court ruled that the
professor had established a legitimate claim of discrimination and that a trial on
the merits was warranted.
9

In 2007, a lesbian corrections officer reported that she was forced to resign
because of her sexual orientation.
10

In 2004, a public school teacher was terminated after telling students he was gay
and had a partner. After the ACLU of Michigan wrote a letter to the school
district demanding that the teacher be reinstated, the school district invited him
back.
11

In 2002, in Pettway v. Detroit Judicial Council,
12
plaintiff, a court reporter,
brought a lawsuit against his employer, supervisor, the Detroit J udicial Council
and the City of Detroit alleging sexual orientation discrimination, retaliation,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with a
business relationship.
13
Plaintiff brought this suit pursuant to the Detroit Human

8
E-mail from Ken Choe, Senior Staff Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union, to Nan D. Hunter, Legal
Scholarship Director, the Williams Institute (Feb. 26, 2009, 17:09:00 EST) (on file with the Williams
Institute).
9
LESBIAN & GAY L. NOTES (Oct. 2007).
10
Institute).
11
Docket: Discrimination, ANNUAL UPDATE 39, 43(ACLU, 2004).
12
No. 226616, 2002 WL 652125 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2002).
13
Id. at *1.
2


MICHIGAN
Williams Institute
Rights Ordinance.
14
At trial, the trial court granted the employers motion for
summary judgment and held that the Human Rights Ordinance only applied to
employees and that the plaintiff was a contractor.
15
The Michigan Court of
Appeals affirmed. Pettway v. Detroit J ud. Council, No. 226616, 2002 WL 652125
(Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2002).
In 2000, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an opinion dismissing the claims of
a Detroit police officer who had been subjected to discrimination and harassment.
She alleged that after she was assigned to the sex crimes unit, numerous male
officers began hitting on her for sexual favors. She declined, stating that she was a
lesbian. She then suffered further discrimination, including being assigned away
from law enforcement to busy-work desk jobs. She also alleged that supervisors
refused to handle her grievances because of her sexual orientation. Ultimately,
she retired from the police force and filed a lawsuit. The officer alleged that she
was harassed after she rebuffed the advances of a supervisor because she is a
lesbian, and that the consequent harassment violated the city charter's ban on
sexual orientation discrimination. The trial judge granted the city's motion to
dismiss the claim, finding that the charter provision did not provide a private right
of action, and that the officers exclusive remedy was to file a discrimination
complaint with the city's human rights agency. However, the Court held that she
could still pursue a sex discrimination claim under the state's civil rights law.
Mack v. City of Detroit, 243 Mich. App. 132 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).

In 1993 in Barbour v. Department of Social Services,
16
a Department of Social
Services employee filed a lawsuit against its employer alleging sexual harassment
and sexual discrimination in violation of the Michigan Civil Rights Act. He
alleged that throughout his employment his coworkers and the supervisor
subjected him to unremitting verbal and nonverbal harassment based on his
perceived sexual orientation.
17
Specifically, plaintiff alleged that the various
forms of harassment were made by coworkers and supervisor to get him to come
out of the closet . . . and to engage in homosexual sex. . . . At trial, the court
determined, as an issue of first impression, that the Michigan Civil Rights Acts
prohibition on sexual harassment does not include a proscription on
discrimination or harassment due to a persons sexual orientation or perceived
sexual orientation.
18
On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the trial
courts ruling;
19
however, it also held that the employee could bring a gender
discrimination claim pursuant to the Michigan Civil Rights Act based on incidents
of homosexual advances that directly related to hir gender.
20
The court found
that the supervisors actions were directly related to plaintiffs status as a male,

14
DETROIT CODE Ch. 27, Art. 3, 3-1, 3-2.
15
Pettway, No. 226616, 2002 WL 652125 at *1.
16
497 N.W.2d 216 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
17
Id. at 217.
18
Id.
19
MICH. COMP. LAWS 37.2101, et seq.
20
Id.
3


MICHIGAN
Williams Institute
and thus rendered the act applicable.
21
Barbour v. Dept of Soc. Serv., 497
N.W.2d 216 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
In 1993, Byron Center High School hired a teacher to revive its floundering music
program.
22
The teacher was a tenured music teacher described by many as one of
the best teachers on staff and a good role model for students.
23
Two years later in
1995, after he successfully revitalized the Centers music program, he and his
partner planned for a commitment ceremony.
24
Before the event took place,
someone at the high school learned of the commitment ceremony and spread word
to staff, parents and students. At a school board meeting, a few angry parents
demanded that the music teacher be fired. The school board did not take
immediate action, but issued a statement that said, The board firmly believes that
homosexuality violates the dominant moral standard of the districts community.
Individuals who espouse homosexuality do not constitute proper role models as
teachers for students in this district and warned the teacher that they would
investigate and monitor the situation.
25
In the months that followed the board
meeting, many parents removed their children from the teachers class and he
became the center of media attention. After a school official released the names
and addresses of his students, parents received antigay letters and videos. While
he struggled to maintain his classroom for the remainder of the school year, he
ultimately relented at the end of the school year and entered into a settlement
agreement with the school district: he agreed not to sue or seek employment in the
district in exchange for one-years salary, health benefits and a letter of reference
to leave the school district.
26
Five months later, he collapsed, went into a coma
and died days later at the age of thirty-two. A forensic pathologist concluded that
his died from a congenital malfunctioning heart valve, adding that this condition
was typically not fatal, but the stress from his public struggle may have
contributed to his death.
27

Part II of this memo discusses state and local legislation, executive orders,
occupational licensing requirements, ordinances and polices involving employment
discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and attempts to enact such
laws and policies. Part III discusses case law, administrative complaints, and other
documented examples of employment discrimination by state and local governments
against LGBT people. Part IV discusses state laws and policies outside the employment
context.

21
Id.
22
Christine Yared, Where Are the Civil Rights for Gay and Lesbian Teachers, 24 Hum. Rts. 3 (ABA
1997), available at http://www.abnet.org/irr/hr/yared.html.
23
Id.
24
J ill Smolowe, et al., The Unmarrying Kind, TIME, Apr. 29, 1996, available at
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,984469.00.html; Yared, supra at Note 22.
25
Yared, supra at Note 22.
26
Id.
27
Id.
4


MICHIGAN
Williams Institute
II. SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY EMPLOYMENT LAW
A. State-Wide Employment Statutes
Currently the state of Michigan has not enacted laws to protect sexual orientation
and gender identity from employment discrimination.
28

B. Attempts to Enact State Legislation
Currently, the Michigan Civil Rights Act (hereinafter referred to as the Elliott-
Larsen Civil Rights Act) does not prohibit discrimination based upon sexual orientation
or gender identity. Pending before the Michigan Legislature is House Bill 4160, which
would add sexual orientation and gender identity or expression to Michigan's civil rights
law. The bill was introduced in J anuary 2007 by Representative Steven Tobocman and
currently has 19 cosponsors. The bill did not go beyond being referred to the J udiciary
Committee.
C. Executive Orders, State Government Personnel Regulations &
Attorney General Opinions
1. Executive Orders
Executive Order 2003-24: Issued December 23, 2003, EO 2003-24 prohibits
sexual orientation discrimination in hiring, recruiting, and other employment practices by
any State department, board, commission, or other agency subject to supervision by the
Governor under Section 8 of Article V of the Michigan Constitution of 1963.
Executive Directive 2007-24: Issued November 21, 2007, ED 2007-24 protects
employees in the State's executive branch from discrimination and harassment based on
"gender identity or expression." The directive states, "[t]o build a more inclusive
Michigan our state government must be a model of tolerance, accessibility, equal
opportunity -- reaching out to people, knocking down barriers, and dispelling prejudices
which hold Michigan back;when the State of Michigan acts inclusively, the state
benefits from the contribution and full participation of all Michiganians; the
employment practices of the State of Michigan should promote public confidence in the
fairness and integrity of government, and should reflect a firm commitment to
strengthening and developing equal employment opportunities; state employment
policies and procedures that encourage non-discriminatory and equal employment
practices provide desirable models for the private sector and local governments and build
upon successful policies and procedures of private and public sector employers." The
directive adds "gender identity or expression" to a list of other prohibited forms of
discrimination and harassment, including religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex,
sexual orientation, height, weight, marital status, partisan considerations, disability and
genetic information.

28
MICH. PUB. ACT. No. 453 (1976) (the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act).
5


MICHIGAN
Williams Institute
The directive defines "gender identity or expression" as the "perception by an
individual or another person of the gender identity, appearance, behavior, or expression
of the individual whether or not that gender identity, appearance, behavior or expression
is different from the gender identity, appearance, behavior or expression traditionally
associated with the sex assigned to the individual at birth." Reporting requirements
established by the Civil Service Commission and regulations established by the State
Personnel Director relating to discriminatory harassment apply and, as provided in rules
promulgated by the Civil Service Commission, an employee who engages in
discriminatory harassment may be disciplined by the appointing authority, up to and
including dismissal. Bona fide occupational qualifications and affirmative action plans
may be authorized by an appointing authority within a department, board, commission or
other agency if approved in advance by the State Personnel Director. Different standards
for compensation or different terms, conditions, or privileges of employment under a
bona fide seniority or merit system are also allowed.
Executive Order 2008-22: Issued December 18, 2008, EO 2008-22 is based on
the policy of the administration to ensure equal access and opportunities in the
recruitment, hiring, promotion, and retention of employees in the states classified service
without regard to sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, that is unrelated
to the persons ability to perform the duties of a particular job or position. The Order
provides for the creation of the State Equal Opportunity and Diversity Counsel that issues
recommendations on equal opportunity measures.
2. State Government Personnel Regulations
The following departments of the Michigan state government have non-
discrimination policies that prohibit employment discrimination either on the basis of
sexual orientation and/or gender identity and expression by state government employees:
the Department of Human Services,
29
the Department of Civil Service,
30
and the
Department of Human Services Bureau of J uvenile J ustice.
31
The Equal Opportunity &
Diversity Inclusion Advisory Committee is an advisory body to the Department of
Human Services, which is committed to integrating the concept of diversity inclusion in
the workplace and assuring equal opportunity for employees in all programs through
collaboration with the offices of the department. Included in the committees definition of
diversity is sexual orientation.
32

On March 17, 2006, the Michigan Commission On Services to the Aging held a
meeting called Arab Community Center for Economic & Social Services, where

29
Discriminatory Harassment, AHJ 1305, AHB 2008-003 (June 1, 2008), available at
http://www.mfia.state.mi.us/olmweb/ex/ahj/1305.pdf (last visited Sept. 6, 2009).
30
Mich. Dept Civ. Serv. Rule 1-8 (Prohibited Discrimination), available at http://bit.ly/Wo8sl; Mich.
Dept Civ. Serv. Regulation No. 1.03 (Investigating Reports of Discriminatory Harassment), available at
http://bit.ly/AzFtr.
31
Mich. Gov. Staff Ethics Rules, J R1 115, J RB 2007-001, (Nov. 11, 2007), available at
http://www.mfia.state.mi.us/olmweb/ex/J R1/115.pdf (last visited Sept. 6, 2009).
32
Powerpoint Presentation, Dept of Hum. Serv., Equal Opportunity & Diversity Inclusion Advisory
Comm., available at http://bit.ly/4zX0cn (last visited Sept. 6, 2009).
6


MICHIGAN
Williams Institute
Commissioner Bollinger asked why sexual orientation is not a requirement within the
Civil Rights compliance section of Statewide Service and Area Agency on Aging
Operating Standards. Eric Berke, a OSA staff member, explained that the State of
Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act of 1976 and the Federal Civil Rights Act of
1964, Title VII specifically, did not include sexual orientation as a protected category.
As a result, sexual orientation is only a minimum expectation as reflected in current
law or regulation. Mr. Berke further stated that the Commission could include the
reference if desired. At that point, Commissioner Guilfoyle made a motion to include
sexual orientation in the Area Agency on Aging Operating Standards and the service
standards, Commissioner Bollinger seconded the motion, and the Commission
unanimously voice-voted approval.
33

3. Attorney General Opinions
In a 1978 Attorney General Opinion on preemption, the Attorney General opined
that municipalities and municipal human rights relations commissions are limited to
performing education, counseling and advisory rules in the area of civil rights
enforcement in the absence of an authorization from, or certification by, the State Civil
Rights Commission for the performance of further functions. The Attorney General
opines that the Detroit Charter, Art. 7, Ch 10, Sec. 7-1004(1), which protects against
sexual orientation in addition to other bases of discrimination that are state recognized, is
in direct conflict with the State Civil Rights Commission rules.
4. Local Ordinances
A number of cities in Michigan have anti-discrimination policies that prohibit
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, including Ann
Arbor,
34
Lansing,
35
Ferndale,
36
Flint,
37
Grand Rapids,
38
Lansing,
39
Ypsilanti,
40

Saugatuck Township,
41
Spring Lake,
42
and Westland.
43

Detroit has a number of ordinances prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination
in employment. Specifically, these ordinances are geared toward (1) employers and

33
Minutes of the Meeting of the Commn on Serv. to the Aging (Feb. 17, 2006), available at
http://bit.ly/bwpIn (last visited Sept. 6, 2009).
34
See ANN ARBOR CODE Ch. 112, 9:150 to 9:164 (1995) (specifically banning discrimination in
employment at 9:155).
35
See EAST LANSING CODE Ch. 22, Art. II, 22-31 to 22-22-39 (specifically banning discrimination in
employment at 22-33).
36
FERNDALE CODE Ch. 28, 28-1 to 28-6.
37
CITY OF FLINT, MICH. CODE, Part II, Ch. 2, Art. IV, 2-19.2(a).
38
CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS, MICH. CODE , Part 2, Ch. 8, Art. 3, 1.347.
39
LANSING CODE Part 2, Title 12, Ch. 297, 297.01 to 297.15.
40
YPSILANTI CODE Ch. 58, Art III, Div. 1, 58-61 to 58-75; Id. at Ch. 2, Art. VI, Div. 3, 2-316 to 2-
329 (Affirmative Action program that applies to city contractors); Id. at Ch. 58, Art II, 58-31 to 58-39
(Human Relations Commission).
41
Art. V, Sec. 2-251 to 2-258 (Ord. No. 2007-02, 2-9, 8-2-2007).
42
Art. XVII, Sec. 17.02.
43
Art. 2, Sec. 54-39 (Code 1981, 11-27; Ord. No. 194-A-2, 2, 11-15-04).
7


MICHIGAN
Williams Institute
contractors with the City;
44
(2) the Citys Human Resources Department;
45
and (3)
housing commission employment practices.
46
The City also has a Home Rule Charter
that declares, as a right for the citizens of the City, that the City has an affirmative duty to
secure the equal protection of the law for all persons, and states that no person shall be
denied the enjoyment of civil or political rights, or be discriminated against in the
exercise thereof, because of race, color, creed, national origin, age, handicap, sex, or
sexual orientation.
47
In addition, Detroit has enacted ordinances creating a general
human rights commission, which is dedicated to eliminating sexual orientation
discrimination.
48
The human rights commission is vested with the power and the general
jurisdiction, both inside and outside of city government, to approve of procedures to
remedy past effects of discrimination and to prevent discrimination in education,
employment, medical care facilities, housing accommodations, commercial space, places
of public accommodation, public service, resort or amusement, or other forms of
discrimination prohibited by law, based upon sexual orientation; and to take such
action as necessary to secure the equal protection of civil rights.
49

D. Occupational Licensing Requirements
Michigan Complied Laws 339.101, et seq. (Occupational Code) consolidates
and reclassifies the laws regarding the regulation of certain occupations and creates a
board for each occupation and procedures for licensing. A non-exhaustive search of
websites has found no occupational licensing requirements that reference moral
turpitude or similar allusions that could include sexual orientation or gender identity.

44
45
Id. at Part I, Art 6, Ch. 5, 6-506.
46
Id. at Ch. 14, Art. 5, 5-3(d).
47
Id. at Part I, Preamble, 2.
48
See Id. at Ch. 27, Art. 1, 1-1.
49
See generally, DETROIT CODE Ch. 27, Art. 1-3.
8


MICHIGAN
Williams Institute
III. DOCUMENTED EXAMPLES OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
LGBT PEOPLE BY STATE &LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
A. Case Law
1. State & Local Government Employees
Pettway v. Detroit J ud. Council, No. 226616, 2002 WL 652125 (Mich. Ct. App.
Apr. 19, 2002).
In Pettway v. Detroit Judicial Council,
50
plaintiff, a court reporter, brought a
lawsuit against his employer, supervisor, the Detroit J udicial Council and the City of
Detroit alleging sexual orientation discrimination, retaliation, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, and tortious interference with a business relationship.
51
Plaintiff
brought this suit pursuant to the Detroit Human Rights Ordinance.
52
At trial, the trial
court granted plaintiffs employer and supervisor summary judgment and held that the
Human Rights Ordinance only applied to employers.
53
Plaintiff challenged this holding
on appeal and the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the trial courts ruling that the
ordinance applied strictly to employers.
54

Linda Mack was a Detroit police officer, who had advanced to the rank of
lieutenant. She claimed that because she rebuffed sexual advances by several male
supervisors, she was subjected to discrimination and mistreatment. Mack argued that she
rebuffed these advances because she is a lesbian, and that the consequent harassment
violated the city charter's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. The trial judge
granted the city's motion to dismiss the claim, finding that the charter provision did not
provide a private right of action, and that Mack's exclusive remedy was to file a
discrimination complaint with the city's human rights agency. On appeal, the Michigan
Court of Appeals found that the city charter did not support the contention that the
administrative remedy was exclusive, holding that there is an implied right of action
under the Detroit city charter provision that bans sexual orientation discrimination. The
case was appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, which reversed the appellate court,
holding that Mack cannot enforce her rights under the Detroit City Charter to be free of
sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace by suing the city and its police
department in state court. However, Mack is still entitled to pursue a sex discrimination
claim under the state's civil rights law.

Mack alleged that when she was assigned to the sex crimes unit, numerous male
officers began hitting on her for sexual favors. When she declined, stating that she was a
lesbian, she suffered further discrimination, including being assigned away from law

50
No. 226616, 2002 WL 652125 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2002).
51
Id. at *1.
52
53
Pettway, No. 226616, 2002 WL 652125 at *1.
54
Id. at 2.
9


MICHIGAN
Williams Institute
enforcement to busy-work desk jobs. She also alleged that supervisors refused to handle
her grievances because of her sexual orientation. Ultimately, she retired from the police
force and filed a lawsuit.

The Supreme Court held that the fatal flaw in Mack's claim is that although
Detroit amended its charter years before to ban sexual orientation discrimination,
Michigan had not added that category to the state's civil rights law. According to the
majority, Mack's suit for sexual orientation discrimination, which was based solely on the
city charter provision, was not within the jurisdiction of the state courts because the city
does not have authority to enact exceptions to the Michigan Government Tort Liability
Act (GTLA), which provides that, apart from some listed exceptions, government
agencies in Michigan are immune from tort liability when "engaged in the exercise or
discharge of a governmental function."
55

Barbour v. Dept of Soc. Serv., 497 N.W.2d 216 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
In Barbour v. Department of Social Services,
56
a Department of Social Services
employee filed a lawsuit against its employer alleging sexual harassment and sexual
discrimination in violation of the Michigan Civil Rights Act, MICH. COMP. LAWS
37.2101, et seq. The plaintiff held that throughout his employment with defendant, his
coworkers and supervisor subjected him to unremitting verbal and nonverbal harassment
based on his perceived sexual orientation.
57
Specifically, plaintiff alleged that the
various forms of harassment were made by coworkers and supervisor to get him to come
out of the closet . . . and to engage in homosexual sex. . . . At trial, the court determined,
as an issue of first impression, that the Michigan Civil Rights Acts prohibition on sexual
harassment does not include a proscription on discrimination or harassment due to a
persons sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation.
58
The trial court granted
defendants summary judgment.
On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the trial courts ruling
regarding the application of the Michigan Civil Rights Act.
59
The appellate court stated
that the plaintiff failed to show the alleged harassment by his coworkers was gender-
based, noting that plaintiffs deposition indicated his own relief that the harassment was
the result of his co-workers perceptions of his sexual orientation.
60
The appellate court
found, however, that the lower court erred in dismissing plaintiffs complaint insofar as it
alleged specific homosexual advances directed to him by his supervisor. In particular,
the court held that a gender discrimination claim brought pursuant to the Michigan Civil
Rights Act may be based on incidents of homosexual advances that directly relate to the

55
56
497 N.W.2d 216 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
57
Id. at 217.
58
Id.
59
MICH. COMP. LAWS 37.2101, et seq.
60
497 N.W.2d at 218.
10


MICHIGAN
Williams Institute
employee's gender.
61
The court found that the supervisors actions were directly related
to plaintiffs status as a male, and thus rendered the act applicable.
62

2. Private Employees
Robinson v. Ford Motor Co., 744 N.W.2d 363 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
In Robinson v. Ford Motor Company,
63
the plaintiff brought a sexual harassment
claim against his employer pursuant to the Michigan Civil Rights Act, alleging that a
male coworker sexually harassed him while they both worked in defendants
manufacturing plant. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the coworker engaged in a
variety of conduct unwelcomed by him and other employees that constituted sexual
harassment.
With regard to plaintiff, the alleged conduct included the coworker slapping him
on the buttocks, pinching his nipples, pulling down plaintiffs pants to expose his
underwear, the coworker exposing his testicles to another coworker while grasping
plaintiffs hand and attempting to or actually making plaintiff touch them, and placing his
hands in plaintiffs pants and placing his finger between plaintiffs buttocks. The
coworker also allegedly offered to show plaintiff his penis and asked plaintiff about the
size of plaintiffs penis. Additionally, the coworker allegedly made comments about
wanting to see plaintiffs naked butt in a vat of K-Y J elly and wanting to crack
[plaintiffs] ass. On several occasions, the coworker told plaintiff, Youre my bitch, I
own your ass. Plaintiff alleged that he suffered a breakdown after two consecutive days
in which the coworker digitally penetrated plaintiffs mouth. Plaintiff testified in his
deposition that he could feel the coworkers erect penis on his back during one of these
incidents. Plaintiff reported these and other incidents to his supervisor.
64

The Court of Appeal held that: (1) the language of the Michigan Civil Rights Act
did not exclude same-gender harassment claims; and (2) the employee presented
sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that the coworkers
conduct and communication inherently pertained to sex for the purposes of the
employees same-gender sexual harassment claim under Michigan Civil Rights Act.
The Court further noted that, consistent with the United States Supreme Courts
holding in Oncale,
65
it interpreted the Michigan Civil Rights Act to present a threshold
question: whether the same-gender harassers conduct constituted discrimination

61
Id.
62
Id.
63
744 N.W.2d 363 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
64
Id. at 366.
65
In Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998), the United States Supreme Court held
that sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment is actionable under title VII. The Court
further held that title VIIs prohibition against sexual discrimination included sexual harassment of any
kind that meets the statutory requirements. The Court also held that discrimination on the basis of sex can
be inferred in cases where there is credible evidence that the harasser was homosexual. The Court did
not address the issue of the victims sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation.
11


MICHIGAN
Williams Institute
because of sex.
66
The Court remanded the case for determination as to whether there
was sufficient evidence to establish that the coworker acted out of sexual desire when
harassing plaintiff or that the coworker was motivated by a general hostility toward the
presence of men in the workplace; and whether there was direct comparative evidence
about how the coworker treated members of both genders in a mixed-gender workplace.
The Court failed to identify any evidentiary routes that plaintiff took to establish his
same-gender sexual harassment claim.
67

Brewer v. Hill, No. 208872, 2000 Mich. App. LEXIS 1033 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept.
15, 2000).
In Brewer v. Hill,
68
plaintiff, a paralegal, filed a lawsuit against his employer
alleging breach of employment contract as well as sexual and racial discrimination and
harassment in violation of the Michigan Civil Rights Act.
69
Specifically, plaintiff alleged
defendant derogatorily referred to plaintiff as a homosexual and called him gay,
faggot, fairy, president of the Downriver Fairies Club, and half-breed in front of
coworkers and clients.
70
Plaintiff also presented evidence that women in his workplace
were not subject to the same harassment based on perceived sexual orientation.
71
The
trial court granted defendants motion for directed verdict, reversing a jurys verdict in
plaintiffs favor.
72

The Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the trial courts ruling, holding that the
name calling plaintiff endured from the lawyer for whom he worked was not enough to
establish a violation of the Michigan Civil Rights Act, because this evidence was
insufficient to demonstrate that the harassment was actually based on gender. The Court
of Appeals held that the mere fact that defendant Hill did not demean the women in his
office by questioning their sexuality does not establish that, but for the fact of plaintiff's
sex, plaintiff would not have been the object of harassment.
73

B. Administrative Complaints
None.
C. Other Documented Examples of Discrimination
Municipal Police Department

66
Id. at 369-70 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
67
Id. at 370.
68
No. 208872, 2000 Mich. App. LEXIS 1033 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2000).
69
Id. at *1.
70
Id. at *2 and *15, n.6.
71
Id. at *16.
72
Id. at *2.
73
Id. at *16.
12


MICHIGAN
Williams Institute
In 2008, a gay police officer reported that he was forced to resign because of his
sexual orientation.
74

The University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
In 2007, Professor Peter Hammer filed suit against the University of Michigan
Law School for unlawfully denying him tenure based on his sexual orientation. Professor
Hammer alleged that he was the first openly gay professor to be considered for tenure at
the University of Michigan Law School, and the first man in the history of that institution
to be denied tenure. Hammer was denied tenure by a faculty vote, which at 18-12 in
favor of tenure, fell two votes short of the 2/3 majority required by the school's rules.
Hammer had been recommended for tenure with a 4-1 vote from the tenure committee.
The complaint alleges breach of contract, predicated on representations of non-
discrimination during pre-employment negotiations, as well as University policies and
by-laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual-orientation. Rather than
building an affirmative case that no discrimination took place, the Universitys initial
stance was to maintain that its by-laws and non-discrimination policies had no legal
meaning and created no rights.
The Law School filed two Motions for Summary Disposition that were denied.
The trial court ruled that Hammer had established a legitimate claim of discrimination
and that a trial on the merits was warranted.
75

Correctional Facility
In 2007, a lesbian corrections officer reported that she was forced to resign
because of her sexual orientation.
76

Byron Center Public School
In 1993 Byron Center High School hired Gerry Crane to revive its floundering
music program.
77
Crane was a gay, tenured music teacher described by many as one of
the best teachers on staff and a good role model for students.
78
Two years later in 1995,
after Crane successfully revitalized the Centers music program, Crane and his partner
Randy Block planned for a commitment ceremony.
79
Before the event took place,
someone at the Center learned of the commitment ceremony and spread word to staff,
parents and students. At a school board meeting, a few angry parents demanded that

74
Institute).
75
LESBIAN & GAY L. NOTES (Oct. 2007).
76
Institute).
77
78
Id.
79
J ill Smolowe, et al., The Unmarrying Kind, TIME, Apr. 29, 1996, available at
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,984469.00.html; Yared, supra at Note 22.
13


MICHIGAN
Williams Institute
Crane be fired. The school board did not take immediate action, but issued a statement
that said, The board firmly believes that homosexuality violates the dominant moral
standard of the districts community. Individuals who espouse homosexuality do not
constitute proper role models as teachers for students in this district and warned Crane
that they would investigate and monitor the situation.
80
In the months that followed the
board meeting, many parents removed their children from Cranes class and Crane
became the center of media attention. After a school official released the names and
addresses of Cranes students, parents of Cranes students received antigay letters and
videos. While Crane struggled to maintain his classroom for the remainder of the school
year, Crane ultimately relented at the end of the school year and entered into a settlement
agreement with the school district: he agreed not to sue or seek employment in the district
in exchange for one-years salary, health benefits and a letter of reference to leave the
school district.
81
Five months later, Crane collapsed, went into a coma and died days
later at the age of thirty-two. A forensic pathologist concluded that his died from a
congenital malfunctioning heart valve. The pathologist added that this condition was
typically not fatal, but the stress from his public struggle may have contributed to his
death.
82

Michigan Public School
In 2004, A public school teacher was terminated after telling students he was gay
and had a partner. After the ACLU of Michigan wrote a letter to the school district
demanding that the teacher be reinstated, the school district invited him back.
83

80
81
Id.
82
Id.
83
Docket: Discrimination, ANNUAL UPDATE 39, 43(ACLU, 2004).
14


MICHIGAN
Williams Institute
IV. NON-EMPLOYMENT SEXUAL ORIENTATION & GENDER IDENTITY RELATED
LAW
In addition to state employment law, the following areas of state law were
searched for other examples of employment-related discrimination against LGBT people
by state and local governments and indicia of animus against LGBT people by the state
government, state officials, and employees. As such, this section is not intended to be a
comprehensive overview of sexual orientation and gender identity law in these areas.
A. Criminalization of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior
Although Michigan has adopted modern criminal sexual conduct laws based upon
the Model Penal Code,
84
the legislature still has not repealed the old sodomy
85
and gross
indecency statutes,
86
which criminalize homosexual behavior.
B. Housing & Public Accommodations Discrimination
No state housing regulations exists that addresses sexual orientation
discrimination or gender identity discrimination. However, a number of local
jurisdictions have passed ordinances prohibiting sexual orientation or gender identity
discrimination in housing and public accommodations, including Ann Arbor,
87

Douglas,
88
East Lansing,
89
Ferndale,
90
Lansing,
91
Saugatuck Township in Allegan
County,
92
Spring Lake,
93
Westland,
94
Dearborn Heights,
95
West Bloomfield (master
cable services only),
96
Port Huron (taxi services only)
97
Birmingham (real estate
transactions).
98

On December 1, 2008, the Commission for the City of Kalamazoo voted 7-0 to
adopt an expanded human rights ordinance that makes it illegal to use sexual orientation
to discriminate in housing, public accommodations, and employment. The new
ordinance went into effect December 11, 2008, but on J anuary 13, 2009, the City

84
MICH. COMP. LAWS 750.520 et seq.
85
Id. at 750.158.
86
Id. at 750..338a (1952) (male indecency) and 750.338a. (female indecency).
87
See ANN ARBOR CODE Ch. 112, 9:150 to 9:164 (1995) (Ord. No. 4-78, 3-13-78; Ord. No. 10-99, 1,
3-1-99).
88
CITY OF THE VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS, MICH. CODE, Tit. IX, Ch. 91, 91.01, et seq.
89
See Art II, 22-31 to 22-22-39; (Ord. No. 977, Ch. 111, 9.301 to 9.308, 3-19-2002; Ord. No. 1127,
10-18-2005).
90
Ch. 28, 28-1 to 28-6 (Ord. No. 1016, Pt. I, 11-7-06).
91
Ch. 297 297.01 to 297.15 (Ord. No. 1120, 1, 12-18-06).
92
Art. V, Sec. 2-251 to 2-258 (Ord. No. 2007-02, 2-9, 8-2-2007).
93
Art. XVII, Sec. 17.02.
94
Art. 2, Sec. 54-39 (Code 1981, 11-27; Ord. No. 194-A-2, 2, 11-15-04).
95
2-581 (Ord. No. H-05-03, I, 10-11-05)
96
Art. XIII, Div. 1, Sec. 9-278 (Ord. No. C-591, Art. 15, 9-18-00).
97
Art. XIII, Div. 1, 12-606 (Code 1975, 36-21; Code 1992, 18-331; Ord. No. 1175, 7-10-2000).
98
66-36 (Code 1963, 9.132; Ord. No. 1520, 9.132, 4-27-92; Code 1963, 9.134; Ord. No. 1520,
9.134, 4-27-92).
15


MICHIGAN
Williams Institute
Commission unanimously repealed the ordinance after opponents, lead by the American
Family Association of Michigan, collected enough signatures to put the ordinance up for
a public vote.
epartment;
104
(7) in housing commission applications and
employment practices.
105

C. Hate Crimes

prejudice or bias based on race, ethnic origin, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
106

gan almost immediately and
are currently an annual event in the Michigan Legislature.
D. Education
nder identity. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Education on J anuary 29, 2009.

The City of Detroit has a number of ordinances prohibiting sexual orientation
discrimination: (1) in real estate, insurance and loan practices;
99
(2) by employers and
contractors with city;
100
(3) in policing and other immigration status checks;
101
(4) in
educational institutional practices;
102
(5) in public accommodation practices;
103
(6) by the
Citys Human Resources D
Michigan law requires local police agencies to report crimes motivated by
Michigans Ethnic Intimidation Act, the States hate-crimes law, does not include
sexual orientation protections, creating an anomaly in which police are required to
report a crime which is not classified as a crime under state law.
107
As originally
drafted and proposed, Michigans statute included sexual orientation as one of the
proscribed motivations. This provision, however, was dropped in a legislative
compromise to secure the passage of the remainder of the bill.
108
Attempts to amend the
Act in order to reinstate the sexual orientation protection be
Michigan has a general Statewide school safety information policy, which
provides requirements that a school must follow when instances take place at schools that
require law enforcement intervention.
109
However, there is no specific legislation
protecting transgender, gay, or lesbian students from discrimination or harassment.
Senate Bill 0159 seeks to prohibit harassment or bullying of a student based on the
students actual or perceived distinguishing characteristics. Protected characteristics
include sexual orientation and ge

99
(Ord. No. 303-H, 1(2-7-4), 1-24-79; Ord. No. 330-H, 1, 6-27-79).
100
(Ord. No. 303-H, 1(2-7-3), 1-24-79; Ord. No. 330-H, 1, 6-27-79).
101
(Ord. No. 10-07, 1, 5-9-07).
102
(Ord. No. 330-H, 1(2-7-5), 1-24-79).
103
(Ord. No. 330-H, 1, (2-7-6), 1-24-79; Ord. No. 303-H, 1, 6-27-79).
104
(Art. 6, Ch. 5, Sec. 6-506).
105
(Code 1964, 2-7-13; Ord. No. 5-95, 1, 4-12-95; Ord. No. 12-01, 1, 9-17-01; Ord. No. 15-01, 1,
9-26-01; Ord. No. 05-06, 1, 2-17-06).
106
Id. at 28.251 and 28.257a (1992).
107
Id. at 750.147b (1989).
108
Senate Fiscal Agency, First Analysis of HB 4113 (Substitute S-2), (1987-1988).
109
MICH. COMP. LAWS SERV. 380.1308 (1999).
16


MICHIGAN
Williams Institute
The Michigan Career and Technical Institute (MCTI), through the Department
of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth, conducts vocational and technical training
programs and provide the supportive services needed to prepare Michigan citizens with
disabilities for competitive employment. The MCTI has a policy under its Ethical Code
of Conduct to provide appropriate services to students regardless of sexual
orientation.
110

The School District of the City of Ferndale (which also encompasses Pleasant
Ridge, Royal Oak Township and part of Oak Park), the Wayne-Westland School District
(later repealed in August 1997), and Plymouth-Canton High School all protect students
and staff from discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Berkley Education
Association has forbidden such discrimination against teachers by contract since 1993.
111

E. Health Care
Michigan law does not specifically allow for a partner to make medical decisions
on behalf of his/her incapacitated same-sex partner (though a legal guardian may make
such decisions).
112
An adult may appoint a patient advocate to make medical decisions
on his/her behalf.
113

The Michigan Public Health Code requires Nursing Homes to certify . . . that all
phases of operation, including its training program, are without discrimination against
persons or groups of persons on the basis of . . . sexual orientation.
114
This language
protects both residents and staff. In addition, the code prohibits denial of care on the
basis of sexual preference.
115

Michigan prohibits all persons working in psychology,
116
social work,
117
and
sanitarians,
118
in the Department of Community Health, from engaging in harassment or
unfair discrimination on a number of bases, including gender identity and sexual
orientation.
F. Gender Identity

110
MCTI ETHICAL CODE Policy No. 62 ( 2005), available at http://bit.ly/bqwWO.
111
Serra, supra note 153, at 948.
112
MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. 333.5653 (2005).
113

114
MICH. COMP. LAWS 333.21761(1) (1998).
115
Id. at 333.20201(2)(a) (2006).
116
MICHIGAN ADMIN. CODE, Rule 3383.2515 Rule 15, Dept of Community Health, Directors Office,
Psychology.
117
Social Work.
118
Advisory Committee on Sanitarians Registration.
17


MICHIGAN
Williams Institute
Michigan law provides that a transsexual individual born in Michigan may obtain
a new birth certificate with a physicians affidavit certifying that sex-reassignment
surgery has been performed.
119

G. Parenting
Michigan allows any adult or married couple to petition to adopt.
120

In Boot v. Boot,
121
the court considered the plaintiffs mothers same-sex
relationship as evidence regarding moral fitness.
H. Recognition of Same-Sex Couples
1. Marriage, Civil Unions & Domestic Partnership
On November 2, 2004, Michigan voters approved Proposal 04-2, adding Article
1, Section 25 to Michigans Constitution. The amendment reads: To secure and
preserve the benefits of marriage of our society and for future generations of children, the
union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as
a marriage or similar union for any purpose.
122

In 2004, the Attorney General opined that a marriage contracted between persons
of the same sex in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages is not valid in the State of
Michigan.
123
In that same opinion, the Attorney General also opined that couples of the
same sex who marry in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages as valid are not legally
authorized to adopt children in Michigan as a couple. One member of a same-sex couple
may adopt a child in Michigan as a single person.
Since 1996, marriage is described in MICH. COMP. LAWS 551.1 as inherently a
unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state
has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting that unique relationship
in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its
children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this
state. Furthermore, MICH. COMP. LAWS 551.272 provides that marriage that is not
between a man and a woman is invalid in this state regardless of whether the marriage is
contracted according to the laws of another jurisdiction.
The City of Ann Arbor has a domestic partnership ordinance that recognizes
families that are based on committed relationships apart from marriages, including those
comprised of lesbians, gay males, bisexual persons, or heterosexuals.
124

119
MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. 333.2831(c) (1997).
120
121
2001 WL 766115 (Mich. App. Ct. 2001).
122
Mich. Const. 1963, Art. I, 25.
123
Mich. Atty Gen. Op. No. 7160, 2004 WL 2096457 (2004).
124
ANN ARBOR CODE Ch. 110, 9:85-9:95 (Ord. No. 62-91, 1, 11-4-91).
18


MICHIGAN
Williams Institute
2. Benefits
In March 2005, Michigan Attorney General Mike A. Cox issued an opinion,
stating that, based on the recent Michigan Constitutional Amendment recognizing
marriage only between a man and a woman, no city in Michigan may continue offering
same-sex benefits when it renews contracts for its municipal employees.
125

In American Family Association of Michigan v. Michigan State University Board
of Trustees,
126
a nonprofit corporation brought action against Michigan State University,
its board of trustees, and other associated entities, challenging defendants policy of
providing benefits to same-sex domestic partners. Plaintiff alleged that the policy
constituted an illegal expenditure of state funds to define and recognize same-sex
domestic partnerships in violation of the State Constitution and state law. The Court of
Appeals held that: (1) the corporation lacked standing to bring lawsuit, and (2) the
lawsuit, brought pursuant to the statute permitting actions to prevent illegal expenditure
of state funds to test constitutionality of a statute relating thereto, was not tantamount to a
qui tam action challenging unlawful expenditures.
127

The City of Kalamazoo, in accordance with its Domestic Partner Benefits Policy,
previously provided insurance and other benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of
City employees identical to those provided to spouses of City employees. However,
after the Attorney General issued its opinion that this policy violated the Constitutional
Amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples in 2005, and the Michigan Court
of Appeals ruled that providing such benefits violated the state Constitutional
Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman in 2007, the City
repealed this ordinance.
128

In National Price at Work, Inc. v. Governor of Michigan,
129
a union constituency
group and various public employees and their respective same-sex domestic partners
brought action against the Governor of Michigan and the City of Kalamazoo, seeking
declaratory judgment that the marriage amendment did not preclude public employers
from extending benefits to same-sex domestic partners.
130
A unanimous three-judge
panel of the state Court of Appeal ruled that the amendment bans domestic partner
benefit plans.
J. Other Non-Employment Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity
Related Laws
1. Judicial Ethics

125
Mich. Atty Gen. Op. No. 7171, 2005 WL 639112(2005).
126
739 N.W.2d 908 (Mich. App. Ct. 2007).
127
Id.
128
David Eggert, Kalamazoo No Longer Will Provide Health Benefits to Gay Partners, A.P., J une 4, 2007,
available at http://bit.ly/3U2TqN (last visited Sept. 6, 2009).
129
732 N.W.2d 139 (Mich. 2007).
130
Id.
19


20

MICHIGAN
Williams Institute

When the Representative Assembly of the State Bar of Michigan approached the
subject of judges membership in discriminatory organizations, it failed to take a firm
stance against the involvement of judges in such organizations. The proposed MCJ C
Canon 2C stated: A judge should not hold membership in any organization which the
judge knows invidiously discriminates on the basis of race, religion, disability, age,
sexual orientation, gender, or ethnic origin. The adopted MCJ C Canon 2E states: A
judge should be particularly cautious with regard to membership activities that
discriminate, or appear to discriminate, on the basis of race, gender, other protected
personal characteristic.
131

2. Government Contracting: Local Ordinances Prohibiting
Discrimination

The cities of Detroit, Grand Rapids, Ann Arbor, East Lansing, Flint and
Birmingham, as well as the Village of Douglas, have ordinances forbidding sexual
orientation discrimination in contracting.
132
Ferndale, Michigan now does, as well.
133

3. Loans
Michigan provides that loans are available to all eligible borrowers without regard
to race, color, sex, creed, religion, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, age, or
marital status.
134

131
Mich. Ethics Op. No. J I-75, 1993 WL 566226 (1993).
132
Rudy Serra, Sexual Orientation and Michigan Law, 76 MICH. B.J . 948, 948 (1997).
133
19 MICH. EMPL. L. LETTER 10 (Dec. 2008).
134

MICH. ADMIN. CODE R. 390.1603 Rule 3 (Department of Treasury, Michigan Higher Education Student
Loan Authority, Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP)).

Exhibit S


Exhibit V-1


Exhibit V-2


Exhibit A

Exhibit B
Exhibit 1

1

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BARBARA RAMBER, DOAK BLOSS and
GERARDO ASCHERI, DENISE MILLER
and MICHELLE JOHNSON,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

RICHARD SNYDER, in his official capacity
as Governor of the state of Michigan,

Defendant.
____________________________________

Case No. 2:12-cv-10038


CORRECTED DECLARATION OF MARY LANNOYE
SUBMITTED AS EXHIBIT 1 TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE ADDITIONAL MATERIALS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Mary Lannoye hereby submits a corrected declaration to replace the declaration
submitted as Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Additional Materials In Support of
Their Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 47). This corrected declaration rectifies
minor calculation errors inadvertently included in the original declaration. Plaintiffs respectfully
request that this corrected declaration replace the declaration submitted with the original Motion
for Leave to File Additional Materials In Support of Their Motion for Preliminary Injunction on
June 13, 2012.

Exhibit 1.A

ADOPTED - NOVEMBER 8, 2011
Agenda Item No. 6

Introduced by the County Services Committee of the:

INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE GOVERNOR TO REFUSE TO ENACT
THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS
RESTRICTION ACT

RESOLUTION #11-340

WHEREAS, the Michigan House of Representatives and Senate recently passed HB 4770, the
Public Employee Domestic Partner Benefits Restriction Act, and HB 4771, an amendment to
1947 PA 336; and

WHEREAS, the extension of benefits to domestic partners is an increasing trend in the private
and public sector both nationally and internationally; and

WHEREAS, prohibiting the collective bargaining for domestic partner benefits would affect a
hostile, anti-union environment that would be prohibitive for recruiting the new employees with
the appropriate level of skill, training, and experience necessary to replace those lost in the
exodus that would result from this legislation; and

WHEREAS, the intention of this legislation represents nothing less than an unconscionable
attack on the rights of Michigan's gay and lesbian citizens, by purposefully and
disproportionately affecting the ability of individuals of a minority sexual orientation to access
affordable healthcare and other benefits; and

WHEREAS, if this legislation were signed into law, Ingham County's policies regarding its
employees and the benefits packages that it extends to them would be affected; and

WHEREAS, if this legislation were signed into law, Ingham County would be construed to be a
less desirable employer to potential employees.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ingham County Board of Commissioners calls on
Governor Rick Snyder to veto the Public Employee Domestic Partner Benefits Restriction Act.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Clerk shall send copies of this resolution to
Governor Rick Snyder, the Ingham County State Legislative Delegation, and the Michigan
Association of Counties.

COUNTY SERVICES: Yeas: De Leon, Copedge, Celentino, Schor, Dragonetti
Nays: Vickers Absent: None Approved 11/01/11

Exhibit 1.B

ADOPTED - FEBRUARY 26, 2008
Agenda Item No. 10

Introduced by the County Services and Finance Committees of the:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING OFFERING OTHER QUALIFIED ADULT BENEFITS
TO MANAGERIAL/CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES
RESOLUTION #08-042
WHEREAS, Ingham County is committed to providing access to healthcare to its residents; and
WHEREAS, flexibility in providing benefits to non-traditional households contributes to
meeting this goal; and
WHEREAS, the Controller, Benefits and Insurance staff and the County Attorney have
developed eligibility criteria which clearly defines the requirements for participation.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Other Qualified Adult (OQA) benefits for
Managerial/Confidential employees be provided no later than August 1, 2008.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Managerial/Confidential Personnel Manual shall be
updated to incorporate a revised Health Insurance Program.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, a special open enrollment period shall be held to allow eligible
dependents to enroll into the health plan of their choice.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board Chairperson and County Clerk are authorized to
sign appropriate documents after review as to form by the County Attorney, as needed.

COUNTY SERVICES: Yeas: Nolan, De Leon, Copedge, Soule, Grebner
Nays: Severino Absent: None Approved 2/19/08

FINANCE: Yeas: Grebner, Hertel,Weatherwax-Grant
Nays: Dougan Absent: Celentino, Schor Approved 2/20/08


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 30th day of July, 2012, a true copy of Corrected Declaration of Mary
Lannoye Submitted as Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Additional Materials In
Support of Their Motion for Preliminary Injunction was delivered by electronic filing to:

Margaret A. Nelson (P30342)
Mark E. Donnelly (P39281)
Attorneys for Defendant
Michigan Department of Attorney General
Public Employment, Elections & Tort Division
P.O. Box 30736
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-6434
Dated: July 30, 2012

s/ Amy E. Crawford


Exhibit 2.B

TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
Page 1
1
SANDRA BOHNET
2
I N THE DI STRI CT COURT OF THE UNI TED STATES
3
FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN
4
SOUTHERN DI VI SI ON
5
6
7
KENNEDY, PETER WAYS and J OE
8
BREAKEY, J OLI NDA J ACH and
9
10
GERARDO ASCHERI , DENI SE MI LLER,
11
AND MI CHELLE J OHNSON,
12
Pl ai nt i f f s,
13
vs. Case No. 2: 12- cv- 10038
14
Hon. Davi d M. Lawson
15
RI CHARD SNYDER, i n hi s of f i ci al
16
capaci t y as Gover nor of t he
17
St at e of Mi chi gan,
18
Def endant .
19
____________________________
20
The Vi deot aped Deposi t i on of SANDRA BOHNET,
21
Taken at 259 East Mi chi gan Avenue, Sui t e 208,
22
Kal amazoo, Mi chi gan,
23
Commenci ng at 11: 39 a. m. ,
24
Fr i day, May 25, 2012,
25
Bef or e Rebecca L. Russo, CSR- 2759, RMR, CRR.
Page 2
1
SANDRA BOHNET
2
APPEARANCES:
3
AMY E. CRAWFORD
4
Ki r kl and & El l i s LLP
5
300 Nor t h LaSal l e
6
Chi cago, I l l i noi s 60654
7
312. 862. 2131
8
amy. cr awf or d@ki r kl and. com
9
Appear i ng on behal f of t he Pl ai nt i f f s.
10
11
J OHN A. KNI GHT
12
Amer i can Ci vi l Li ber t i es Uni on Foundat i on
13
180 Nor t h Mi chi gan Avenue, Sui t e 2300
14
Chi cago, I l l i noi s 60601
15
312. 201. 9740
16
j akni ght @acl u. or g
17
18
19
AMANDA C. GOAD ( Vi a Tel ephone)
20
Amer i can Ci vi l Li ber t i es Uni on Foundat i on
21
125 Br oad St r eet , 18t h Fl oor
22
New Yor k, New Yor k 10004
23
212. 549. 2627
24
acgoad@acl u. or g
25
Page 3
1
SANDRA BOHNET
2
MARK E. DONNELLY
3
Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al
4
Depar t ment of At t or ney Gener al
5
525 West Ot t awa St r eet
6
Fi f t h Fl oor
7
Lansi ng, Mi chi gan 48933
8
517. 373. 6434
9
donnel l ym@mi chi gan. gov
10
Appear i ng on behal f of t he Def endant .
11
12
J OHN N. COOPER, I I
13
Cooper Mar t i n & Kennedy PC
14
259 East Mi chi gan Avenue
15
Sui t e 208
16
Kal amazoo, Mi chi gan 49007
17
269. 552. 3400
18
j cooper @cooper mar t i n. com
19
Appear i ng on behal f of Kal amazoo Val l ey Communi t y
20
Col l ege and t he Wi t ness.
21
22
ALSO PRESENT:
23
Rachel Bi er l - Vi deo Techni ci an
24
25
Page 4
1
SANDRA BOHNET
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3
4
WI TNESS PAGE
5
SANDRA BOHNET
6
7
EXAMI NATI ON BY MS. CRAWFORD 5
8
EXAMI NATI ON BY MR. DONNELLY 50
9
10
EXHI BI TS
11
12
EXHI BI T PAGE
13
( Exhi bi t at t ached t o t r anscr i pt . )
14
15
DEPOSI TI ON EXHI BI T 1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 5
1
SANDRA BOHNET
2
Kal amazoo, Mi chi gan
3
Fr i day, May 25, 2012
4
11: 39 a. m.
5
6
MARKED FOR I DENTI FI CATI ON
7
DEPOSI TI ON EXHI BI T 1
8
11: 39 a. m.
9
VI DEO TECHNI CI AN: The t i me i s now
10
11: 39 a. m. , and we ar e on t he r ecor d.
11
SANDRA BOHNET,
12
was t her eupon cal l ed as a wi t ness her ei n, and af t er
13
havi ng f i r st been dul y swor n t o t est i f y t o t he t r ut h,
14
t he whol e t r ut h and not hi ng but t he t r ut h, was
15
exami ned and t est i f i ed as f ol l ows:
16
EXAMI NATI ON
17
BY MS. CRAWFORD:
18
Q. Good mor ni ng.
19
A. Good mor ni ng.
20
Q. Woul d you pl ease st at e your name?
21
A. Sandr a Bohnet .
22
Q. And wher e do you wor k?
23
A. Kal amazoo Val l ey Communi t y Col l ege.
24
Q. What i s your j ob t i t l e t her e?
25
A. Vi ce- pr esi dent f or human r esour ces.
Page 13
1
SANDRA BOHNET
2
A. Yes.
3
Q. Di d Mar wi l & Associ at es have a r ol e wi t h r espect t o
4
devel opi ng t hat pr ogr am?
5
A. Yes.
6
Q. What was t hei r r ol e?
7
A. Thei r r ol e was t o wor k wi t h us on t he desi gn of t he
8
pl an.
9
Q. By t he desi gn of t he pl an, do you mean t he
10
el i gi bi l i t y?
11
A. El i gi bi l i t y r equi r ement s. We needed t hei r advi ce on
12
whet her or not member s woul d be subj ect t o COBRA.
13
Q. Who gener at ed t he i dea of cover i ng househol d member s?
14
A. Empl oyees f r omwi t hi n t he col l ege f i r st pr esent ed t he
15
i dea.
16
Q. And whi ch empl oyees?
17
A. I can say Deni se Mi l l er . Beyond t hat , I honest l y
18
don' t r ecal l .
19
Q. So Ms. Mi l l er came t o you?
20
A. No, i f I r ecal l cor r ect l y, t hi s was dur i ng a meet i ng,
21
and I don' t even bel i eve I was at t he meet i ng. I t was
22
l i kel y a col l ege- wi de meet i ng.
23
Q. And when was t hi s meet i ng?
24
A. I don' t know. Pr i or t o 2011.
25
Q. Do you know anyt hi ng el se about t he meet i ng?
Page 17
1
SANDRA BOHNET
2
pr ovi de t o t he f eder al gover nment ?
3
A. Yes.
4
Q. And i t ' s cur r ent as of November 1st , 2011?
5
A. That ' s cor r ect .
6
Q. And i f you l ook at t he gr and t ot al l i ne, i s t hat t he
7
sour ce of your t est i mony t hat el even hundr ed and
8
si xt y- f i ve t ot al empl oyees wor ked f or KVCC as of
9
November 1st , 2011?
10
A. Yes.
11
Q. And how many of t hese empl oyees wer e el i gi bl e as of
12
November 1st , 2011, f or heal t h i nsur ance benef i t s?
13
A. As of November 1st , 404.
14
Q. And cur r ent l y?
15
A. As of May 9t h, when I compl et ed t hi s document , t he
16
number was 402.
17
Q. And now you' r e r ef er r i ng t o t he r esponse t o r equest
18
number 3?
19
A. Yes.
20
Q. Okay. On page 2 of t he r esponses, r i ght ?
21
A. Yes.
22
Q. Of t he 402 f ul l - t i me empl oyees who ar e cur r ent l y
23
el i gi bl e t o par t i ci pat e i n KVCC heal t h i nsur ance
24
pl ans, how many act ual l y par t i ci pat e?
25
A. 327.
Page 20
1
SANDRA BOHNET
2
Q. And can t hey obt ai n cover age f or anyone el se?
3
A. They can obt ai n cover age t hr ough - - f or sponsor ed
4
dependent s.
5
Q. And what does t hat mean?
6
A. A sponsor ed dependent may be a
7
devel opment al l y- di sabl ed adul t , past t he age of 26.
8
Q. And i f you l ook at your r esponse t o r equest number 5,
9
you i ndi cat e t hat 716 i ndi vi dual s ar e cur r ent l y
10
i nsur ed t hr ough gr oup heal t h i nsur ance pl ans made
11
avai l abl e t o KVCC empl oyees as of May 9t h, r i ght ?
12
13
Q. And so amI cor r ect t hat t her e ar e 327 empl oyees
14
enr ol l ed i n t he gr oup heal t h i nsur ance pl ans, t hose
15
327 empl oyees pl us - - i f we t ook 716 mi nus 327, we
16
woul d have t he number of spouses, chi l dr en, or
17
sponsor ed dependent s who ar e cover ed under KVCC' s
18
pl ans?
19
20
Q. And as I ' mdoi ng t he mat h her e, t hat woul d be 389.
21
Does t hat sound about r i ght ?
22
A. I wi l l t r ust t hat you' r e cl ose. Wi t hout doi ng t he
23
mat h i n my head, t hat sounds about r i ght .
24
Q. And when KVCC of f er ed househol d member benef i t s, how
25
many i ndi vi dual s wer e cover ed as househol d member s?
Page 21
1
SANDRA BOHNET
2
A. One.
3
Q. And agai n, i t ' s not ed her e t hat no r esponsi ve
4
document s exi st i n r esponse t o r equest number 5. I s
5
t hat al so because t hat i nf or mat i on i s l ocat ed i n
6
di f f er ent pl aces and you had t o col l ect i t ?
7
A. That ' s absol ut el y cor r ect .
8
Q. Can you t ur n t o Exhi bi t C of t he r esponses, Exhi bi t C
9
t o your r esponses?
10
A. Yes.
11
Q. What i s Exhi bi t C?
12
A. Exhi bi t C i s our expendi t ur es f or heal t h i nsur ance f or
13
t he year s 20 - - f i scal year 2010 and 2011.
14
Q. And t her e ar e sever al l i ne i t ems her e t hat I ' d l i ke
15
you t o t ake us t hr ough. Can you f i r st expl ai n what
16
cl ai ms pai d means?
17
A. Cl ai ms pai d ar e cl ai ms pai d f or medi cal , dent al ,
18
vi si on, and pr escr i pt i on dr ugs.
19
Q. And does t hi s r ef er t o pr emi ums pai d f or i nsur ance, or
20
how, how i s t hi s number der i ved?
21
A. Kal amazoo Val l ey Communi t y Col l ege i s sel f - f unded f or
22
heal t h i nsur ance. Thi s r epr esent s act ual dol l ar s
23
pai d. We do not pay pr emi ums.
24
Q. What ar e MWA f ees?
25
A. That ' s Mar wi l & Associ at es, our heal t h car e
Page 23
1
SANDRA BOHNET
2
MR. COOPER: And t he empl oyee.
3
THE WI TNESS: And t he empl oyee, yes.
4
BY MS. CRAWFORD:
5
Q. Do you have any i nf or mat i on about t he number of
6
i ndi vi dual s cover ed i n f i scal year 2010 ver sus f i scal
7
year 2011?
8
A. The number woul d be ver y, ver y cl ose. Our t ur nover i s
9
ver y l ow.
10
Q. So t he t ot al cost t o KVCC of pr ovi di ng heal t h
11
i nsur ance cover age t o empl oyees and ot her r eci pi ent s
12
of benef i t s i n f i scal year 2010 was over $4. 6 mi l l i on?
13
A. Ri ght .
14
Q. And i n 2011, f i scal year 2011, t he t ot al cost t o KVCC
15
of pr ovi di ng heal t h i nsur ance cover age t o empl oyees
16
and ot her benef i ci ar i es was i n excess of $5. 5 mi l l i on?
17
A. That ' s r i ght .
18
Q. And agai n, t hose wer e t he cost s f or pr ovi di ng benef i t s
19
t o appr oxi mat el y 700 cover ed i ndi vi dual s - -
20
A. Ri ght .
21
Q. - - gi ve or t ake?
22
A. Hmm- hmm, cor r ect .
23
Q. Can you l ook at Exhi bi t D t o t he r esponses, pl ease?
24
Ar e you f ami l i ar wi t h t hi s document ?
25
A. I am.
Page 27
1
SANDRA BOHNET
2
year .
3
Q. And what document ar e you r ef er r i ng t o f or t hose
4
number s?
5
A. I ' mr ef er r i ng t o Exhi bi t H.
6
Q. Okay. I ' d l i ke you t o expl ai n Exhi bi t H i n a l i t t l e
7
mor e det ai l . Let ' s go ahead and l ook at i t now. What
8
i s Exhi bi t H?
9
A. Exhi bi t H shows how we cal cul at e what an empl oyee wi l l
10
pay i f t hey cover a househol d member , and what i s
11
r ef l ect ed her e i s t he scenar i o t hat we used f or Deni se
12
Mi l l er , who was our onl y empl oyee who si gned up f or
13
househol d member benef i t s. Her sal ar y i s gr eat er t han
14
$60, 000 a year , or was i n 2011, and t hi s si mpl y shows
15
t he cal cul at i on.
16
She had sel ect ed what we cal l cor e
17
cover age, whi ch i s t he onl y cover age t hat we have
18
avai l abl e ot her t han t o opt out of t he pr ogr am.
19
She pai d a co- pr emi umof $28. 17 per pay
20
per i od on a pr e- t ax basi s. She made t he deci si on t o
21
add a househol d member . Her co- pr emi umf or t he
22
househol d member was $8. 67. That ' s t he di f f er ence
23
bet ween t he t wo- per son co- pr emi umof 36. 84. The
24
si ngl e co- pr emi umi s 28. 17. That $8. 67 t o add t he
25
househol d member was t axabl e, cannot be r un as a
Page 28
1
SANDRA BOHNET
2
pr e- t ax deduct i on.
3
Then we needed t o cal cul at e t he f ai r mar ket
4
val ue t o pr ovi de t hat i nsur ance, what woul d be
5
consi der ed t axabl e i ncome t o t he empl oyee, and so we
6
def i ned t he f ai r mar ket val ue as t he cost of i nsur ance
7
t o add one dependent t o t he pl an, and t hi s amount
8
woul d show as i mput ed i ncome on t he empl oyee' s
9
paycheck, and t he t ot al amount woul d be added t o t he
10
empl oyee' s W- 2 f or mat t he end of t he year .
11
Q. Okay - -
12
A. And - - yup.
13
Q. - - l et me j ust st op you t her e. So t hi s i s t he act ual
14
scenar i o you sai d t hat appl i ed t o Deni se Mi l l er ?
15
A. Yes.
16
Q. And why don' t you go ahead and expl ai n what t he
17
cal cul at i on you ended up wi t h under number 5 was?
18
A. Okay. I n or der t o come up wi t h a cal cul at i on, we t ook
19
t he si ngl e mont hl y COBRA r at e, whi ch at t hat t i me was
20
913. 98. We r educed i t by t wo per cent , whi ch i s t he
21
admi ni st r at i ve f ee, t hat equal ed $18. 28. We came up,
22
t hen, wi t h a r esul t of $895. 70.
23
The t wo- per son mont hl y COBRA r at e was
24
$1, 883. 44, mi nus t he t wo per cent admi ni st r at i ve f ee,
25
gi vi ng us $1, 845. 77.
Page 29
1
SANDRA BOHNET
2
We di d t he mat h on t hat . The r esul t was
3
$460. 95, whi ch i s shown as i mput ed i ncome on Deni se
4
Mi l l er ' s paycheck, and FI CA, Feder al , and St at e t axes
5
woul d be deduct ed.
6
Q. Okay. I n ot her wor ds, Deni se Mi l l er - - l et me back
7
up. Thi s r epr esent s a scenar i o f or I assume an ent i r e
8
year ?
9
A. Yes.
10
Q. So how di d empl oyee - - had househol d member benef i t s
11
been pr ovi ded f or al l of 2011, i t was your cal cul at i on
12
t hat Deni se Mi l l er woul d have had anot her $460. 95 show
13
up as i mput ed i ncome on her paycheck, and t hat woul d
14
have been t axabl e i ncome?
15
A. Act ual l y, t hat ' s not cor r ect . Thi s i s on a mont hl y
16
basi s, or on a per - paycheck basi s.
17
Q. Okay, t hat makes mor e sense t o me.
18
A. Yeah, not an annual f i gur e, but a per pay per i od.
19
Q. And pay per i ods ar e mont hl y?
20
A. We ar e pai d semi - mont hl y, t wi ce a mont h.
21
Q. So Deni se Mi l l er had an addi t i onal $460. 95 added t o
22
each paycheck - - or r ef l ect ed on each paycheck as
23
t axabl e i ncome?
24
A. Cor r ect .
25
Q. And she pai d FI CA, Feder al , and St at e t axes on t hat
Page 30
1
SANDRA BOHNET
2
amount ?
3
A. Yes, she di d.
4
MR. COOPER: We assume.
5
BY MS. CRAWFORD:
6
Q. Wer e t hose t axes aut omat i cal l y deduct ed?
7
A. I t ' s set up i n our payr ol l syst emt o aut omat i cal l y
8
deduct , yes.
9
Q. So she di d pay t hose t axes?
10
A. I woul d say yes.
11
Q. Let ' s t ur n back t o Exhi bi t D t o your r esponses. J ust
12
pi cki ng up wher e we l ef t of f , you t est i f i ed t hat a
13
si ngl e i ndi vi dual woul d cost $924. 04 as of
14
J anuar y 1st , 2010, appr oxi mat el y?
15
A. That ' s r i ght .
16
Q. And what does doubl e mean?
17
A. Doubl e means t wo per son, so i t ' s ei t her a - - i t coul d
18
be an empl oyee and a dependent , i t coul d be an
19
empl oyee and a spouse.
20
Q. And what ' s f ami l y?
21
A. A f ami l y woul d be mor e t han t wo i ndi vi dual s.
22
Q. And t hi s i s a suggest ed r at e t hat woul d appl y t o COBRA
23
payment s, r egar dl ess of how many act ual f ami l y member s
24
t her e wer e?
25
A. Absol ut el y, yes.
Page 35
1
SANDRA BOHNET
2
and t he r esul t was 912. 37, whi ch was t he mont hl y cost
3
t hat we coul d at t r i but e.
4
Q. Di d Deni se Mi l l er el ect dent al benef i t s?
5
A. I assume not .
6
Q. So KVCC cal cul at ed t hat t he est i mat ed mont hl y cost of
7
pr ovi di ng househol d member benef i t s t o Deni se Mi l l er
8
was $912. 37?
9
A. Yes.
10
Q. So on an annual i zed basi s, l ess t han $11, 000?
11
A. What ever t hat f i gur e i s mul t i pl i ed by t wel ve.
12
Q. And t hat r epr esent s t he t ot al cost , est i mat ed annual
13
cost f or al l househol d member benef i t s - - st r i ke t hat .
14
Onl y, t her e was onl y one i ndi vi dual who
15
t ook advant age of househol d member benef i t s, r i ght ?
16
A. Yes.
17
Q. So t he aver age cost t o KVCC f or t hi s pr ogr amwas
18
$912. 37 a mont h?
19
MR. DONNELLY: Obj ect t o t he f or mof t he
20
quest i on. I t ' s not a cover age, i t ' s an est i mat e.
21
A. When you' r e sel f - i nsur ed, as I sai d, dur i ng 2011 we
22
wer e act ual l y r esponsi bl e f or up t o $90, 000 i n cl ai ms
23
per i ndi vi dual . We have no way of knowi ng t he amount
24
t he househol d member i ncur r ed i n cl ai ms. So t he onl y
25
r easonabl e number t o use, i n our opi ni on, i s t he COBRA
Page 36
1
SANDRA BOHNET
2
r at e.
3
BY MS. CRAWFORD:
4
Q. So ever y cover ed i ndi vi dual coul d r esul t i n a cost of
5
up t o $90, 000 f or KVCC each year ?
6
7
Q. You don' t know how much t he househol d member who
8
r ecei ved cover age act ual l y cost KVCC?
9
A. I do not .
10
Q. And i t ' s cer t ai nl y t he case t hat not ever y empl oyee
11
who' s cover ed cost s KVCC $90, 000 a year ?
12
A. Cor r ect .
13
Q. And nei t her do t hei r spouses or t hei r chi l dr en?
14
A. Cor r ect .
15
Q. So t he $912. 37 r epr esent s t he est i mat ed cost f or a
16
spouse or a househol d member ?
17
A. That ' s a f ai r st at ement .
18
Q. Do you know what budget ed f r i nge benef i t expenses ar e
19
f or f i scal year 2012?
20
A. Ar e you r ef er r i ng t o a document ?
21
Q. No, I ' mj ust aski ng.
22
A. I don' t , of f t he t op of my head.
23
Q. Ar e t he cost s f or heal t h i nsur ance cover age pai d f r om
24
KVCC' s gener al f und?
25
A. Yes, t hey ar e.
Page 37
1
SANDRA BOHNET
2
Q. And t hey' r e pai d f r omt he gener al f und, and t her ef or e
3
ar en' t connect ed t o a speci f i c sour ce of r evenue?
4
5
Q. I f mor e peopl e t ook advant age of t he heal t h i nsur ance
6
t hat KVCC of f er ed t o empl oyees, woul d t he St at e
7
pr ovi de mor e money t o KVCC t o pay f or t hose benef i t s?
8
MR. DONNELLY: Obj ect , f oundat i on.
9
MR. COOPER: Sandy, I ' madvi si ng you t o not
10
engage i n specul at i on or conj ect ur e. So i f you know
11
how t he St at e comes up wi t h t he f i gur es t hat i t does,
12
you can r el i abl y answer Amy. I f you don' t know, you
13
shoul d t el l her t hat .
14
THE WI TNESS: Okay.
15
A. Coul d you r epeat t he quest i on, Amy?
16
BY MS. CRAWFORD:
17
Q. Yeah. I don' t t hi nk t hat ' s what my quest i on r eal l y
18
asked. The quest i on i s - - l et me back up, okay?
19
J ust gi ve a ver bal answer .
20
A. Okay.
21
Q. Do you have an under st andi ng of how KVCC' s heal t h
22
i nsur ance cost s ar e pai d f or ?
23
A. Yes.
24
Q. And t hey' r e pai d f r omgener al f unds?
25
A. Yes.
Page 39
1
SANDRA BOHNET
2
MR. DONNELLY: Foundat i on.
3
A. What money, Amy?
4
BY MS. CRAWFORD:
5
Q. Okay, f ai r enough. Do you have any sense t hat any
6
f unds t hat mi ght have come f r omt he St at e t o t he
7
gener al f und ar e r et ur ned t o t he St at e as a r esul t of
8
an i ndi vi dual di scont i nui ng benef i t s?
9
A. I don' t have any knowl edge on t hat .
10
Q. And you t est i f i ed bef or e t hat t he most t hat KVCC coul d
11
pay per year f or a cover ed i ndi vi dual woul d be $90, 000
12
f or heal t h i nsur ance benef i t s?
13
A. Cor r ect .
14
Q. That ' s cer t ai nl y an unusual cl ai mexper i ence, i s t hat
15
r i ght ?
16
A. Def i ne unusual .
17
Q. Wel l , we t al ked about i n Exhi bi t D - - or I ' l l poi nt
18
you t o Exhi bi t E. Agai n, Exhi bi t E r epr esent s KVCC' s
19
est i mat ed cost s of pr ovi di ng benef i t s on a per - per son
20
basi s - -
21
A. Okay.
22
Q. - - cor r ect ?
23
A. Yes.
24
Q. So KVCC est i mat ed at t he begi nni ng of 2011 t hat
25
medi cal , vi si on, and pr escr i pt i on dr ug cover age f or a
Page 40
1
SANDRA BOHNET
2
si ngl e i ndi vi dual i s $866. 10, r i ght ?
3
A. Per mont h, t hat ' s cor r ect .
4
Q. And t hat est i mat e i s based on some pr oj ect i on of t he
5
t ot al expenses t hat KVCC wi l l have, and di vi ded by t he
6
number of si ngl e i ndi vi dual s?
7
8
Q. And t hen wi t h r espect t o t he $912. 37 mont hl y cost f or
9
a spouse or a househol d member , do you r ecal l
10
t est i f yi ng about t hat amount ?
11
A. I do.
12
Q. That r epr esent s KVCC' s est i mat e of t he act ual cost of
13
a spouse or a househol d member per mont h f or 2011
14
based on t ot al expenses f or t hose i ndi vi dual s, di vi ded
15
by t he number of i ndi vi dual s i n t hat cat egor y, r i ght ?
16
17
Q. And t he same i s t r ue wi t h r espect t o your est i mat e f or
18
f ami l y cover age?
19
20
Q. And, i n t hat sense, t he est i mat e i s l i ke an aver age?
21
A. That ' s a f ai r st at ement .
22
Q. And i t ' s based on t he act ual cl ai ms exper i ence of t he
23
t ot al gr oup of cover ed i ndi vi dual s?
24
25
Q. I n Exhi bi t F, i f you coul d t ur n t o t hat , i s i t f ai r t o
Page 42
1
SANDRA BOHNET
2
pr ogr ambecome ef f ect i ve?
3
A. The pr ogr ambecame ef f ect i ve May 1st , 2011.
4
Q. And when di d i t cease t o be ef f ect i ve?
5
A. December 31st , 2011.
6
Q. So when - - you ment i oned t hat a si ngl e i ndi vi dual was
7
cover ed under t he househol d member benef i t s, r i ght ?
8
A. Yes.
9
Q. And Deni se Mi l l er was a cover ed empl oyee?
10
A. Yes.
11
Q. And her par t ner was t he househol d member ?
12
A. Yes.
13
Q. And when di d t he heal t h i nsur ance cover age of Deni se
14
Mi l l er ' s househol d member cease?
15
A. December 31st , 2011.
16
Q. And was Deni se Mi l l er ' s par t ner el i gi bl e f or COBRA?
17
A. No.
18
Q. Let me ask you about t he l ast bul l et under
19
r equi r ement s and st i pul at i ons. Ther e' s - - i t st at es
20
pr e- t ax dol l ar s set asi de t hr ough a f l exi bl e spendi ng
21
account cannot be used t o pay t he co- pr emi umf or a
22
househol d member or member s or t he uni nsur ed heal t h
23
car e expenses f or a househol d member or member s. Do
24
you see t hat ?
25
A. I do.
Page 43
1
SANDRA BOHNET
2
Q. What does t hat mean?
3
A. We have f l exi bl e spendi ng account s t hat al l ow us t o
4
pay f or cer t ai n expenses wi t h pr e- t ax dol l ar s.
5
Q. And what i s t he r est r i ct i on her e?
6
A. The r est r i ct i on, we wer e advi sed by Mar wi l &
7
Associ at es t hat pr e- t ax dol l ar s coul d not be used by
8
househol d member s t o pay co- pr emi ums f or - - or
9
uni nsur ed heal t h car e expenses.
10
Q. So an empl oyee who had a househol d member coul d pay
11
f or t he empl oyee' s own heal t h car e expenses t hr ough a
12
f l exi bl e spendi ng account ?
13
A. Coul d pay f or expenses not cover ed t hr ough t he pl an
14
t hr ough t hat account .
15
Q. But t he empl oyee coul d not pay f or expenses not
16
cover ed by t he pl an t hat wer e i ncur r ed by t he
17
househol d member ?
18
19
Q. And under t he househol d member pr ogr am, i f t he
20
househol d member had ot her i nsur ance, t he KVCC
21
i nsur ance was secondar y?
22
23
Q. And t hat ' s consi st ent wi t h KVCC' s pol i cy wi t h r espect
24
t o mar r i ed i ndi vi dual s?
25
A. Yes.
Page 45
1
SANDRA BOHNET
2
ei ght mont hs?
3
A. That woul d be cor r ect .
4
MR. COOPER: Seven, May - -
5
MS. CRAWFORD: May, J une . . .
6
MR. COOPER: Sor r y, ei ght . That was
7
hel pf ul on my par t , wasn' t i t ? Excuse t he
8
i nt er r upt i on.
9
BY MS. CRAWFORD:
10
Q. When Deni se Mi l l er st opped r ecei vi ng househol d member
11
benef i t s, you' r e not awar e of any r ef und goi ng t o t he
12
St at e?
13
A. I ' mnot awar e.
14
Q. Di d KVCC i ncur any admi ni st r at i ve cost s t o st ar t up
15
t he househol d member benef i t pr ogr am?
16
A. J ust t i me.
17
Q. Do you know how much t i me?
18
A. I don' t .
19
Q. Whose t i me?
20
A. Mi ne.
21
Q. Anybody el se' s?
22
A. At t he col l ege? No.
23
Q. Was t hat t i me spent cr eat i ng document at i on?
24
A. Yes.
25
Q. Anyt hi ng el se?
Page 46
1
SANDRA BOHNET
2
A. No.
3
Q. Di d you spend mor e t han f i ve hour s on t hi s, on t he
4
househol d member benef i t pl an?
5
A. Honest l y, Amy, I coul dn' t say. I don' t know of f hand.
6
Q. Mor e t han t en? No i dea?
7
A. I r eal l y don' t , I ' msor r y.
8
Q. Ar e you sal ar i ed?
9
A. Yes.
10
Q. So t he col l ege di dn' t i ncur addi t i onal expense f or t he
11
t i me you spent on t hese - - t hi s benef i t pl an?
12
13
Q. Fai r t o say t hose cost s wer e negl i gi bl e?
14
A. I t was done dur i ng t he cour se of my empl oyment , so - -
15
as you sai d, I ' msal ar y.
16
Q. And wer e t her e any ongoi ng admi ni st r at i ve cost s f r om
17
of f er i ng househol d member benef i t s?
18
A. No.
19
Q. And you' r e t est i f yi ng as a r epr esent at i ve of KVCC
20
t oday, r i ght ?
21
A. I am.
22
Q. I under st and t he pr ovi si on of t he househol d member
23
benef i t pr ogr amwas a pi l ot pr ogr am?
24
A. Yes.
25
Q. And i t was i nt ended t o have a dur at i on of May 1st ,
Page 47
1
SANDRA BOHNET
2
2011, t o December 31st , 2013?
3
A. Cor r ect .
4
Q. And why wer e benef i t s di scont i nued?
5
A. Because of act i on t aken at t he St at e l evel t hat
6
pr event ed t he col l ege f r omcont i nui ng t he pr ogr am.
7
Q. Ar e you r ef er r i ng t o t he Act t hat ' s exhi bi t ed as
8
Exhi bi t I t o your r esponses?
9
A. Yes.
10
Q. Do you know of any ot her r eason why t hose benef i t s
11
wer e di scont i nued?
12
A. No, I don' t .
13
Q. Woul d KVCC have cont i nued t o of f er t he benef i t s t oday
14
i f i t wer en' t f or t he Act ?
15
A. I t hi nk i t ' s saf e t o say we woul d have cont i nued wi t h
16
t he pi l ot pr ogr amas def i ned i n Exhi bi t G.
17
Q. So i t ' s f ai r t o say KVCC woul d pr ef er t o of f er t he
18
domest i c par t ner benef i t s or t he househol d member
19
benef i t s t hat i t had put i n pl ace r at her t han
20
exper i ence what ever cost savi ngs r esul t ed f r omnot
21
pr ovi di ng t hat one i ndi vi dual househol d member
22
benef i t s?
23
A. We woul d have pr ef er r ed t o keep our pl an i n pl ace
24
t hr ough t he pi l ot pr ogr am, December 31st , 2013.
25
Q. Why i s t hat ?
Page 49
1
SANDRA BOHNET
2
A. I t hi nk i t ' s based on number s and I t hi nk i t ' s based
3
on dol l ar s.
4
Q. Ther e' s a bal ance bet ween pr ovi di ng benef i t s t hat ar e
5
i mpor t ant t o empl oyees and cont r ol l i ng cost s?
6
A. I t hi nk t hat ' s t r ue.
7
Q. I s i t f ai r t o say t hat t he househol d member pr ogr am
8
t hat was i n pl ace l ast year was consi st ent wi t h t hat
9
bal ance?
10
A. Expl ai n what you mean.
11
Q. Wel l , you - -
12
A. I don' t know what t hat pr ogr amcost us whi l e i t was i n
13
ef f ect , because, as I sai d, we do not have access t o
14
i ndi vi dual cl ai ms.
15
Q. Do you have any r eason t o bel i eve t hat t he pr ogr amwas
16
i nconsi st ent wi t h t he desi r e t o pr ovi de i mpor t ant
17
f r i nge benef i t s t o empl oyees and cont r ol cost s?
18
A. I don' t have any r eason t o bel i eve t hat , no.
19
MS. CRAWFORD: Why don' t we j ust t ake a
20
t wo- mi nut e br eak, go of f t he r ecor d?
21
VI DEO TECHNI CI AN: The t i me i s now
22
12: 46 p. m. We ar e of f t he r ecor d.
23
( Of f t he r ecor d at 12: 46 p. m. )
24
( Back on t he r ecor d at 12: 53 p. m. )
25
VI DEO TECHNI CI AN: We' r e back on t he
Page 50
1
SANDRA BOHNET
2
r ecor d. The t i me i s 12: 53 p. m. Thi s mar ks t he
3
begi nni ng of t ape number t wo.
4
MS. CRAWFORD: I have no f ur t her quest i ons.
5
EXAMI NATI ON
6
BY MR. DONNELLY:
7
Q. Ms. Bohnet , my name' s Mar k Donnel l y, and we met a
8
l i t t l e bi t ear l i er . I j ust have a f ew quest i ons, j ust
9
t o cl ar i f y some of your pr evi ous t est i mony.
10
Fi r st of al l , when t hi s househol d member
11
benef i t went i nt o ef f ect , i t cover ed het er osexual
12
peopl e?
13
A. Yes.
14
Q. I t cover ed gays and l esbi ans?
15
A. Yes.
16
Q. I mean, t her e was no, t her e was no di f f er ence - -
17
A. Cor r ect .
18
Q. - - i s t hat r i ght ?
19
A. Ri ght .
20
Q. But t he benef i t al so - - i t di dn' t r equi r e t hat anybody
21
be i n any t ype of par t i cul ar commi t t ed r el at i onshi p i n
22
or der t o r ecei ve t he benef i t , i s t hat cor r ect ?
23
24
MS. CRAWFORD: Obj ect t o f or m.
25
BY MR. DONNELLY:
Page 51
1
SANDRA BOHNET
2
Q. And wi t h r espect t o t he admi ni st r at i ve cost s of
3
r ol l i ng out t hi s par t i cul ar pi l ot pr ogr am, you
4
i ndi cat ed i t was si mpl y a mat t er of your t i me, i s t hat
5
cor r ect ?
6
A. Yes, I di d.
7
Q. Wer e t her e not al so f ees pai d - - I t hi nk you ment i oned
8
t hat you had t o consul t wi t h an out si de f i r mt o hel p
9
you dr af t up t he pr ogr am, i s t hat cor r ect ?
10
A. I di d, but t hat i s par t of our nor mal annual f ee t hat
11
i s i dent i f i ed i n one of t he exhi bi t s.
12
Q. Okay. So t her e was no addi t i onal cost t o t hem?
13
A. No addi t i onal cost .
14
Q. They' r e ki nd of on r et ai ner - -
15
A. They ar e.
16
Q. - - and what ever , what ever assi gnment s you have f or
17
t hem, i t comes out of t hat f ee?
18
19
Q. Okay. I t hi nk you' ve expl ai ned t hi s f ai r l y wel l , but
20
I want t o - - wel l , bef or e I ask t hat quest i on, i f I
21
under st and you cor r ect l y, t hi s pr ogr amcame i nt o
22
ef f ect because of Deni se Mi l l er ' s r equest ?
23
MS. CRAWFORD: Obj ect i on t o f or m, and i t
24
mi sst at es her t est i mony.
25
BY MR. DONNELLY:
Page 52
1
SANDRA BOHNET
2
Q. You can go ahead and answer .
3
A. Not j ust Deni se Mi l l er , but ot her empl oyees had
4
expr essed an i nt er est .
5
Q. Okay. But once t he pr ogr amwas r ol l ed out , none of
6
t hose ot her empl oyees si gned up f or i t , i s t hat
7
cor r ect ?
8
9
Q. And i s i t unusual as a - - i n your exper i ence as t he HR
10
di r ect or t her e, t o have a speci f i c f r i nge benef i t
11
pr ogr amt hat benef i t s onl y one empl oyee?
12
MS. CRAWFORD: Obj ect i on t o f or m, and
13
vague.
14
A. You know, we can never pr edi ct what t he out come i s
15
goi ng t o be when we i nt r oduce a pr ogr am.
16
BY MR. DONNELLY:
17
Q. I under st and t hat .
18
A. So whet her i t was one per son or mor e, I r eal l y di d not
19
have a sense f or how many peopl e.
20
Q. No, I under st and t hat . Let me ask i t t hi s way. Ar e
21
t her e any ot her f r i nge benef i t pr ogr ams, t hat you' r e
22
awar e of , t hat benef i t s onl y one empl oyee at t he
23
col l ege?
24
A. No, I ' mnot awar e.
25
Q. I f I under st and what you' ve t est i f i ed t o, t he act ual

Exhibit 2.C


Exhibit 3.A

Exhibit 3.F


Exhibit 3.G


Exhibit 3.H


Exhibit 3.I

Exhibit 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Motion Hearing - August 7, 2012
Bassett v Snyder - 12-10038
1
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Theresa Bassett and Carol Kennedy,
Peter Ways and Joe Breakey,
JoLinda Jach and Barbara Ramber,
Doak Bloss and Gerardo Ascheri,
Denise Miller and Michelle
Johnson,
Plaintiff, Case No. 12-10038
-v-
Richard Snyder, in his official
capacity as Governor of the State
of Michigan,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
MOTION HEARING
BEFORE THE HONORABLE DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Theodore Levin United States Courthouse
231 West Lafayette Boulevard
Detroit, Michigan
August 7, 2012
APPEARANCES:
FOR PLAINTIFFS: AMANDA C. GOAD
JOHN A. KNIGHT
ACLU Foundation
and
MICHAEL J. STEINBERG
ACLU of Michigan
and
AMY E. CRAWFORD
FOR THE DEFENDANT: MARGARET A. NELSON
To Obtain a Certified Transcript Contact:
Rene L. Twedt - www.transcriptorders.com
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MATTER PAGE
WITNESSES:
JoLINDA JACH
Direct Examination by Mr. Knight........................ 8
Cross Examination by Ms. Nelson......................... 13
Redirect Examination by Mr. Knight...................... 15
BARBARA RAMBER
Direct Examination by Ms. Crawford...................... 17
MOTION TO DISMISS
Argument by Ms. Nelson ................................. 25
Argument by Ms. Goad ................................... 35
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Argument by Ms. Goad.................................... 45
Argument by Ms. Nelson.................................. 48
Further Argument by Ms. Goad ........................... 51
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER................................. 57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
THE COURT: Ms. Jach, would you pull the microphone
up so that you can speak into it about maybe three or four
inches from your mouth. There you go.
And would you state your full name?
THE WITNESS: JoLinda Jach.
THE COURT: And would you spell your first name for
me?
THE WITNESS: J-o-L-i-n-d-a.
THE COURT: And Jack is J-a-c-k?
THE WITNESS: J-a-c-h.
THE COURT: J-a-c-h. Thank you.
Mr. Knight, go ahead.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. KNIGHT:
Q. Ms. Jach, where do you live?
A. Kalamazoo.
Q. And where were you born, Ms. Jach?
A. In Paw Paw.
Q. How long have you lived in Michigan?
A. My entire life.
Q. How old are you now?
A. Forty-eight.
Q. Why are you involved as a Plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A. To try and secure some health benefits for my partner that
we may be losing at the end of the year.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
Q. Why did you understand you'll be losing your health
insurance? For Barbara, I should say.
A. As part of the House bill that Governor Snyder signed.
Q. And I'm sorry, you said -- when will Barbara lose her
insurance?
A. December 31st.
Q. And why will it be then?
A. I'm a non-bargaining unit employee with the City of
Kalamazoo, so we don't technically have a contract, but all of
our contracts, all of our benefits run January to December.
Q. What do you -- what do you do for work, Ms. Jach?
A. I'm a senior systems analyst.
Q. Where do you -- who do you work for?
A. The City of Kalamazoo.
Q. And how long have you worked for the City?
A. Twenty-four years.
Q. You mentioned your partner. What is your partner's name?
A. Barbara Ramber.
Q. And how long have you --
THE COURT: Barbara's last name?
THE WITNESS: Ramber.
BY MR. KNIGHT:
Q. How long have you and Barbara been together?
A. Seventeen years.
Q. Would you describe the nature of your relationship?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
A. We're in a loving, committed, monogamous relationship.
Q. If Michigan law permitted you to marry, would you?
MS. NELSON: Objection, your Honor. Relevance.
THE COURT: Overruled.
BY MR. KNIGHT:
Q. You may -- you may answer.
A. Yes, we would.
Q. Do you and Barbara have any children?
A. Yes, we do. We have an eleven-year-old son and an
eight-year-old daughter.
Q. You currently have held insurance through the City of
Kalamazoo, is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Does your plan cover anyone other than you?
A. It covers both of our children and Barbara currently.
Q. How is Barbara covered on your insurance?
A. As an other qualified adult.
Q. How long has Barbara been covered on your health
insurance?
A. Since 2000.
Q. Why did you decide to put Barbara on your insurance?
A. Initially, I had better health insurance benefits than she
did. And as we continued with our life, we wanted to start a
family. It gave us an opportunity to have a parent home with
our children.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
Q. And how did that give you an opportunity to have a parent
home with your children?
A. Barbara is currently working part-time. She works
part-time. Her schedule coincides with our children's school
schedule, so she is home when they are home.
Q. And how does that relate to her ability to have insurance?
A. It allows us to have that choice. She -- without
insurance, she would have to be uninsured or find full-time
employment that may cover her.
Q. Okay. And so you're saying that her part-time employment
does not allow her the same kind of insurance that you could
offer her?
A. That's correct.
Q. Why does Barbara need health insurance?
A. She has some serious medical issues.
Q. Does the City's health insurance coverage cover the cost
of Barbara's treatment for those conditions?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. When did you learn that Barbara would lose her health
insurance coverage?
A. Last December.
Q. Why --
A. Near the end of the year.
Q. And why would she lose it then?
A. Because of the House bill that was signed.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
Q. What happened at that time to you and Barbara?
A. We had about seven days left of coverage for her, and on
December 31st of 2011 her benefits were terminated initially.
Q. And how did they get reinstated?
A. They were reinstated based on the fact that I had to sign,
in November, my -- any changes to my health insurance coverage
for the next year, so I had already signed a coverage contract
for the following year.
Q. How has the law that you have been talking about affected
you?
A. It's been very stressful. It has changed how we're
dealing with our finances.
Q. Anything else?
A. It has caused a great deal of stress for both myself and
Barbara and our children.
Q. Have you looked into alternative health care for Barbara?
A. Yes, we have.
Q. What did you find?
A. We found that it's extremely costly. Barbara is employed
part-time and in having to purchase insurance for her it
would -- it would basically be what she is earning.
Q. Have you considered any other options?
A. We have considered her looking for work where she might be
able to secure benefits for herself. We have also looked at
disability insurance, because of her health conditions.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
Q. Talking about looking for full-time employment, have there
been any road blocks to finding -- for her to find full-time
employment?
A. Yes. The work that she has done in the past, because of
some of the health concerns that she has, we're not sure she
would be capable of performing those jobs.
Q. How is it -- how has this planning affected the family
budget?
A. We have definitely looked at where we can cut back.
Potentially refinancing our house. Looking at other ways we
can cut our budget to afford insurance that would -- that would
be beneficial.
Q. Ms. Jach, how has this affected you personally?
A. Personally, it's been very stressful and I feel like we're
being singled out.
Q. What do you mean by being singled out?
A. Because of the relationship that I have with Barbara, that
this is specifically targeting our family and families like
ours.
MR. KNIGHT: Okay. I have no further questions, your
Honor.
THE COURT: Ms. Nelson.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MS. NELSON:
Q. Ms. Ramber, what did you and your partner do for medical
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
insurance prior to 2000 when you secured it through the City of
Kalamazoo? I'm sorry, Ms. Jach.
A. Yes.
Q. I called you by the wrong name. I apologize.
A. Prior to Barbara being covered on my insurance, she was
covered through her employer.
Q. So she gave up her employer insurance to be covered under
yours?
A. She did not give up her employer insurance. It was in
addition to.
Q. So yours was initially supplemental --
A. Yes.
Q. -- is that correct?
And then what happened to her employer-provided
insurance?
A. She actually left that employment to work part-time.
Q. So it was a voluntary choice on her part and your part,
is that correct?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Is Barbara able to COBRA benefits under the policy through
the City of Kalamazoo?
A. No, she is not.
Q. Can you tell me how many partners or OEA's -- let me put
it this way -- how many OEA's receive benefits through the
City of Kalamazoo's insurance coverage plan?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
A. I cannot. I don't have that information.
Q. Do you know how many are opposite-sex OEA's?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Do you know if there are any at all?
A. I don't know.
Q. All right. To your knowledge, are you and Barbara the
only OEA benefit recipients through the City of Kalamazoo?
A. I don't have that knowledge.
MS. NELSON: Okay. That's all I have. Thank you.
THE COURT: Anything else, Mr. Knight?
MR. KNIGHT: One.
THE COURT: Did you have further questions?
MR. KNIGHT: I do have one question, I think, your
Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. KNIGHT:
Q. Ms. Jach, Ms. Nelson asked you about the voluntary
leaving, Barbara leaving her job. Why did she leave her job?
A. She left her job in order to be at home with our children
or at least to accommodate their schedule.
MR. KNIGHT: Okay.
THE COURT: Any follow-up, Ms. Nelson?
MS. NELSON: Nothing, your Honor.
THE COURT: Ms. Jach, thank you. You may stand down.
Did you say you had another witness, Mr. Knight?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
MR. KNIGHT: Yes, your Honor. Barbara Ramber is our
second witness.
THE COURT: Ms. Ramber, are you in the courtroom?
Are you Barbara Ramber? Ma'am, would you just come
up here, please?
Just stand right there. Raise your right hand to be
sworn.
* * *
BARBARA RAMBER
was called as a witness, after having
been duly sworn to testify to the truth.
* * *
THE COURT: You may have a seat right over here,
please, in the witness box.
Ma'am, would you adjust that microphone? Pull it up
so that it's about three, four inches from your mouth and
speak right into the tip of it. You can pull it right toward
you. There you go.
Now would you state your full name?
THE WITNESS: Barbara Jean Ramber.
THE COURT: And would you spell your last name?
THE WITNESS: R-a-m-b-e-r.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Mr. Knight, I take it you're not conducting the exam
on this witness?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
MR. KNIGHT: I am not. My counsel, co-counsel,
Amy Crawford is.
THE COURT: All right, Ms. Crawford. Go ahead.
MS. CRAWFORD: Thank you, your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. CRAWFORD:
Q. Ms. Ramber, where do you live?
A. Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Q. And how long have you lived in Michigan?
A. Thirty years.
Q. Your partner is JoLinda Jach?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you and your partner JoLinda join this lawsuit?
A. For a couple of reasons. One, it was important to put a
face to show that there are LGBT families that will be impacted
by this. And secondly, we needed to put our complete, total
support in trying to defeat that Act.
Q. Talk for a moment about your employment. Where do you
work?
A. I work for Kalamazoo Public Schools.
Q. And what do you do there?
A. I'm in food service.
Q. How much do you earn per year?
A. $10,000.
Q. Are you eligible for health benefits through your job?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
A. No, I am not.
Q. Why not?
A. I am a non-contractual employee.
Q. Can you purchase health care insurance through your job?
A. Yes, I can.
Q. And how much would that insurance coverage cost?
A. $564.
Q. So that would be in excess of $6,000 -- you mean 540 [sic]
per month?
A. Per month.
Q. And would that be in excess of $6,000 a year?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have testified that you earn about $10,000 per
year, right?
A. Correct.
Q. Let's talk about your medical issues. Could you please
give the Court a brief overview of the health issues for which
you currently receive medical treatment?
A. I suffered a severe blunt eye trauma in my left eye. I
have a cataract in my right eye. I have GERD. And I have
rheumatoid arthritis in both hands and wrists.
Q. Let's talk about your eye injury first. How did you
injure your eye?
A. I went to a semi-professional baseball game, and the
batter hit a foul ball, came off the bat and hit me directly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
in my left eye.
Q. What treatment did you have as a result of that injury?
A. I spent many hours in the emergency room. I had facial
surgery a few days afterwards. They removed the broken bones
and then installed three metal plates in my face. Within a
year after that I developed a traumatic cataract which I had
cataract surgery for. This has left me with glaucoma.
Q. And what type of medical care do you receive for your eye
now?
A. I see my eye specialist every four months, more if needed,
to check the pressure in my left eye.
Q. Do you take any medication for your eye condition?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What do you take?
A. Timolol.
Q. What would be the risk if you stopped taking your
medication?
A. The pressure would build in the eye and I would lose sight
in my left eye.
Q. Has the injury affected your vision?
A. Yes.
Q. How?
A. My vision recedes. It's not constant. I have a
permanently dilated pupil which allows a lot of light in,
which creates a lot of tearing, which also contributes to the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
blurriness. And also, I see halos around all light sources,
artificial and natural.
Q. Do you have an understanding of what type of medical care
you may need in the future as a result of your eye condition?
A. This is a lifelong situation for me. I will be seeing my
specialist or a specialist for the rest of my life.
Q. Is there any risk of or any need for potential surgery in
the future?
A. Yes. I'm at lifetime risk for retinal detachment, which
would require surgery. Also, my eye was injured, so when the
intraocular implant, after the cataract was removed, after the
implant went in, it's -- my eye is missing some items that help
hold that in place, so I'm at risk for detachment of that, as
well.
Q. And what would happen if you didn't receive surgery?
A. I would lose sight in that eye.
Q. Now, you also mentioned that you had rheumatoid arthritis,
is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. When were you diagnosed with that?
A. 2009.
Q. And what are your symptoms?
A. Joint swelling, inflammation and deformity.
Q. Does this affect your ability to work?
A. It certainly does. It affects my ability to lift, grasp,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
support much weight.
Q. Do you have an understanding of whether your arthritis is
likely to progress over time?
A. Yes, it will.
Q. And do you know what kind of treatment you may need in the
future?
A. Yes. Medication to try and slow it down.
Q. Now, you also mentioned that you have GERD, is that
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that gastroesophageal reflux disease?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you explain what that is?
A. I had heartburn for many years, only it wasn't very
obvious to me, and it damaged my esophagus.
Q. Have you been diagnosed with any specific syndromes or
disorder related to the GERD?
A. I was tested for Barrett's esophagus and it looks --
clinically, it looks like Barrett's, but it wasn't -- it didn't
biopsy out as Barrett's.
Q. What are your symptoms?
A. Difficulty swallowing.
Q. Are you taking any medication for that condition now?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What is that?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
A. It's a protonic called Pantoprazole.
Q. Do you have an understanding of whether you may need
additional treatment in the future?
A. Yes. I will need continued endoscopes to check the
esophagus.
Q. To date, has all of your treatment for these medical
issues we have talked about been covered by the insurance
coverage that you have through your partner's job?
A. For the most part, except for co-pays.
Q. I want to talk to you about the Act that's at issue in
this lawsuit, okay?
Is it your understanding that the Public Employee
Domestic Partner Benefit Restriction Act will take away the
insurance coverage that you have through JoLinda's job with
A. Yes.
Q. When will you lose your coverage?
A. December 31st of this year.
Q. Has the Act had any impact on you and JoLinda emotionally?
A. Very much so. It's -- I'm scared to death about losing
the benefits. I'm -- my eyesight is -- the thought of losing
that is terrifying.
Q. If you were to go without insurance altogether, how might
that affect your health?
A. I would not be able to afford the care that I'm getting
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
now, particularly with my eye specialist. They are very
costly.
Q. What are the financial risks to you and your family if you
were to forgo health insurance entirely?
A. When I went to the ballpark that day I didn't expect
to take a fastball in the eye, and so if something else
catastrophic were to happen, I -- that could just sink us.
That would be awful.
Q. Is it a realistic option for you to forgo medical
insurance entirely?
A. I don't see how, no.
Q. What do you anticipate the impact, then, would be of
having to seek alternative insurance?
A. I don't see how we would be able to afford the level of
coverage that we have now.
Q. How has this Act impacted you and your family?
A. It's been hard on everyone. My son does not understand
why his family is treated differently than other families.
Q. And how about how it's affected you and JoLinda?
A. Again, anxiety in trying to figure out, you know, what to
cut, how to cut, where to cut, what to do.
MS. CRAWFORD: No further questions, your Honor.
THE COURT: Ms. Nelson.
MS. NELSON: I have no questions, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
Very well then, Ms. Ramber, you may stand down.
Mr. Knight, do you have any further witnesses?
MR. KNIGHT: I do not, your Honor.
THE COURT: Very well.
Ms. Nelson, do you want to address your motion to
dismiss?
MS. NELSON: I will, your Honor. We had discussed
earlier that we thought a better progression would be
Plaintiffs going forward, since they have the burden on the
preliminary injunction, and the issues overlap, but if the
Court prefer --
THE COURT: If I grant your motion, I believe that
that would make it moot, wouldn't it?
MS. NELSON: I understand that, yes.
THE COURT: Although, you know you're not going to
get a decision today on either one of them.
MS. NELSON: I understand that.
THE COURT: I'll be taking it under advisement and
getting you a decision in writing.
But I would rather hear from you first, and caution
you that I have -- I'm familiar with the issues and request
that you simply hit the highlights.
MS. NELSON: That's my plan.
THE COURT: Good.
MS. NELSON: Thank you.
Exhibit 7
SOUTHERN DIVISION

BREAKEY, JOLINDA JACH and BARBARA
RAMBER, DOAK BLOSS and GERARDO
ASCHERI, DENISE MILLER and
MICHELLE JOHNSON,

Plaintiffs,
v

as Governor of the State of Michigan,

Defendant.

No. 2:12-cv-10038

HON. DAVID M. LAWSON

MAG. MICHAEL J. HLUCHANIUK

DEFENDANTS ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS THIRD SET OF
INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 24:
Please state the name, address and telephone of each witness who may testify by
affidavit or live testimony at trial in this matter. For each witness identified,
provide a concise summary of the expected testimony.
ANSWER:
Defendant has not yet determined who may testify by affidavit or live
testimony as a trial in this matter. The requested information will be provided
when a determination is made and/or consistent with any court pre-trial Order.
Provide the States calculations for 2010 to the present regarding the cumulative
and the average costs incurred by the State for each uninsured resident.

2
ANSWER:
No calculations responsive to this request have been determined to exist.
List and explain any financial impact on the State and any budget adjustments
made by the State as a result of a preliminary injunction being granted in this case.
ANSWER:
No impact on the State or its budge have resulted from the preliminary
injunction entered in this case.
Explain the factual basis of any denial of all or part of any request for admission
served upon you by Plaintiffs.
ANSWER:
1. Request to Admit no. 20: a) Defendant does not have a copy of the
current City of Kalamazoo Program Criteria for its Other Qualified Adult program;
b) Defendant does not know if the qualifications or other program criteria have
changed since the enactment of 2012 PA 297.
2. Request to Admit no. 21: a) Defendant does not have a copy of the
current Ann Arbor Public Schools Other Qualified Adult Benefits Fact Sheet; b)
Defendant does not know if the qualifications or other program criteria have
changed since the enactment of 2012 PA 297.
3. Request to Admit no. 22: The 30(b)(6) deposition of Ingham County
took place January 31, 2014. As a result, Defendant has determined that Plaintiffs

3
Exhibit D remains a true, correct and authentic copy of Ingham Countys Other
Qualified Adult Criteria.
4. Request to Admit no. 23: a) Defendant does not have a copy of
Kalamazoo Valley Community Colleges description of its Household Member
Program criteria; b) Defendant does not know if the qualifications or other program
criteria have changed since the enactment of 2012 PA 297.

Respectfully submitted,

BILL SCHUETTE
Attorney General

/s/Margaret A. Nelson
Margaret A. Nelson (P30342)
Mark E. Donnelly (P39281)
Attorney for Defendant
Public Employment, Elections & Tort Div
P.O. Box 30736
Lansing, MI 48909
Dated: January 31, 2014 (517) 373-6434

S:\PEET_Assignment_Control\Cases\Open\2012\Bassett,TUSDCED20120001512A\DocsProducedtoPltf01.31.14\Ansto
3rdIntererogs.doc

4
Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on the 31
st
day of January, 2014, I caused DEFENDANTS
ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES to be
served by electronic mail to the following counsel:

Michael J. Steinberg
Jay D. Kaplan
Kary L. Moss
American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan

John A. Knight
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation

Amanda C. Goad
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation

Donna M. Welch
Amy Crawford

/s/ Wendy Todd
Wendy Todd
Exhibit 8
Exhibit 9

1

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF MICHIGANS
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFIT
RESTRICTION ACT OF 2011

Expert report submitted on behalf of Plaintiffs
in Bassett v. Snyder, Case No. 2:12-cv-10038
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

Submitted November 15, 2013
by M.V. Lee Badgett, Ph.D.


2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Questions Presented ..........................................................................................................3
II. Expert Qualifications ........................................................................................................3
III. Background on insurance benefits for same-sex partners.................................................5
IV. Administrative costs are small one-time costs. .................................................................6
V. Costs per person are not higher for domestic partners. .....................................................7
VI. Direct health care costs rise for public sector employers in Michigan because
employees sign up a small number of additional enrollees who are OQAs, but
those cost increases are small and proportionate. .............................................................8
VII. Savings would be very small if public sector employers dropped OQA coverage. .........9
VIII. Losing the ability to offer OQA benefits might increase other employment costs
to public sector employers. ............................................................................................12


3

I. Questions Presented
The purpose of this report is to assess the economic impacts of Michigans Public Act
297 of 2011, also known as the Public Employee Domestic Partner Benefit Restriction Act.
Specifically, I was retained by the plaintiffs to analyze the potential economic effects of Public
Act 297 on the State of Michigan, on the public sector employers whose employee benefit
programs Public Act 297 impacted, and on employees and their families.

II. Expert Qualifications
I am a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, where I have
taught since 1997. In addition, I am the director of the Center for Public Policy and
Administration at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. I am also a Williams Distinguished
Scholar at the Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the UCLA
School of Law, where I was the research director from 2006-2013. From 2005-2007, I was a
visiting professor at UCLA School of Law. Prior to those positions, from 1990 to 1997 I was an
assistant professor of Public Affairs at the School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland,
College Park. I have conducted research at the Amsterdam School for Social Science Research,
University of Amsterdam, and conducted research and taught at the Womens Studies and
Lesbian and Gay Studies programs of Yale University. I received my A.B. in Economics from
the University of Chicago in 1982 and my Ph.D. in Economics from the University of California,
Berkeley, in 1990. A copy of my complete curriculum vitae is attached to this report as
Appendix A.

4
The primary focus of my research and teaching is in the fields of Economics, including
Microeconomics, Labor Economics, and Sexual Orientation and Economics; and Sexual
Orientation and Public Policy, including sexual orientation discrimination, family structures and
family policy, same-sex partner recognition in the US and Europe, domestic partner health care
and pension benefits, and the health insurance status of lesbians and gay men.
I am the author of two books and the co-editor of a third on sexual orientation economics
and public policy: Money, Myths and Change: The Economic Lives of Lesbians and Gay Men
(2001), Sexual Orientation Discrimination: An International Perspective (2007), and When Gay
People Get Married: What Happens When Societies Legalize Same-Sex Marriage (2009). I
have also authored numerous published articles and book chapters, as set forth in my curriculum
vitae.
The facts and data that I rely upon to reach my opinions below are the sources cited in the
footnotes or my experience in my field of expertise regarding the economics of sexual
orientation. These facts and data that I rely on here are the type of facts or data that are
reasonably relied upon by an expert in my field when she forms opinions regarding this subject
area, and the facts and data are otherwise reasonably reliable. I reserve the right to supplement
or modify my opinions based on additional information that becomes available, such as any
future amended responses to plaintiffs discovery requests in this case.
I was not compensated for my work on preparing this report, and if other written
testimony becomes necessary in this matter, I intend to prepare those additional written
declarations or reports on a pro bono basis. I will be compensated at a rate of $150 per hour for
testimony at a trial, hearing, or other court proceeding in this matter, or at deposition, plus

5
reasonable travel and lodging expenses. My compensation does not depend on the outcome of
this litigation, the opinions I express, or the testimony I provide.

III. Background on insurance benefits for same-sex partners

A well-established body of research and information from government agencies
demonstrates that health insurance coverage is an important form of employment compensation,
and employers currently are the primary source of health care coverage for Americans under
sixty-five years of age. Given that context, same-sex partners and the children of lesbian and gay
employees are vulnerable without access to employer-provided family health insurance, which
routinely leaves many with inferior or no alternative health coverage. In fact, as discussed
below, same-sex partners are twice as likely as married people to be uninsured.
Some public sector employers in Michigan allow unmarried employees to designate an
individual, and sometimes that individuals children, to receive certain benefits, including health
care benefits. The term for that individual varies across public sector employers and includes
Other Qualifying Adult, Other Eligible Adult, Other Eligible Individual, Additional
Eligible Adult, and other terms. In spite of the variation in the term used, public employers
often use similar criteria for determining that status, such as cohabitation and evidence of
financial interdependence. Some of those benefit programs were temporarily interrupted by PA
297, but the law has been enjoined and employers have been able to resume offering the benefits.
Offering health care benefits to employees Other Qualifying Adult (or OQA, the term I
will use below to stand for such statuses) results in relatively small additional costs to the State
of Michigan. Employees often pay all or part of the additional premium, and the local

6
jurisdictions pay part of the additional cost from their own coffers. In addition, we now have
two decades of experience with employers offering domestic partner benefits that show that
employers can extend health care benefits (and other employment benefits) to domestic partners
without incurring significant costs. Because most private employers and public employers
outside of Michigan provide benefits to these other household members through what is called a
domestic partner relationship, below I use that term in this report to document employer
experiences and policies. I also show that while some direct costs to the state and to local
governments might fall to a small extent if public employers cannot cover Other Qualifying
Adults, other employment costs and public benefits costs might rise for state and local
governments.

IV. Administrative costs are small one-time costs.
Thousands of employers have successfully implemented domestic partner benefits in
their workplaces. Although the programs at issue here provided benefits based on OQA status
rather than based on a domestic partner relationship, the administrative burden of establishing
such programs would be similar to that of establishing a more traditional domestic partner
benefits program. Employer reports in news accounts and other direct communications that I
have had with employers suggest that the development of administrative procedures for these
programs is not costly. To the extent that any administrative costs are involved in implementing
domestic partner benefits, those costs would be one-time start-up costs. Furthermore, these
negligible costs would be borne mostly or completely by the local public sector employers.
Typically employers set up a system for an employee to sign an affidavit or other
declaration of having a domestic partner, to provide any necessary documentation of financial

7
interdependence, and for indicating the end of a domestic partner relationship. Employers may
also change forms and handbooks, as well as adjust payroll systems to include the employers
cost of benefits paid for a domestic partner as imputed income for the employee. After those
procedures are in place, employers would see little or no additional administrative costs.
I know of no studies or data that suggest that administrative problems exist. Because the
administration of employment benefits for same-sex domestic partners falls within my area of
expertise, I believe that I would have learned of such studies or data if they existed.

V. Costs per person are not higher for domestic partners.
Health care costs per person are not higher for domestic partners. Early in the history of
domestic partner benefits, insurance companies and employers feared that the cost of health care
benefits for domestic partners could be high as a result of fraud and adverse selection, that is the
signing up of partners who have higher-than-average health care costs. For example, the City of
Berkeley and the City of Seattle both had to pay higher insurance premiums when they initially
offered domestic partner benefits. When the claims experience showed no evidence of adverse
selection, the insurance plans dropped the higher premiums and surcharges.
1
Perhaps the best
evidence that insurance companies no longer see domestic partner benefits as a problem is the
fact that many insurance companies offer them to their own employees, including Wellpoint,
Inc., Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, CIGNA, and MetLife.
2

1
For Berkeley case, see Design Features of Domestic Partner Benefits, Spencers Research
Reports on Employee Benefits, Vol. 327, No. 4-5 at 5-8 (1992). For Seattle case, see Kimberly
Blanton, To Insure, or Not to Insure: Big Insurance Companies Balk at the Coverage of
Unmarried Partners, Boston Globe, October 13, 1993 at 39.
2
Human Rights Campaign Employer Database, http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/search-our-
employer-database (follow Advanced Search hyperlink; then select Insurance under

8
However, it is possible that some employers would adopt definitions of OQAs that are
permissible under Public Act 297 and would include multiple eligible household members, such
as parents or other relatives. If employers were to do so, they might be increasing their average
health care costs if employees should choose to add particular OQAs with higher-than-expected
health care costs.

VI. Direct health care costs rise for public sector employers in Michigan because
employees sign up a small number of additional enrollees who are OQAs, but those
cost increases are small and proportionate.

Information related to enrollment and health care costs of OQAs obtained voluntarily
from public employers by plaintiffs attorneys was provided to me. This information included
preliminary data from public employers in Michigan, including cities, counties, school districts,
and universities, on how many OQAs were enrolled for health insurance benefits. Responses
from eight employers allowed calculation of take-up rates, or the percentage of covered
employees who signed up an OQA. The take-up rate range was 0.3% to 1.8%, indicating that
employers are adding a small number of OQAs to the health care roll. In addition, nine
employers reported data allowing calculation of the percentage change in health care costs. The
cost increase ranged from 0.2% to 1.2%, again a very small change.
The data from most employers combined same-sex partners who are OQAs with other
types of household members. In some cases, employers were able to provide separate figures on
same-sex couples, which were lower than the total number of OQAs. Therefore, the take-up and
cost figures in the previous paragraph would very likely be smaller if same-sex couples could be

Industry and select Domestic partner Health Benefits under Key Policies; then follow
Go hyperlink) (last accessed Oct. 24, 2013).

9
isolated. Also, these take-up rates are in line with the range from studies of domestic partner
benefits, which is typically 0.1% to 1%.
3

VII. Savings would be very small if public sector employers dropped OQA coverage.
Domestic partner benefits result in higher health care costs for employers because more
people are covered, but the increase in costs is small. In Michigan, implementing Public Act 297
would reduce the number of people covered by public employers, reducing costs to some extent.
However, the overall drop in spending by the state would not be as much as the direct spending
on benefits.
First, the number of new enrollees as the result of the availability of OQA coverage has
been low. The take-up rates cited earlier show that few employees sign up an OQA.
Second, not all of those benefits are paid for with state dollars. Instead, many public
sector employers rely heavily on local funds for the cost of those benefits. In many instances,
employees themselves contribute to the cost of coverage for their OQAs.
Third, the state will lose some revenue from offsetting income tax payments. When a
married employee receives employer-provided health care benefits for a spouse, the IRS does not
tax the employee for either the value of the employee benefits or the spousal benefits. However,
unmarried employees whose domestic partners receive employer-provided benefits must pay
federal income taxes on the imputed value of those benefits. The only exception is when the
partner is an IRS dependent. It is likely that at least some employees receiving OQA benefits

3
Michael Ash & M. V. Lee Badgett, Separate and Unequal: The Effect of Unequal Access to
Employment-Based Health Insurance on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual People, Contemporary
Economic Policy 24 at 582-599 (2006); Employee Benefit Research Institute, Domestic Partner
Benefits: Facts and Background (Feb. 2009),
http://www.ebri.org/pdf/publications/facts/0209fact.pdf (last accessed Oct. 25, 2013).

10
would be unmarried and, therefore, would currently be paying state and federal taxes on the
imputed value of OQA benefits. Thus state tax revenue will offset the cost of OQA benefits to
some extent, and eliminating OQA benefits will reduce state tax revenue. Since the current
Michigan state income tax rate is 4.35%, each state dollar saved by public sector employers on
benefits for unmarried employees nets the state only $0.95.
Fourth, not all current OQAs will be prevented from receiving benefits. Some are in
categories not excluded by Public Act 297: they are legally recognized family members or are
dependents according to the tax code. For instance, in Washtenaw County an otherwise eligible
adult who is an IRS dependent of a public employee could qualify for benefits. Furthermore,
some employees who had received OQA benefits would be able to marry to regain benefits,
further reducing the cost impact of Public Act 297.
Fifth, the provision of OQA benefits has prevented some individuals from being
uninsured, so eliminating these benefits would tend to increase certain other costs that state and
local governments would otherwise bear for Medicaid and other government-sponsored health
care programs. Recent studies show that people with same-sex unmarried partners are much
more likely to be uninsured than are married people.
4
Under the Affordable Care Act, uninsured
individuals shopping for insurance policies might find that even a subsidized premium is more
than the tax or fee paid if uninsured, and therefore some individuals will continue to be
uninsured. If uninsured partners or OQAs of public employees are no longer allowed to sign up

4
Ash and Badgett (2006); J. Heck, R. Sell & S. Sheinfeld Gorin, Health Care Access Among
Individuals Involved in Same-Sex Relationships, American Journal of Public Health, 96 at
1111- 1118 (2006); N. Ponce, S. Cochran, J. Pizer & V. Mays, The Effects of Unequal Access
to Health Insurance for Same-Sex Couples in California, Health Affairs, 29(8) at 1539-1548
(2010); T. Buchmueller & C. S. Carpenter, Disparities in Health Insurance Coverage, Access,
and Outcomes for Individuals in Same-Sex Versus Different-Sex Relationships, 20002007,
American Journal of Public Health, 100(3), (2010), 489-495.

11
for an employees health plan, then the state will spend more money on state-supported health
care programs since uninsured people still require health care but often cannot pay for it. Some
of the newly uninsured partners of public employees might qualify for Medicaid or the future
Medicaid expansion, a program for low-income and disabled people that is paid for by both state
and federal government contributions. In FY2010, the Medicaid cost per non-aged, non-disabled
adult was $2,876.
5
The State of Michigan paid 26.73% of Medicaid costs in FY10, or $769 per
adult, with the federal government paying the rest.
6

Other no-longer insured OQAs might be underinsured or completely uninsured but are
still likely to require medical care that they might not be able to pay for. One study estimates
that state and local government contributions to pay for uncompensated care by uninsured people
in the United States totaled $17 billion in 2008.
7
Averaging that spending over the 41 million
people who were uninsured for a full year gives an average state and local government spending
of $414 per person.
8
The Affordable Care Act is expected to reduce but not eliminate spending
on uncompensated care.
9

5
Kaiser Family Foundation, State Health Facts,
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=183&cat=4&rgn=24&cmprgn=1 (last
accessed Nov. 13, 2013).
6
Kaiser Family Foundation, State Health Facts, http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/federal-
matching-rate-and-multiplier/ (last accessed Nov. 13, 2013).
7
Jack Hadley, John Holahan, Teresa Coughlin & Dawn Miller, Covering The Uninsured In
2008: Current Costs, Sources Of Payment, And Incremental Costs, Health Affairs, 27, No.5 at
w399-w415 (published online August 25, 2008),
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/27/5/w399.full (last accessed Oct. 25, 2013).
8
Ibid.
9
M. Buettgens, S. Dorn and C. Carroll, Consider Savings as Well as Costs State Governments
Would Spend at Least $90 Billion Less With the ACA than Without It from 2014 to 2019, July
2011, Urban Institute, http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412361-consider-savings.pdf (last
accessed Nov. 13, 2013).

12
VIII. Losing the ability to offer OQA benefits might increase other employment costs to
public sector employers.

If they cannot offer OQA benefits, public employers will lose a compensation tool that is
useful for competing with other employers to recruit and retain talented and committed
employees. First, public employers may not be able to compete successfully with employers
offering domestic partner benefits, which some Michigan public employers are not allowed to
offer. This competitive effect would make it difficult for public employers to hire the best-
qualified and most productive employees, thus potentially decreasing employee productivity and
increasing employment costs. Second, public employers will not be able to offer competitive
benefits to retain employees, which might lead to higher costs of turnover, such as the cost of
lost production and retraining new employees. For example, one study calculated the training,
vacancy, hiring, and recruiting costs for a registered nurse to be $62,000 to $67,000.
10
A study
of the cost of public school teacher turnover found costs ranging from $4,300 to more than
$17,000 per teacher.
11

Public employers in Michigan compete with two kinds of employers: private sector
employers in Michigan and elsewhere, and public sector employers in other states and university
and state employees under civil service in Michigan. If prevented from offering benefits to
same-sex partners of employees, most of Michigans public sector employers will be put at a
competitive disadvantage that might result in higher labor costs.

10
Cheryl Jones, The Costs of Nurse Turnover, Part 2: Application of the Nursing Turnover Cost
Calculation Methodology, 35 Journal of Nursing Administration 41 (2005).
11
Gary Barnes, Edward Crowe & Benjamin Schaefer, The cost of teacher turnover in five school
districts: A pilot study, National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (2007),
http://nctaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/NCTAF-Cost-of-Teacher-Turnover-2007-full-
report.pdf (last accessed Oct. 23, 2013).

13
The United States Department of Labors Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that a
significant number of private and state and local employees can include a same-sex unmarried
partner on their health insurance plans. For the first time, the 2011 National Compensation
Survey (NCS) collected data on the provision of benefits to unmarried partners, or two
unrelated, unmarried adults who share the same household. The decision to ask such questions
of employers by the Department of Labor itself reflects the increasing provision of benefits to
unmarried partners, and the survey findings confirm how common those benefits are.
The NCS is the most important and reliable source of data on employment benefits in the
United States. The 2013 NCS survey includes data on the employment benefit policies of a
sample of more than 10,000 employers, including 6,268 private employers and 1,365 state and
local government employers.
12
The 2013 survey found that 33% of all employees of state and
local governments have access to health care benefits for a same-sex partner. Furthermore, in the
private sector, 31% of employees can designate a same-sex partner and 26% can name a
different-sex partner for benefits.
Furthermore, many Michigan employers already offer domestic partner benefits to
employees, including Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co., Kellogg Co., Steelcase Inc. ,
Whirlpool Corp., American Brake & Clutch Inc., Ann Arbor News, Applied Image Technology
Inc., Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Chrysler Group LLC, Compuware Corp., Dow
Chemical Co., DTE Energy Co., Dykema Gossett PLLC, Herman Miller Inc., Valassis
Communications, Inc., and Visteon Corp.
13
Therefore, in order to remain attractive to employees

12
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Labor, National Compensation Survey: Employee
Benefits in the United States, March 2013, Bulletin 2776,
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2013/ebbl0052.pdf (last accessed Nov. 13, 2013).
13
Human Rights Campaign Employer Database, http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/search-our-
employer-database (last accessed Oct. 24, 2013).

14
who have or might someday have domestic partners, public employers will need to offer
comparable benefits.
Opinion polls and academic research also link employers ability to recruit and retain
workers to offers of domestic partner benefits. A 2005 study showed that 71% of employers
offering domestic partner coverage give this reason for offering the coverage.
14
One study
shows that domestic partner benefits reduce gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers turnover and
increase their commitment to firms.
15
A 2007 survey of corporate employees who had left their
jobs showed that 41% of gay and lesbian job leavers would have been very likely to have stayed
if their employer offered to pay them more fairly. [B]etter benets was the top concern of gay
and lesbian professionals and managers.
16

The attraction of such benefits may extend beyond people with same-sex partners. In
national 2007 and 2008 Harris Interactive/Witeck-Combs Communication polls, more than one-
third of heterosexual respondents believed that a law preventing employers from offering
domestic partner benefits would have quite a bit or a great deal of an impact on employers
ability to recruit, retain, and compete for the most qualified employees.
17

14
Study cited in Employee Benefit Research Institute, Domestic Partner Benefits: Facts and
Background (Feb. 2009), http://www.ebri.org/pdf/publications/facts/0209fact.pdf (last accessed
Oct. 25, 2013). See also Brad Sears & Christy Mallory, Economic Motives for Adopting
LGBT-Related Workplace Policies, Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law (2011),
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Mallory-Sears-Corp-Statements-
Oct2011.pdf (last accessed Oct. 25, 2013).
15
Belle Rose Ragins & John M. Cornwell, We are family: The influence of gay family-friendly
policies on gay, lesbian and bisexual employees, Sexual Orientation Discrimination: An
International Perspective (M. V. Lee Badgett and Jeff Frank eds., Routledge 2007).
16
Level Playing Field Institute, The Corporate Leavers Survey: The Cost of Employee
Turnover Due Solely to Unfairness in the Workplace (2007),
http://www.lpfi.org/sites/default/files/corporate-leavers-survey.pdf (last accessed Oct. 25, 2013).
17
Out & Equal Workplace Advocates, Out & Equal Workplace Culture Report: Survey of
Workplace Attitudes, 2002-2008 (2008),

15
Indeed, other evidence suggests that employees make decisions about job offers at least
in part based on domestic partner benefits. A March 2003 poll by Harris Interactive/Witeck-
Combs found that 6% of heterosexual workers reported that domestic partner benefits would be
the most important factor in deciding to accept a new jobmore than those who would look for
on-site child care. In that survey, almost half (48%) of lesbian, gay, and bisexual employees said
that partner benefits would be their most important consideration if offered another job.
Furthermore, 7% of heterosexual workers who actually changed jobs reported that partner
benefits were the most important factor in that decisiona factor almost as common as changing
jobs for better retirement benefits (12%).
18

Offering domestic partner benefits also sends an important positive signal to a much
larger group of employees. A 2002 study by Richard Florida found that heterosexual employees,
even those without unmarried partners, often look for domestic partner benefits as a signal of an
employer that values diversity and creativity.
19
In a follow-up study, Florida argued that regions
that do not embrace the benefits of diversity-friendly policies risk alienating the creative
workforce that is the key to gaining a competitive edge in the global market.
20
Public
recognition of these benefits sends a strong signal to the private sector.
This evidence suggests that partner benefits will become increasingly important in
competing for talented and committed employees of all sexual orientations. Recruitment and
turnover are costly for public employers, and therefore being required to eliminate OQA benefits
might increase those costs.

http://outandequal.org/documents/OE_workplace_culture_report.pdf (last accessed Oct. 24,
2013).
18
Personal communication, Witeck-Combs Communication, 2003.
19
Richard Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class (2002).
20
Richard Florida, Flight of the Creative Class (2005).


APPENDIX A

CURRICULUM VITAE
DR. M.V. LEE BADGETT

M. V. Lee Badgett--page 1
M. V. LEE BADGETT

HOME ADDRESS: CAMPUS ADDRESS:
67 Willow St. Center for Public Policy & Administration
Florence, MA 01062 University of Massachusetts
Cell: (310) 904-9761 Amherst, MA 01003
Email: lbadgett@pubpol.umass.edu
(v) 413-545-3162 (f) 413-545-1108

CURRENT POSITION:
Director Center for Public Policy and Administration, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
Professor Dept. of Economics, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
Williams Distinguished Scholar Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law

EDUCATION: DEGREE DATE FIELD
University of California, Berkeley Ph.D. 1990 Economics
University of Chicago A.B. 1982 Economics

Dissertation title: "Racial Differences in Unemployment Rates and Employment Opportunities"

PREVIOUS POSITIONS:
Research Director, Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law (2006-2013)
Assistant & Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Massachusetts-Amherst (1997-2008)
Adjunct Professor, Whittier Law School (Summer 2011)
Visiting Professor, UCLA School of Law (2005-2007; Summer 2008)
Visiting Researcher, Amsterdam School for Social Science Research, University of Amsterdam (2003-2004)
Co-founder & Research Director, Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies (1994-2006, merged with Williams Institute
2006)
Assistant Professor, School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland, College Park (1990-1997)
Visiting Assistant Professor, Womens Studies and Lesbian and Gay Studies, Yale University (1995-1996)
Research Analyst, National Commission for Employment Policy, U.S. Department of Labor (Summer 1994)

RECENT COURSES TAUGHT:
Economics: Microeconomics (University of Massachusetts)
Microeconomics and Public Policy (University of Massachusetts-Amherst)
Political Economy of Sexuality (University of Massachusetts-Amherst)
Labor Economics--undergraduate and Ph.D. level (University of Massachusetts-Amherst)
Feminist Economics (co-taught as visiting professor at University of Minnesota)

Policy: Policy Analysis (University of Massachusetts-Amherst), Capstone course (University of Massachusetts-Amherst)
Social Inequality and Social Justice: Problems and Solutions (University of Massachusetts-Amherst)
Social Science and Public Policy on LGBT Issues (Whittier Law School Barcelona program; University of Massachusetts
Online)

CURRENT RESEARCH TOPICS:
Sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in labor markets and impact of public policy
Poverty in LGBT community
Family structures and family policy, especially same-sex partner recognition in US and other countries
Domestic partner health care and pension benefits

BOOKS:
When Gay People Get Married: What Happens When Societies Legalize Same-Sex Marriage, New York University Press,
2009. Distinguished Book Award, American Psychological Association, Division 44, 2010.

Sexual Orientation Discrimination: An International Perspective, co-edited by M. V. Lee Badgett and Jeff Frank, Routledge,
2007.

Money, Myths, and Change: The Economic Lives of Lesbians and Gay Men, University of Chicago Press, 2001.


BOOK MANUSCRIPT:
Using Research to Change the World, full manuscript under review.

JOURNAL ARTICLES:
Same-Sex Legal Marriage and Psychological Well-Being: Findings From the California Health Interview Survey, Richard G.
Wight, Allen J. LeBlanc, and M. V. Lee Badgett, American Journal of Public Health, February 2013, Vol. 103, No. 2, 339-
346.

Separated and Not Equal: Binational Same-Sex Couples, Signs, Vol. 36, No. 4, Summer 2011, 793-798.

Social Inclusion and the Value of Marriage Equality in Massachusetts and the Netherlands, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 67,
No. 2, 2011, pp. 316-334.

Are We All Decisionists Now? Response to Libby Adler, online forum of Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Review,
March 2011.

The Economic Value of Marriage for Same-sex Couples, Drake Law Review, Vol. 58, No. 4, 2010, pp 1081-1116.

Bias in the Workplace: Consistent Evidence of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination 1998-2008, M.V. Lee
Badgett, Brad Sears, Holning Lau, and Deborah Ho. Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 84, No. 2, 2009.

The Double-Edged Sword in Gay Economic Life: Marriage and the Market. Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and
Social Justice, Vol. 15, No. 1, Fall 2008, pp. 109-128.

Registered Domestic Partnerships Among Gay Men and Lesbians: The Role of Economic Factors, M. V. Lee Badgett, Gary
J. Gates, and Natalya Maisel, Review of Economics of the Household, December 2008.

The Impact on Marylands Budget of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry, M. V. Lee Badgett, Amanda K. Baumle, Shawn
Kravich, Adam P. Romero, R. Bradley Sears, University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class, Vol.
7, No. 2, 2007, pp. 295-339.

Supporting Families, Saving Funds: An Economic Analysis of Equality for Same-sex Couples in New Jersey, Rutgers
Journal of Law & Public Policy, by M. V. Lee Badgett, R. Bradley Sears, and Deborah Ho, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2006.

Separate and Unequal: The Effect of Unequal Access to Employment-Based Health Insurance on Same-sex and Unmarried
Different-Sex Couples, Michael Ash and M. V. Lee Badgett, Contemporary Economic Policy, October 2006, Vol. 24, no. 4,
pp 582-599.

Predicting Partnership Rights: Applying the European Experience to the United States, Yale Journal of Law and Feminism,
Vol. 17, No. 1, Spring 2005, 71-88.

Putting a Price on Equality? The Impact of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry on Californias Budget, co-
authored with R. Bradley Sears, Stanford Law & Policy Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2005, pp. 197-232. Winner of 2005
Dukeminier Award for Best Sexual Orientation Law Review Articles, reprinted in The Dukeminier Award Journal,
Vol. 5, 2006.

Now That We Do: Same-Sex couples and Marriage in Massachusetts, with Randy Albelda and Michael Ash,
Massachusetts Benchmarks, Vol. 7, Issue 2, 2005, 17-24.

Asking the Right Questions: Making the Case for Sexual Orientation Data, 2004 Proceedings of the American
Statistical Association, Statistical Computing Section [CD-ROM], Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.

Will Providing Marriage Rights to Same-Sex Couples Undermine Heterosexual Marriage? Sexuality Research and
Social Policy: Journal of NSRC, Vol. 1, No. 3, September 2004, pp. 1-10.

"Job Gendering: Occupational Choice and the Marriage Market," M. V. Lee Badgett and Nancy Folbre, Industrial
Relations, April, 42(2), 2003, 270-298.


"Wedding Bell Blues: The Income Tax Consequences of Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage," James Alm, M. V. Lee
Badgett, and Leslie A. Whittington, National Tax Journal, Vol. LIII, No. 2, June 2000, pp. 201-214.

"Assigning Care," co-authored with Nancy Folbre, International Labour Review, Vol. 138, No. 3, 1999, pp. 311-326.

"Introduction: Towards Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Perspectives in Economics: Why and How They May Make a
Difference," Prue Hyman and M. V. Lee Badgett, introduction to special section of Feminist Economics, co-edited by
Badgett and Hyman, Vol. 4, No. 2, Summer 1998, pp. 49-54.

"Readings Related to Lesbian and Gay Economics: An Annotated Bibliography," Feminist Economics, Vol. 4, No. 2,
Summer 1998, pp. 111-116.

A Queer Marketplace: Books on Lesbian and Gay Consumers, Workers, and Investors, (review essay) Feminist
Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3, Fall 1997, pp. 607-632.

"Employment and Sexual Orientation: Disclosure and Discrimination in the Workplace," Journal of Gay and Lesbian
Social Services, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1996, pp. 29-52. Simultaneously published as Sexual Identity on the Job: Issues and
Services, Alan L. Ellis and Ellen D.B. Riggle, editors, Harrington Park Press, 1996. Also published in Psychological
Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Experiences, 2
nd
edition, ed. Linda D. Garnets and Douglas C. Kimmel,
Columbia University Press, 2003.

"The Wage Effects of Sexual Orientation Discrimination," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 48, No. 4,
July, 1995, pp. 726-739. Reprinted in Women Transforming Politics: An Alternative Reader, ed. by Cathy J. Cohen,
Kathleen B. Jones, and Joan C. Tronto, New York University Press, 1997.

"Gender, Sexuality and Sexual Orientation: All in the Feminist Family?" Feminist Economics, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1995.
Reprinted in Gender and Political Economy: Incorporating Diversity into Theory and Policy, ed. by Ellen Mutari,
Heather Boushey, and William Fraher IV, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, 1997.

"Affirmative Action in a Changing Legal and Economic Environment," Industrial Relations, Vol. 34, No. 4, 1995.

"Rising Black Unemployment: Changes in Job Stability or Employability?" Review of Black Political Economy, Vol.
22, No. 3, Winter 1994, pp. 55-75.

"The Economics of Sexual Orientation: Establishing a Research Agenda," M. V. Lee Badgett and Rhonda M.
Williams, Feminist Studies, Vol. 18, No.3, 1992.

BOOK CHAPTERS:
Patterns of Relationship Recognition by Same-Sex Couples in the United States, by M. V. Lee Badgett and Jody Herman, in
International Handbook on the Demography of Sexuality, ed. by Amanda Baumle, Springer, 2013.

Marriage by the Numbers, in Here Come the Brides: Reflections on Lesbian Love and Marriage, ed. by Audrey Bilger &
Michele Kort, Seal Press, Berkeley, 2012, pp. 170-176.

Bringing All Families to Work Today: Equality for Gay and Lesbian Workers and Their Families, in The Changing Realities
of Work and Family: A Multidisciplinary Approach, ed. By Amy Marcus-Newhall, Diane Halpern, and Sherylle Tan, Wiley-
Blackwell, 2008.

The Global Gay Gap: Institutions, Markets, and Social Change, with Jefferson Frank, Sexual Orientation Discrimination:
An International Perspective, edited by Badgett and Frank, Routledge, 2007.

Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation: A Review of the Economics Literature and Beyond, in The Handbook of the
Economics of Discrimination, ed. By William M. Rodgers III, Edward Elgar, 2006. Also appearing in Sexual Orientation
Discrimination: An International Perspective, edited by Badgett and Frank.

"Is Affirmative Action Working for Women?" (co-authored with Jeannette Lim) in Mary C. King (ed.) Squaring Up: Policy
Strategies to Raise Women's Incomes in the United States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2001.


Lesbian and Gay Think Tanks: Thinking for Success, Identity/Space/Power: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Politics, edited by Mark Blasius, Princeton University Press, 2000.

The Impact of Affirmative Action on Public-Sector Employment in California, 1970-1990, in Paul Ong, editor, Impacts of
Affirmative Action: Policies & Consequences in California, AltaMira Press, 1999; and in The Impact of Affirmative Action on
Public-Sector Employment and Contracting in California, A Technical Assistance Program Report of the California Policy
Seminar, University of California, 1997.

"Where the Jobs Went in the 1990-91 Downturn: Varying (Mis)Fortunes or Homogeneous Distress?" Civil Rights and Race
Relations in the Post Reagan-Bush Era, ed. Samuel L. Myers, Praeger, Westport, CT, 1997, pp 99-147.

The Economic Well-Being of Lesbian and Gay Adults Families, in Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Identities in the Families:
Psychological Perspectives, ed. by Charlotte J. Patterson and Anthony R. DAugelli, Oxford University Press, 1997.

"Choices and Chances: Is Coming Out at Work a Rational Choice?" in Queer Studies: A Multicultural Anthology, ed.
by Mickey Eliason and Brett Beemyn, New York University Press, 1996.

"Beyond Biased Samples: Challenging the Myths on the Economic Status of Lesbians and Gay Men," in Homo
Economics: Capitalism, Community, and Lesbian and Gay Life, ed. by Amy Gluckman and Betsy Reed, Routledge
Press, 1997.

"Occupational Strategies of Lesbians and Gay Men," M. V. Lee Badgett and Mary C. King, in Homo Economics:
Capitalism, Community, and Lesbian and Gay Life, ed. by Amy Gluckman and Betsy Reed, Routledge Press, 1997.

"Thinking Homo/Economically," in Walter L. Williams and James Sears, eds., Combating Homophobia and
Heterosexism, forthcoming, Columbia University Press. (Reprinted in A Queer World: The CLAGS Reader, ed. by
Martin Duberman, New York University Press, 1997.)

"Evidence of the Effectiveness of Equal Employment Opportunity Policies: A Review," M. V. Lee Badgett and Heidi
I. Hartmann, in Economic Perspectives on Affirmative Action, ed. by Margaret C. Simms, Joint Center for Political
and Economic Studies, 1995.

"The Changing Contours of Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Structural Economic Change," M. V. Lee Badgett and
Rhonda M. Williams, in Understanding American Economic Decline, David Adler and Michael Bernstein, eds.,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994.

POLICY REPORTS:
M. V. Lee Badgett and Jody L. Herman, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Diversity in Entertainment: Experiences and
Perspectives of SAG-AFTRA Members, Williams Institute and SAG-AFTRA, September 2013.

M. V. Lee Badgett, Laura Durso, and Alyssa Schneebaum, New Patterns of Poverty in the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual
Community, Williams Institute, May 2013.

M. V. Lee Badgett, Laura Durso, Angel Kastanis, and Christy Mallory, The Business Impact of LGBT-Supportive Policies,
Williams Institute, May 2013.

Angel Kastanis and M. V. Lee Badgett, Estimating the Economic Boost of Marriage Equality in Delaware, Williams Institute,
May 2013.

Angel Kastanis and M. V. Lee Badgett, Estimating the Economic Boost of Marriage Equality in Rhode Island, Williams
Institute, May 2013.

Angel Kastanis and M. V. Lee Badgett, Estimating the Economic Boost of Marriage Equality in Minnesota, Williams
Institute, May 2013.


Angel Kastanis and M. V. Lee Badgett, Estimating the Economic Boost of Marriage Equality in Illinois, Williams Institute,
March 2013.

Administrative Impact of Adding Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity to Texass Employment Non-Discrimination Law,
Christy Mallory and Lee Badgett, December 2012.

The Economy Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-sex Couples in Australia, M. V. Lee Badgett and Jennifer Smith,
Williams Institute, February 2012.

Impact of Extending Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Requirements to Federal Contractors,

The Economic Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples in Washington, Angeliki Kastanis, M. V. Lee Badgett,
and Jody L. Herman, January 2012.

Estimating the Economic Boost of Marriage Equality in Iowa: Sales Tax, Angeliki Kastanis, M. V. Lee Badgett, and Jody L.
Herman, December 2011.

Patterns of Relationship Recognition by Same-Sex Couples in the United States, M. V. Lee Badgett and Jody L. Herman,
Williams Institute, November 2011.

"Spending on Weddings of Same-Sex Couples in the United States," By Craig J. Konnoth, M.V. Lee Badgett, Brad Sears,
Williams Institute, July 2011.
The Impact of Creating Civil Unions for Same-Sex Couples on Delaware's Budget, By Jody L. Herman, Craig J. Konnoth,
M.V. Lee Badgett, Williams Institute, March 2011.

"The Fiscal Impact of Creating Civil Unions on Colorados Budget," By Jody L. Herman, Craig J. Konnoth, M.V. Lee Badgett,

"The Impact on Rhode Islands Budget of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry," By Jody L. Herman, Craig J. Konnoth, M.V.
Lee Badgett, February 2011, Williams Institute.

"Employment Discrimination against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People in Oklahoma," By Christy Mallory, Jody
L. Herman, M.V. Lee Badgett, Williams Institute, January 2011.

"Employment Discrimination against LGBT Utahns," By Clifford Rosky, Christy Mallory, Jenni Smith, M.V. Lee Badgett,
Williams Institute, January 2011.

"Utah Census Snapshot: New Study on Same-Sex Couples in Utah," By Jody L. Herman, Christy Mallory, M.V. Lee Badgett,
Gary J. Gates, Williams Institute, November 2010.

"The Potential Impact of HB444 on the State of Hawai'i," by Naomi Goldberg, R. Bradley Sears, and M.V. Lee Badgett,
Williams Institute, June 2010.

"The Impact of Expanding FMLA Rights to Care for Children of Same-Sex Partners," M. V. Lee Badgett, Williams Institute,
June 2010.

"The Impact of Employment Nondiscrimination Legislation in South Dakota," Naomi Goldberg, M. V. Lee Badgett, and Chris
Ramos, Williams Institute, January 2010.

"The Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples on the New Jersey Budget," by Brad Sears, Christopher Ramos, and
M.V. Lee Badgett, Williams Institute, December 2009.

Best Practices for Asking Questions about Sexual Orientation on Surveys, editor and co-author, Williams Institute, November
2009.

The Business Boost from Marriage Equality: Evidence from the Health and Marriage Equality in Massachusetts Survey, by
Naomi Goldberg, Michael Steinberger, and M.V. Lee Badgett, Williams Institute, May 2009.


The Effects of Marriage Equality in Massachusetts: A survey of the experiences and impact of marriage on same-sex couples,
by Christopher Ramos, Naomi G. Goldberg, and M.V. Lee Badgett, Williams Institute, May 2009.

The Impact on Maines Budget of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry, by Christopher Ramos, M. V. Lee Badgett, Michael
D. Steinberger, and Brad Sears, Williams Institute, April 2009.

The Economic Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples in the District of Columbia, by Christopher Ramos, M.
V. Lee Badgett, and Brad Sears, Williams Institute, April 2009.

Fact Sheet: Tax Implications for Same-Sex Couples, by Naomi Goldberg and M. V. Lee Badgett, Williams Institute, April
2009.

The Economic Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-sex Couples in Vermont, By M. V. Lee Badgett, Christopher Ramos,
and Brad Sears, Williams Institute, March 2009.

Poverty in the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Community, by Randy Albelda, M.V. Lee Badgett, Gary Gates, and Alyssa
Schneebaum, Williams Institute, March 2009.

Florida Adoption Ban/ Cost Estimate, by Naomi Goldberg and M. V. Lee Badgett, Williams Institute, February 2009.

Kentucky Foster Care/Adoption Ban Cost Estimate, By Naomi Goldberg and M. V. Lee Badgett, Williams Institute, February
2009.

The Economic Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-sex Couples in Maine, By M. V. Lee Badgett, Christopher Ramos,
and Brad Sears, Williams Institute, February 2009.

Evidence of Employment Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity: Complaints Filed with State
Enforcement Agencies 1999-2007, By M. V. Lee Badgett, Christopher Ramos, and Brad Sears, Williams Institute, November
2008.

The Fiscal Impact of Extending Federal Benefits to Same-Sex Domestic Partners, Naomi G. Goldberg, Christopher Ramos,
and M.V. Lee Badgett, September 2008.

Marriage, Registration and Dissolution by Same-sex Couples in the U.S., Gary J. Gates, M.V. Lee Badgett, and Deborah Ho,
Williams Institute, July 2008.

The Impact of Extending Marriage to Non-Resident Same-Sex Couples on the Massachusetts Budget, By M. V. Lee Badgett
and R. Bradley Sears, Williams Institute memo to Massachusetts Secretary of Housing and Economic Development, June 2008.

The Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples on the California Budget, Brad Sears and M.V. Lee Badgett,
Williams Institute, June 2008.

The Impact on Iowa's Budget of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry, M.V. Lee Badgett, Amanda K. Baumle, Adam P.
Romero and Brad Sears, Williams Institute, April 2008.

The Impact on Oregon's Budget of Introducing Same-Sex Domestic Partnerships, By M.V. Lee Badgett, R. Bradley Sears,
Elizabeth Kukura, and Holning Lau, Williams Institute, February 2008.

Implications of HB 9 for Businesses in New Mexico, M.V. Lee Badgett, Williams Institute, January 2008.

Unequal Taxes on Equal Benefits: The Taxation of Domestic Partner Benefits, M.V. Lee Badgett, Center for American
Progress and Williams Institute, December 2007.

The Impact on Maryland's Budget of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry, M.V. Lee Badgett, Amanda Baumle, Shawn
Kravich, Adam P. Romero, and R. Bradley Sears, Williams Institute, November 2007.


Amici curiae brief, in re Marriage Cases, Supreme Court of California, September 2007, M. V. Lee Badgett and Gary J. Gates.

Bias in the Workplace: Consistent Evidence of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination, by Lee Badgett,
Holning Lau, Brad Sears, and Deborah Ho, Williams Institute, UCLA, June 2007.

Census Snapshot series: 50 state reports; Williams Institute, UCLA, with various co-authors, 2007.

Methodological Details for Census Snapshot, August 2007, Danielle MacCartney, M. V. Lee Badgett, and Gary Gates.

Adoption and Foster Care by Gay and Lesbian Parents in the United States, Williams Institute and Urban Institute, March
2007, Gary Gates, Lee Badgett, Jennifer Macomber, and Kate Chambers.

The Financial Impact of Domestic Partner Benefits in New Hampshire, Williams Institute, December 2006.

Economic Benefits from Same-Sex Weddings in New Jersey, Williams Institute, December 2006.

Frequently Asked Questions about Providing Domestic Partner Benefits, M. V. Lee Badgett and Michael A. Ash, Williams
Institute, October 2006.

The Impact of the Colorado Domestic Partnership Act on Colorado's State Budget, M.V. Lee Badgett, R. Bradley Sears,
Roger Lee, and Danielle MacCartney, Williams Institute. October 2006

The Effect of Marriage Equality and Domestic Partnership on Business and the Economy, M.V. Lee Badgett and Gary J.
Gates, Williams Institute, October 2006.

The Impact on Washingtons Budget of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry, M.V. Lee Badgett, R. Bradley Sears,
Elizabeth Kukura, and Holning Lau, IGLSS and Williams Institute, 2006.

The Impact on New Mexicos Budget of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry, M.V. Lee Badgett, R. Bradley Sears, Steven
K. Homer, Patrice Curtis, and Elizabeth Kukura, IGLSS and Williams Institute, 2006.

Positive Effects on State of Alaska from Domestic Partnership Benefits, Williams Institute, 2006.

The Cost to Ocean County of Providing Pension Benefits to Employees Domestic Partners, Williams Institute, 2006.

The Impact on New Hampshires Budget of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry, R. Bradley Sears, M. V. Lee Badgett, and
Elizabeth Kukura, IGLSS and Williams Institute, 2005.

Counting on Couples: Fiscal Savings from Allowing Same-Sex Couples in Connecticut to Marry, M.V. Lee Badgett, R.
Bradley Sears, Patrice Curtis, and Elizabeth Kukura, IGLSS and Williams Project on Sexual Orientation and the Law, 2005.

Will Providing Marriage Rights to Same-sex Couples Undermine Heterosexual Marriage? Evidence from Scandinavia and the
Netherlands, Discussion paper, Council on Contemporary Families and the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies,
July 2004.

The Business Cost Impact of Allowing Same-sex Couples to Marry, co-authored with Gary Gates. Human Rights Campaign
and Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, 2004.

Same-sex Couples and Their Children in Massachusetts: A View from Census 2000, co-authored with Michael Ash, Nancy
Folbre, Lisa Saunders, and Randy Albelda, Angles, Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, Amherst, MA, February
2004.

Sears, R. Bradley, and M. V. Lee Badgett. The Impact on Californias Budget of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry,
Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies and Williams Project of UCLA Law School, May 2004.

Sears, R. Bradley, and M. V. Lee Badgett. Same-sex Couples and Same-sex Couples Raising Children in California, Institute
for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies and Williams Project of UCLA Law School, May 2004.


The Bottom Line on Family Equality: The Impact of AB205 on California Businesses, M. V. Lee Badgett and R. Bradley
Sears, Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies and Williams Project, August 2003.

Supporting Families, Saving Funds: A Fiscal Analysis of New Jerseys Domestic Partnership Act, M.V. Lee Badgett and R.
Bradley Sears, Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies and Williams Project of UCLA Law School, December 2003.

Equal Rights, Fiscal Responsibilities: The Impact of AB205 on Californias Budget, M.V. Lee Badgett and R. Bradley Sears,
Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies and Williams Project of UCLA Law School, May 2003.

Left Out of the Count: Missing Same-sex Couples in Census 2000, M. V. Lee Badgett and Marc A. Rogers, Institute for Gay
and Lesbian Strategic Studies, Amherst, MA, 2003.

"Calculating Costs with Credibility: Health Care Benefits for Domestic Partners," Angles, Vol. 5, Issue 1, 2000.

Income Inflation: The Myth of Affluence Among Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Americans, Joint publication of NGLTF Policy
Institute and Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, 1998. Reprinted in The Gay & Lesbian Review, Spring 2000.

"The Fiscal Impact on the State of Vermont of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry," IGLSS Technical Report 98-1, October
1998.

Creating Communities: Giving and Volunteering by Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender People, Working Group on
Funding Lesbian and Gay Issues, Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, February 1998. (Co-authored with Nancy
Cunningham)

Vulnerability in the Workplace: Evidence of Anti-Gay Discrimination, Angles: The Policy Journal of the Institute for Gay
and Lesbian Strategic Studies, Vol. 2, No. 1, September 1997.

For Richer, For Poorer: The Cost of Nonrecognition of Same Gender Marriages, M. V. Lee Badgett and Josh A. Goldfoot,
Angles: The Policy Journal of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, May 1996.

"Pervasive Patterns of Discrimination Against Lesbians and Gay Men: Evidence from Surveys Across the United
States," Lee Badgett, Colleen Donnelly, and Jennifer Kibbe, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute,
1992.

"The Impact of the Construction of Luz SEGS VIII on California and the Project Area," William T. Dickens, Lee
Badgett, and Carlos Davidson, February 1989.

OP-EDS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS:
The Economic Benefits of Gay Marriage, March 29, 2013, PBS News Hour Blog, The Business Desk,
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2013/03/the-economic-benefits-of-gay-m.html

The Books that Inspired Lee Badgett, blog post, LSE Review of Books, November 2012.

Review of Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and Americans Definitions of Family, in Gender & Society, August 2012, Vol.
26, No. 4, 674-676.

Gay Marriage Good for Family and Economy, The Drum Opinion, ABC Online (Australian Broadcasting Corp.), March 6,
2012.

What Obama Should Do About Workplace Discrimination, New York Times, February 6, 2012.

High Costs of Discrimination, Worcester Telegram, M. V. Lee Badgett and Jody Herman, May 11, 2011.

Featured guest column, The Economist debate on marriage for same-sex couples, January 6, 2011,
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/638.

Summer of Love and Commitment, The Huffington Post, September 3, 2008.
Sexual Orientation, Social and Economic Consequences, in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 2
nd
Edition,

ed. William A. Darity, Jr., Macmillan Reference USA, 2008.
The Wedding Economy, The New York Times, January 7, 2007.
The Closet Doors Open: Whats Behind Hartfords Surge in Gay Population? The Hartford Courant, Gary J. Gates and M.
V. Lee Badgett, November 5, 2006.
The Future of Same-Sex Marriage, Social Work Today, November 2006.
The Gay Health Insurance Gap, www.alternet.org, October 26, 2006.
Whats Good for Same-Sex Couples is Good for Colorado, The Daily Camera, Boulder, CO, October 28, 2006.
Book review of Inheritance Law and the Evolving Family, by Ralph Brashear, Feminist Economics, vol. 12, no. 1-2, 2006.
Equality Doesnt Harm Family Values, with Joop Garssen, National Post (Canada), August 11, 2004.
Prenuptial Jitters: Did Gay Marriage Destroy Heterosexual Marriage in Scandinavia? Slate Magazine, May 20, 2004,
http://slate.msn.com/id/2100884/.
Brad Sears and Lee Badgett, Tourism and Same-sex Marriage, San Diego Union-Tribune, June 2, 2004.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040527/news_lz1e27sears.html
Equality Is Not Expensive, Connecticut Law Tribune, April 19, 2004.
Domestic Partner Bill Wont Be Burden to Business, Orange County Register, April 18, 2004, with Brad Sears.
Economics and Boycotts, entries for Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender History, ed. by Marc
Stein, Scribners, forthcoming December 2013.

Recognizing California Couples: Domestic-Partner Law Attacked by Anti-Gay Senator Could Boost Flow of Cash to State,
M. V. Lee Badgett and R. Bradley Sears, Daily Journal, October 14, 2003.

A Win at Cracker Barrel, The Nation, February 10, 2003.

Why I was a Dem for a Day, Daily Hampshire Gazette, June 2002.

Commentary on Boy Scouts of America, WFCR, Amherst, MA, August 13, 2001.

"Sexual Orientation," Richard Cornwall and M. V. Lee Badgett, entry for Encyclopedia of Feminist Economics, ed. by Meg
Lewis and Janice Peterson, Edward Elgar, 2000.

"Lesbians, social and economic situation," entry for International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences,
forthcoming.

"One Couple's 'Penalty' remains another's privilege", with James Alm and Leslie A. Whittington, Boston Globe, September 3,
2000, p. E2.

Domestic partner status unfair to gay couples, Springfield Sunday Republican, op-ed April 2, 2000, p. B3.

Do Sexual Orientation Policies Help Lesbians? in Women's Progress: Perspectives on the Past, Blueprint for the Future,
Institute for Womens Policy Research, Fifth Policy Research Conference Proceedings, Washington, DC, 1998.

"Census Data Needed," letter to the editor, The Washington Blade, November 7, 1997, p. 37.

Same-sex partners bring nurturing--and financial benefits--to the altar, op-ed piece with Gregory Adams, Chicago Sun-
Times, June 8, 1996, p. 16.

"The Last of the Modernists: A Reply," Feminist Economics, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1995.


"Domestic Partner Recognition: Doing the Right--and Competitive--Thing," Synthesis: Law and Policy in Higher
Education, Vol. 6, No. 4, Spring 1995.

"Equal Pay for Equal Families," Academe, May/June 1994.

"Lesbian and Gay Campus Organizing for Domestic Partner Benefits," in Higher Education Collective Bargaining
During a Period of Change, Proceedings, Twenty-Second Annual Conference, April 1994, The National Center for
the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions, Baruch College, CUNY, 1994.

"Beyond Biased Samples: Challenging the Myths on the Economic Status of Lesbians and Gay Men," pamphlet
published by National Organization of Gay and Lesbian Scientists and Technical Professionals and the Institute for
Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, 1994. (Early version of book chapter of same title.)

Co-author and co-editor, Labor and the Economy, published by the Center for Labor Research and Education, Institute of
Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley, 1989.

"Looking for the Union Label: Graduate Students at U.C.," California Public Employee Relations, No. 85, June 1990.

"Rusted Dreams: Documenting an Economic Tragedy," Labor Center Reporter, No. 219, October 1987.

"How the Fed Works," Labor Center Reporter, No. 177, November 1986.

EXPERT WITNESS EXPERIENCE (LITIGATION 2009-2013):
Written testimony, Kitchen v. Herbert, No. 2:13-cv-00217 (D. Utah), October 2013 (challenge to Utahs marriage equality
prohibition)

Written testimony, Darby/Lazaro v. Orr, No. 12 CH 19718 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cnty.), April 2013 (challenge to Illinois
marriage equality prohibition)

Written testimony, Garden State Equality v. Dow, No. L-1729-11 (N.J. Superior Ct., Mercer Cnty.) 2013 (challenge to New
Jersey marriage equality prohibition)

Written testimony, Sevcik v. Sandoval, No. 2:12-cv-00578 (D. Nev.), 2012 (challenge to Nevadas marriage equality
prohibition)

Written testimony, Bassett v. Snyder, No. 2:12-cv-100382012 (E.D. Mich.), 2012 (challenge to Michigans Domestic Partner
Benefit Restriction Act).

Written testimony, Glossip v. Missouri Dept of Transp. and Highway Patrol Employees' Ret. Sys., No. 10-CC00434 (Mo. Cir.
Ct., Cole Cnty.), 2011 (challenge to denial of death benefit to state troopers surviving same-sex partner).

Written testimony, Collins v. Brewer (later Diaz v. Brewer), No. 2:09-cv-02402 (D. Ariz.), 2010 (challenge to Arizonas
cancellation of domestic partner benefits).

Deposition and trial testimony, Perry v. Schwarzenegger (later Perry v. Brown, Hollingsworth v. Perry), No. 3:09-cv-02292
(N.D. Cal.), 2010 (challenge to Californias Proposition 8).

LEGISLATIVE WITNESS EXPERIENCE (Selected):
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, S.811, The Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2011,
June 12, 2012.

Written testimony, S. 598, The Respect for Marriage Act: Assessing the Impact of DOMA on American Families, M. V. Lee
Badgett, Ilan H. Meyer, Gary J. Gates, Nan D. Hunter, Jennifer C. Pizer, Brad Sears. July 2011.

U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal
Service, and the District of Columbia on HR 2517: Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligation Act of 2009, July 2009.


U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and
Pensions, Testimony on Employment Non-Discrimination Act (HR 2015), September 2007.

Written and oral testimony on legislation or regulations in Alaska, California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont.

SELECTED MEDIA APPEARANCES:
Featured guest, Tell Me More, NPR, June 10, 2013.

Featured guest, Encounter, Radio National, ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corp), October 9, 2011.

Featured guest, Faith Middleton Show, January 13, 2011. http://www.yourpublicmedia.org/content/wnpr/faith-middleton-show-
when-gay-people-get-married

Featured guest, Same-Sex Marriage, Five Years On, On Point, National Public Radio, May 27, 2009.
http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/05/same-sex-marriage-five-years-on

Featured guest, Gay Commerce, Talk of the Nation, National Public Radio, 1997.

Featured guest, Gay Market, Odyssey: A Daily Talk Show of Ideas, NPR nationally syndicated show, 2005.
http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/DWP_XML/od/2005_05/od_20050512_1200_4906/episode_4906.ram

Interviewed on All Things Considered, Gay Marriage in Massachusetts, One Year Later, May 2005.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4655621

Featured guest, CNN American Morning: The Future of Marriage, June 2006.
http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/images/CNN_AmericanMorning_FutureOfMarriage_LeeBadgett_062006.mov

WORK IN PROGRESS AND PAPERS UNDER REVIEW:
Assessing the effect of nondiscrimination policies related to sexual orientation and gender identity, M.V. Lee Badgett and
Samantha Schenck.

Uncovering Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Poverty in the United States, Randy Albelda, M. V. Lee Badgett, and Alyssa
Schneebaum.

Are Gay People Happy? M. V. Lee Badgett and Alyssa Schneebaum.

Minority stress and its association with cohabitation and Domestic Partnership registration in California, Natalya Maisel,
Gary J. Gates, and M. V. Lee Badgett, August 2007, under review.

Gay and Lesbian Families: A Research Agenda, Gary J. Gates and M. V. Lee Badgett, August 2006.

"Breadwinner Dad, Homemaker Mom: An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Changing Gender Norms in the United States, 1977-
1998." Lee Badgett, Pamela Davidson, Nancy Folbre, and Jeannette Lim, in progress, 2000.

SELECTED PRESENTATIONS OF PAPERS SUBMITTED TO ACADEMIC CONFERENCES:
Assessing the effect of nondiscrimination policies related to sexual orientation and gender identity, Badgett and Samantha
Schenck. Presented at: Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Labor Market, University of Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne,
6/20/2012; International Association for Feminist Economics, Barcelona Spain. 6/27/2012; APPAM conference, November
2012.

Waves of Change: Is Latin America Really Following Europe in Same-Sex Couples?, at 8
th
Annual Update, Williams
Institute, Global Arc of Justice: Sexual Orientation Law Around the World, March 14, 2009.


Gay poverty, Presented at 2009 Allied Social Science Association Meeting; 2009 Association for Public Policy Analysis and
Management Research Conference; 2008 IAFFE Research Conference, Torino, Italy, June 2008; Williams Institute Annual
Update, February 2008.

Registered Domestic Partnerships Among Gay Men and Lesbians: The Role of Economic Factors, (with Gary J. Gates and
Natalya Maisel), presented at 2007 APPAM Meeting, Washington, DC; 2008 Allied Social Science Associations Annual
meeting, New Orleans.

Predicting Same-Sex Marriage in Europe & the US, Presented at 2008 IAFFE Research Conference, Torino, Italy, June 2008.

Social Lab Outcomes: Same-Sex Couples and Legal Recognition, Temple University Law School, States as Social
Laboratories, October 20, 2007.

The Double-Edged Sword in Gay Economic Life: Marriage and the Market. Washington & Lee School of Law, Feb 2008.

Why Marry? Presented at 2006 IAFFE Research Conference, Sydney, Australia, July 2006; New School for Social
Research, October 2006; Sociology Family Working Group, UCLA, 2006.

An exploration of foster care and adoption among lesbians and gay men, joint work with Jennifer Macomber, Kate Chambers,
Gary Gates. Family Pride conference, Philadelphia, PA, May 2006.

Survey Data on Sexual Orientation: Building a Professional Consensus, presented at 2005 Joint Statistical Association
Meetings, August 2005. Also presented to Canadian Population Society, June 2005; Williams Project Annual Update, UCLA
Law School, February 2005.

Alternative Legal Statuses for Same-sex couples and other families: Can Separate Be Equal Enough? Presented at
International Association for Feminist Economics, Washington DC, July 2005; APPAM, Washington, DC, November 2005;
UCLA Law School 2006.

Looking into the European Crystal Ball: What Can the U.S. Learn About Same-Sex Marriage? Tulsa Gay and Lesbian
History Project, October 2004; University of Connecticut, October 2004; Yale University, February 2005; American
Psychological Association, August 2005; National Council of Family Relations (invited special session), 2005.

Predicting Partnership Rights: Applying the European Experience to the United States, Yale University Law School, March
5, 2005.

Asking the Right Questions: Making the Case for Sexual Orientation Data, Joint Statistical Meetings of the American
Statistical Association, Toronto, August 2004; Williams Project Annual Update, UCLA, February 2005; Canadian Population
Society, June 3, 2005.

A New Gender Gap: Sex Differences in Registered Partnerships in Europe, International Association for Feminist Economics
research conference, London, August 2004.

Variations on an Equitable Theme: International Same-sex Partner Recognition Laws, Research Conference of International
Associate for Feminist Economics, July 2002. Stockholm University, September 2003; University of Linz, Austria, November
2003; University of Amsterdam, June 2004; American Political Science Association, Chicago, September 2004.

The Myth of Gay Affluence and Other Tale Tales: The Political Economy of Sexual Orientation, University of California,
San Diego, June 2002.

"A Family Resemblance: Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Partners in the United States," Research Conference of International
Association for Feminist Economics, Oslo, Norway, June 2001; University of Southern Maine, October 2001; University of
Massachusetts, February 2002; Washington University Political Science Department, March 2002; University of Wisconsin,
LaCrosse, April 2002.

"A Movement and a Market: GLBT Economic Strategies for Social Change," University of Wisconsin, LaCrosse, April 2002;
Macalester College, April 2002.


"Job Gendering: Occupational Choice and the Marriage Market," Research Conference of International Association for
Feminist Economics, Ottawa, CA, June 1999.

"Tolerance, Taboos, and Gender Identity: The Occupational Distribution of Lesbians and Gay Men," Research Conference of
International Association for Feminist Economics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 1998.

The Impact of Affirmative Action on Public-Sector Employment in California, ASSA Meetings, 1997.

Tolerance or Taboos: Occupational Differences by Sexual Orientation, presented at American Economic Association
Meetings, January 1996, and American Psychological Association convention in Toronto, August 1996.

"A Race, Ethnicity, and Gender Analysis of the 1990-91 Recession," ASSA Meetings 1995.

"Choices and Chances: Is Coming Out at Work a Rational Choice?" The Sixth North American Lesbian, Gay, and
Bisexual Studies Conference, University of Iowa, November 18, 1994.

"Civil Rights and Civilized Research: Constructing a Sexual Orientation Policy Based on the Evidence," Association
for Public Policy Analysis and Management Research Conference, October 27, 1994

"Where the Jobs Went in the 1990-91 Downturn," National Conference on Race Relations and Civil Rights in the Post
Reagan-Bush Era, The Roy Wilkins Center, Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota, October 1994.

"Lesbian and Gay Campus Organizing for Domestic Partner Benefits," The American Political Science Association
meeting, September 1994.

Panelist, "Developing Lesbian/Gay Studies in Economics," ASSA Meetings, 1994.

"The Rainbow at Work: Differences in the Economic Status of Women Workers in the United States," presented at
the 5th International Interdisciplinary Congress on Women, 1993.

"The Economic Well-Being of Lesbians and Gay Men: Pride and Prejudice," December 1992, presented at 1993
ASSA Meetings.

"Affirmative Action in a Changing Legal and Economic Environment," revised, December 1992, presented at 1993
ASSA Meetings.

"The Effects of Structural Change on the Race and Gender Distribution of Employment," with Rhonda M. Williams,
presented at Eastern Economic Association Meeting, 1992.

"Changes in Racial Inequality Among Women: Evidence from Unemployment Rates," presented at AEA Meetings,
1992.

"Labor Market Discrimination--Economic and Legal Issues for Gay Men and Lesbians," presented at AEA Meetings,
1992.

"Rising Black Unemployment: Changes in Job Stability or in Employability?" presented at National Economic
Assoc., 1992.

"Rising Black Unemployment and the Role of Affirmative Action Policy," presented at APPAM Research Conference, October
1990.

INVITED KEYNOTES AND OTHER PRESENTATIONS (Selected):

Invited Keynote Speaker, Workshop on Comparative Experiences in Protection of LGBT Rights in the Family and Marriage
Relations, hosted by Ministry of Justice, Viet Nam, and UNDP, December 20-21, 2012, Hanoi.

When Gay People Get Married, London School of Economics and Politics, Keynote for LSE Pride Week, November 2012.

Keynote speaker at Roundtable, "Taking Poverty Out of the Closet," Horizons Foundation, San Francisco, March 19, 2012.


The Impact of Allowing Same-sex Couples to Marry, Australian National University College of Law. March 1, 2012; Gough
Whitlam Institute, Sydney Australia, March 2, 2012.

Australian Parliament, Canberra, "The Impact of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry," February 27, 2012.

Keynote lunch speaker, E-Marriage Symposium, Michigan State University Law School, My Marriage, No Marriage,
November 11, 2011.

When Gay People Get Married, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, October 13, 2011.

IAFFE, 2011, Hangzhou China: Roundtable on Sexuality and the Economy, Roundtable on Enhancing IAFFEs Vision in the
21
st
Century. June, 2011.

Panelist, Same-Sex Marriage: Past, Present and Future, M. V. Lee Badgett, David Boies, and Nancy Cott, UCLA History
Department, February 24, 2011.

Janus Lecture, Debate on same-sex marriage, Brown University, February 17, 2011.

Panelist, "Queering Where We Work: Bridging LGBTQ Policy Advocacy, Front-Line Activism, and Research," University of
Toronto, Rotman School of Management, November 5, 2010.

The Economic Value of Marriage, Drake Constitutional Law Center's Annual Symposium, The Same-Sex Marriage Divide,
Drake University, Iowa. April 10, 2010.

Keynote address, Out and Equal in the Workplace: Sexual Orientation Discrimination, Univ of Pittsburgh School of
Law. March 18, 2010.

When Gay People Get Married: Portland State Univ Portland, OR. 4/23/2010; University of Chicago Alumni Weekend,
Chicago, IL; University of Chicago, June 3, 2010; Kennesaw State University, Atlanta, GA, March 24, 2010; Andrew Young
School of Public Affairs; Georgia State University, March 25, 2010; and many other bookstores and locations.

"Challenges for LGBT Workers" Department of Labor at invitation of Assistant Secretary for Policy, January 29, 2010.

Keynote Address on Sexual orientation and economics, University of Illinois-Chicago, September 30, 2009.

Multiple talks, University of Minnesota, Duluth, April 2009.

On the Road to Equality: Health Care for LGBT Americans, Opening address, 2007 National LGBT Health Expo,
Washington, DC, November 2, 2007.

Does diversity make a difference? A view from the marketplace. Keynote Address, 7th annual international conference on
diversity in organizations, communities, and nations, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, July 1, 2007.

Not-So-Gay Divorce: A Reason for Marriage, Gay Divorce Conference, Kings College London, May 20, 2006.

Thinking for Change/Changing our Thinking: Effective Research in GLBT Policy Debates, Presidential Invited Address,
Division 44, American Psychological Association Convention, August 2005.

Money, Myths, and Change: The Economic Lives of Lesbians and Gay Men, University of Toronto, March 16-17, 2005.

Panelist, Aging in the Gay Community, American Association of Retired Persons, June 2000.

Money and Our Discontents, Keynote speech, Smart Women/Smart Money conference by the Astraea Foundation.
November 1999.

"Homo Economics: The Myth of Gay Affluence and Other Tall Tales," University of Connecticut, March 1999; American
University, October 1999.


Same-Sex Couples and Public Policy, panel member, University of Maryland, College Park, October 1999.

"A Bridge to the Future or the Road to Nowhere? Respectability and Lesbian and Gay Think Tanks," Remarks prepared for the
Politics of Respectability Conference, University of Chicago, April 1999

Panelist, Unifying Anti-Subordination Theories, DePaul University Law School, February 1999.

"Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals in a Gender Agenda," Roundtable on Feminism and Public Policy, 1998 ASSA Meetings,
Chicago, IL.

Economic Issues for Lesbians, Workshop on Lesbian Health Research Priorities, Institute of Medicine, Board on
Neuroscience and Behavioral Health, Washington, DC, October 6, 1997.

Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transgenders: Who Gives, How Much, and Why, OutGiving Conference, Aspen, CO,
September 1997; Horizons Foundation and United Way, San Francisco, CA, October 1997; NGLTF Creating Change
conference, San Diego, November 1997; Cream City Foundation Milwaukee, WI; Chicago, IL; Boston Foundation, February
1998.

Lesbian and Gay Money: Is There a Gender Gap? Towson State University, March 1997.

Panelist, Out in the Workplace, University of Pennsylvania, February 10, 1997.

Workplace Policy Issues for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual People, Gender, Race, Economics, and Public Policy Conference of
the New School for Social Research, April 5, 1996.

Panelist, Compensating for Gender, Race, and Class Inequalities: Is Affirmative Action the Means to Social Justice, A Future
of Equality: Feminist Rethinkings of the Affirmative Action and Welfare Debates, Yale University Womens Center, March 30,
1996.

Equal Pay for Equal Work, University of Delaware Lavender Scholars Series, March 7, 1996.

Lesbian and Gay Think Tanks, Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies, CUNY Graduate School, February 9, 1996.

Panelist, Affirmative Action in the 21st Century, Chicago United, February 15, 1996.

"The Economic Status of Lesbians and Gay Men: Discrimination, Data, and Debate," Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.
Department of Labor, June 15, 1995; Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University, September 1995;
University of Massachusetts, Boston, May 1996.

Panelist, Gay Money: Power of the Purse, National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association, October 19, 1995.

Panelist, Domestic Partner Benefits and Other Gay Rights Policy Issues: Creating Change on Campus, American
Association of University Professors, June 9, 1995.

Prepared testimony, Select Education and Civil Rights Subcommittee, Committee on Education and Labor, U. S. House of
Representatives, Testimony on the 30th Anniversary of the Equal Pay Act, 1994. (Hearing cancelled at the last minute.)

"Economic Evidence of Sexual Orientation Discrimination," Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Studies Faculty Seminars,
Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, Dept. of Economics and Program for Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Concerns, May 11,
1994.

"The Economics of Being Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual: Pride, Prejudice and Politics," Brown Bag Series in Gay,
Lesbian, and Bisexual Studies, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, May 11, 1994.

"Thinking Homo/Economically," conference presentation, Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies, CUNY Graduate
School, May 7, 1994.


"Lesbian and Gay Campus Organizing for Domestic Partner Benefits," Annual Conference, The National Center for
the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions, Baruch College, CUNY, April 19, 1994.
Also presented at the American Political Science Association meeting, September 1994.

"The Changing Contours of Discrimination: Race, Gender, and Structural Economic Change," presented at University
of Michigan, School of Social Work, Profs. Mary Corcoran and Sheldon Danziger, March, 15, 1994.

"Redefining Families: Research and Policy," American Political Science Association meetings, Washington, D.C.,
September 3, 1993.

"A Cost/Benefit Analysis of Coming Out," presented at OUT Magazine press conference, broadcast on CSPAN, April
21, 1993.

GRANTS:
National Science Foundation, Building an Interdisciplinary Equal Employment Opportunity Research Network and Data
Capacity, 7/1/13 to 6/30/16 ($245,216), co-PI.
Five Colleges Inc (from Mellon Foundation): Bridging the Liberal Arts and Professional Training in Public Policy & Social
Innovation ($178,000)
Five Colleges Inc: Social Justice Public Policy Practitioners-in-Residence ($95,000)
Ford Foundation, 2003-2006 (2 grants), Data on Sexual Orientation (total $600,000)
1995 Wayne F. Placek Award, American Psychological Foundation, The Impact of Attitudes on Lesbian and Gay Male
Earnings and Occupations. ($15,000)
The Aspen Institute, Nonprofit Sector Research Fund, Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Giving and Volunteering, 1996. ($40,000)
2002 Wayne F. Placek Award, American Psychological Foundation, Health Insurance Inequality for Gay, Lesbian, and
Bisexual People, with Michael A. Ash.

PANELS AND COMMITTEES:
Chair, Diversity Committee, International Association for Feminist Economics, 2011-present.
Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM): Institutional representative, 2007-present and Vice Chair
2011-12; Program Committee for 2010 conference.
Nat'l Association of Schools of Public Administration and Affairs (NASPAA): Leslie Whittington Teaching Award Committee,
2010.
Advisory Committee for Real Families, Real Facts: Research Symposiums on LGBT-headed Families, Family Pride, held
May 2006.
Planning committee and facilitator for research meeting held at Out & Equal Workplace conference, September 2005.
Reviewer, Wayne F. Placek Award, American Psychological Foundation
Women's Funding Network, Lesbian Donor Research Project Advisory Committee, 1997-1998
Visiting Lecturer and co-designer, Traveling Feminist Economics Ph.D. Course, Univ. of Minnesota, 1997-1998

FELLOWSHIPS AND HONORS:
Samuel F. Conti Faculty Fellowship, University of Massachusetts Amherst, 2013-2014.
When Gay People Get Married, Distinguished Book Award, American Psychological Association, Division 44, 2010; chosen
for Diversity Book Club, Kennesaw State University, 2010.
Distinguished Faculty Lecture, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, November 9, 2009, and Chancellors Medal (the highest
honor bestowed on individuals for exemplary and extraordinary service to the campus)
Named one of twenty most influential lesbians in academia, Curve Magazine, 2008
Rockwood Leadership Fellow in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Community & Advocacy, 2008-09
2005 Dukeminier Award for Best Sexual Orientation Law Review Article
College Outstanding Teacher Award, Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of Massachusetts, 2000-2001
Out 100, Out Magazine, 2001.
One of Our Best and Brightest Activists, The Advocate, 2000.
Lilly Fellow, Center for Teaching, University of Massachusetts- Amherst, 1999-2000
Certificate of Appreciation, Stonewall Center, 1999.
Certificate of Recognition, University of Maryland at College Park Diversity Initiative, 1994-95
Graduate Opportunity Fellowship, 1985-86, UC Berkeley
A.B. with General Honors, University of Chicago
Maroon Key Society, University of Chicago
Abram L. Harris Prize, 1978-79, 1979-80, University of Chicago


AFFILIATIONS
Association for Public Policy Analysis & Management
American Economic Association
Editorial Board (and past Associate Editor), Feminist Economics
International Association for Feminist Economics (past board member)
Editorial board, Sexuality Research and Social Policy ; Sexuality & the Law (Social Science Research Network); Law and
Social Inquiry

REFEREE:
Quarterly Journal of Economics, Industrial Relations, Journal of Human Resources, Feminist Economics, Journal of Policy
Analysis & Mgmt., Amer. Sociological Review, Review of Social Economy, Review of Economics and Statistics, Columbia
University Press, National Science Foundation, Qualitative Sociology, Social Problems, Social Forces, University of
Wisconsin Press, Journal of Population Economics, Routledge Press, Princeton University Press, Industrial and Labor
Relations Review, Demography, American Journal of Sociology, Contemporary Economic Policy, Journal of Marriage and the
Family, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Social Forces, Health Affairs, and others
Exhibit 10
B
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
B
r
i
e
f
i
n
g
T
h
e
f
i
s
c
a
l
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
i
s
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
b
r
i
e
f
i
n
g
i
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
d
a
t
a
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
0
,
2
0
1
4
.
S
C
H
O
O
L
A
I
D
B
e
t
h
a
n
y
W
i
c
k
s
a
l
l
,
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
K
a
r
e
n
S
h
a
p
i
r
o
,
S
e
n
i
o
r
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
T
h
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
p
a
y
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
d
a
y
-
t
o
-
d
a
y
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
l
o
c
a
l
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
,
e
n
a
b
l
i
n
g
t
h
e
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
u
r
e
t
o
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
a
n
d
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
a
s
y
s
t
e
m
o
f
f
r
e
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
a
n
d
s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
a
s
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
b
y
l
a
w
.
-
-
-
T
h
e
M
i
c
h
i
g
a
n
C
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
2
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
:
G
r
o
s
s
A
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
$
1
2
,
4
6
7
$
1
2
,
7
0
1
$
1
3
,
0
0
8
$
1
2
,
8
9
8
$
1
3
,
2
6
0
$
1
2
,
7
3
7
$
1
2
,
9
8
2
$
1
2
,
7
4
7
$
1
2
,
9
1
2
$
1
3
,
3
6
7
F
Y
2
0
0
5
F
Y
2
0
0
6
F
Y
2
0
0
7
F
Y
2
0
0
8
F
Y
2
0
0
9
F
Y
2
0
1
0
F
Y
2
0
1
1
F
Y
2
0
1
2
F
Y
2
0
1
3
F
Y
2
0
1
4
M i l l i o n s
3
G
r
o
s
s
G
F
/
G
P
T
o
t
a
l
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
v
e
r
e
m
a
i
n
e
d
f
a
i
r
l
y
f
l
a
t
o
v
e
r
t
h
e
l
a
s
t
t
e
n
y
e
a
r
s
.
I
n
F
Y
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
g
r
o
s
s
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
7
.
2
%
h
i
g
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
i
n
F
Y
2
0
0
4
-
0
5
.
N
o
t
e
s
:
1
.
B
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
i
n
F
Y
2
0
0
9
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
$
3
4
2
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
h
i
f
t
f
r
o
m
l
o
c
a
l
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
t
o
S
t
a
t
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
t
a
x
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
.
2
.
F
Y
2
0
0
9
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
F
Y
2
0
1
1
e
a
c
h
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
$
4
5
0
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
a
n
d
$
6
0
0
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
i
n
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
f
r
o
m
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
A
R
R
A
a
n
d
E
d
J
o
b
s
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
.
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
S
h
a
r
e
o
f
S
t
a
t
e
G
F
/
G
P
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
H
e
a
l
t
h
$
2
,
7
4
7
,
5
8
3
,
6
0
0
2
9
.
9
%
C
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
$
1
,
9
5
8
,
0
5
3
,
6
0
0
2
1
.
3
%
H
i
g
h
e
r
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
/
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
s
$
1
,
2
7
1
,
3
4
4
,
9
0
0
1
3
.
8
%
O
t
h
e
r
$
1
,
4
7
3
,
6
8
2
,
3
0
0
1
6
.
0
%
H
u
m
a
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
$
1
,
0
0
3
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
1
0
.
9
%
D
e
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
$
1
5
1
,
1
8
8
,
0
0
0
1
.
6
%
S
t
a
t
e
P
o
l
i
c
e
$
3
5
3
,
4
7
4
,
3
0
0
3
.
8
%
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
$
2
3
4
,
9
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
.
6
%
4
T
h
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
b
u
d
g
e
t
m
a
k
e
s
u
p
2
.
6
%
o
f
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
s
t
a
t
e
G
F
/
G
P
b
u
d
g
e
t
F
Y
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
G
F
/
G
P
T
o
t
a
l
=
$
9
,
1
9
3
,
2
2
6
,
7
0
0
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
S
h
a
r
e
o
f
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
F
u
n
d
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
$
1
1
,
2
1
1
,
3
8
2
,
3
0
0
9
6
.
6
%
H
i
g
h
e
r
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
$
2
0
0
,
4
6
5
,
7
0
0
1
.
7
%
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
s
$
1
9
7
,
6
1
4
,
1
0
0
1
.
7
%
5
T
h
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
b
u
d
g
e
t
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
s
9
6
.
5
%
o
f
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
s
t
a
t
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
F
u
n
d
(
S
A
F
)
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
F
Y
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
S
A
F
T
o
t
a
l
A
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
=
$
1
1
,
6
0
9
,
4
6
2
,
1
0
0
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
3
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
O
F
F
U
N
D
I
N
G
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
S
t
a
t
e
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
$
1
1
,
3
6
7
,
3
8
2
,
3
0
0
8
5
.
0
%
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
$
1
,
7
6
4
,
4
2
1
,
3
0
0
1
3
.
2
%
S
t
a
t
e
G
F
/
G
P
$
2
3
4
,
9
0
0
,
0
0
0
1
.
8
%
7
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
F
u
n
d
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
f
u
n
d
s
a
r
e
t
h
e
l
a
r
g
e
s
t
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
b
u
d
g
e
t
F
Y
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
=
$
1
3
,
3
6
6
,
7
0
3
,
6
0
0
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
*
T
h
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
b
u
d
g
e
t
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
l
o
c
a
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
t
a
x
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
a
n
d
r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d
l
o
c
a
l
l
y
.
S
C
H
O
O
L
A
I
D
A
P
P
R
O
P
R
I
A
T
I
O
N
S
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
A
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
T
h
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
a
j
o
r
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
:
"
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
A
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
s
#
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
p
e
r
p
u
p
i
l
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
s
c
h
o
o
l
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
#
$
8
.
9
b
i
l
l
i
o
n
o
r
6
6
.
9
%
o
f
t
h
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
"
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
#
R
e
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
s
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
f
o
r
a
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
i
r
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
s
t
s
#
$
1
.
4
b
i
l
l
i
o
n
o
r
1
0
.
7
%
o
f
t
h
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
b
u
d
g
e
t
"
M
i
c
h
i
g
a
n
P
u
b
l
i
c
S
c
h
o
o
l
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
R
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
S
y
s
t
e
m
(
M
P
S
E
R
S
)
(
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
o
n
e
-
t
i
m
e
c
o
s
t
o
f
f
s
e
t
a
n
d
S
t
a
t
e
s
h
a
r
e
o
f
u
n
f
u
n
d
e
d
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
)
#
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
s
a
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
c
o
s
t
s
#
$
5
0
4
.
6
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
o
r
3
.
8
%
o
f
t
h
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
b
u
d
g
e
t
"
A
t
-
R
i
s
k
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
#
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
f
u
n
d
s
t
o
h
e
l
p
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
a
t
r
i
s
k
o
f
a
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
#
$
3
0
9
.
0
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
o
r
2
.
3
%
o
f
t
h
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
9
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
A
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
c
o
n
t
.
)
"
E
a
r
l
y
C
h
i
l
d
h
o
o
d
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
#
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
p
r
e
s
c
h
o
o
l
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
f
o
r
4
-
y
r
-
o
l
d
s
a
n
d
p
a
r
e
n
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
f
o
r
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
o
f
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
a
g
e
s
0
-
5
.
#
$
1
8
5
.
5
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
o
r
1
.
4
%
o
f
t
h
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
"
B
e
s
t
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
I
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
G
r
a
n
t
s
#
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
$
5
2
p
e
r
p
u
p
i
l
t
o
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
7
o
f
8
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
#
$
8
0
.
0
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
o
r
0
.
6
%
o
f
t
h
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
"
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
G
r
a
n
t
s
#
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
g
r
a
n
t
s
t
o
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
f
o
r
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
n
e
e
d
s
#
$
5
0
.
0
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
o
r
0
.
4
%
o
f
t
h
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
"
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
#
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
u
p
t
o
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
$
1
0
0
p
e
r
p
u
p
i
l
t
o
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
m
a
t
h
#
$
4
6
.
4
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
o
r
0
.
4
%
o
f
t
h
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
1
0
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
A
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
A
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
s
$
8
,
9
4
6
,
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
6
6
.
9
%
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
$
1
,
4
2
4
,
4
4
6
,
1
0
0
1
0
.
7
%
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
(
n
o
n
-
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
E
d
)
$
1
,
3
2
5
,
4
2
1
,
3
0
0
9
.
9
%
O
t
h
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
$
4
3
0
,
8
5
8
,
0
0
0
3
.
2
%
M
P
S
E
R
S
$
5
0
4
,
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
3
.
8
%
A
t
-
R
i
s
k
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
$
3
0
8
,
9
8
8
,
2
0
0
2
.
3
%
B
e
s
t
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
/
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
/
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
$
1
7
6
,
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
1
.
3
%
E
a
r
l
y
C
h
i
l
d
h
o
o
d
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
$
1
8
5
,
4
7
5
,
0
0
0
1
.
4
%
I
S
D
s
$
6
4
,
1
1
5
,
0
0
0
0
.
5
%
1
1
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
s
,
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
s
c
h
o
o
l
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
b
s
o
r
b
$
2
o
u
t
o
f
e
v
e
r
y
$
3
s
p
e
n
t
F
Y
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
=
$
1
3
,
3
6
6
,
7
0
3
,
6
0
0
*
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
l
o
c
a
l
l
y
f
u
n
d
e
d
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
b
u
t
d
o
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
F
Y
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
e
q
u
i
t
y
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
.
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
M
A
J
O
R
B
U
D
G
E
T
T
O
P
I
C
S
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
M
a
j
o
r
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
T
o
p
i
c
s
"
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
"
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
A
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
s
"
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
"
M
P
S
E
R
S
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
"
T
y
p
e
s
o
f
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
"
D
e
c
l
i
n
i
n
g
E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
"
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
F
u
n
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
s
a
n
d
D
e
f
i
c
i
t
s
1
3
S
C
H
O
O
L
A
I
D
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
F
u
n
d
(
S
A
F
)
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
"
S
A
F
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
t
h
e
m
a
j
o
r
i
t
y
o
f
s
t
a
t
e
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
"
C
e
r
t
a
i
n
t
a
x
e
s
a
r
e
e
a
r
m
a
r
k
e
d
,
o
r
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
,
f
o
r
d
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
S
A
F
t
o
p
a
y
f
o
r
s
c
h
o
o
l
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
"
S
t
a
t
e
C
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
S
A
F
t
o
b
e
u
s
e
d
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
l
y
f
o
r
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
,
h
i
g
h
e
r
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
s
c
h
o
o
l
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
r
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
"
S
A
F
w
i
l
l
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
$
1
1
.
6
b
i
l
l
i
o
n
i
n
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
(
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
)
f
o
r
F
Y
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
"
L
a
r
g
e
s
t
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
f
S
A
F
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
a
r
e
s
h
o
w
n
o
n
n
e
x
t
s
l
i
d
e
1
5
S
a
l
e
s
T
a
x
$
5
,
3
4
8
4
6
.
3
%
I
n
c
o
m
e
T
a
x
$
2
,
4
1
3
2
0
.
9
%
S
t
a
t
e
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
T
a
x
$
1
,
7
9
8
1
5
.
6
%
L
o
t
t
e
r
y
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
$
7
4
5
6
.
4
%
U
s
e
T
a
x
$
4
6
0
4
.
0
%
T
o
b
a
c
c
o
T
a
x
$
3
6
1
3
.
1
%
R
e
a
l
E
s
t
a
t
e
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
$
2
1
7
1
.
9
%
O
t
h
e
r
$
2
1
8
1
.
9
%
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
J
a
n
2
0
1
4
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
F
Y
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
T
o
t
a
l
=
$
1
1
,
5
6
0
.
0
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
S
A
F
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
1
6
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
S
A
F
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
$
1
0
,
9
1
0
$
1
1
,
0
8
2
$
1
1
,
1
5
3
$
1
1
,
5
1
3
$
1
0
,
9
2
2
$
1
0
,
7
5
0
$
1
1
,
2
4
8
$
1
0
,
9
4
5
$
1
1
,
2
7
0
$
1
1
,
5
6
0
F
Y
2
0
0
5
F
Y
2
0
0
6
F
Y
2
0
0
7
F
Y
2
0
0
8
F
Y
2
0
0
9
F
Y
2
0
1
0
F
Y
2
0
1
1
F
Y
2
0
1
2
F
Y
2
0
1
3
F
Y
2
0
1
4
*
M i l l i o n s
1
7
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
F
u
n
d
i
s
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
t
o
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
n
e
a
r
l
y
$
1
1
.
6
b
i
l
l
i
o
n
i
n
F
Y
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
,
n
o
w
e
x
c
e
e
d
i
n
g
i
t
s
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
h
i
g
h
o
f
$
1
1
.
5
b
i
l
l
i
o
n
i
n
F
Y
2
0
0
7
-
0
8
*
F
Y
2
0
1
4
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
f
r
o
m
J
a
n
2
0
1
4
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
G
F
/
G
P
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
$
6
6
5
$
5
8
7
$
2
8
3
$
3
7
8
$
4
2
1
$
4
2
1
$
3
8
5
$
1
9
8
$
2
4
9
$
3
7
8
$
1
6
5
$
6
3
$
3
5
$
3
5
$
7
8
$
3
0
$
1
9
$
7
9
$
2
8
2
$
2
3
4
F
Y
1
9
9
5
F
Y
1
9
9
6
F
Y
1
9
9
7
F
Y
1
9
9
8
F
Y
1
9
9
9
F
Y
2
0
0
0
F
Y
2
0
0
1
F
Y
2
0
0
2
F
Y
2
0
0
3
F
Y
2
0
0
4
F
Y
2
0
0
5
F
Y
2
0
0
6
F
Y
2
0
0
7
F
Y
2
0
0
8
F
Y
2
0
0
9
F
Y
2
0
1
0
F
Y
2
0
1
1
F
Y
2
0
1
2
F
Y
2
0
1
3
F
Y
2
0
1
4
M i l l i o n s
1
8
G
F
/
G
P
w
i
l
l
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
$
2
3
5
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
B
u
d
g
e
t
i
n
F
Y
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
L
o
c
a
l
1
8
-
m
i
l
l
L
e
v
y
a
n
d
S
t
a
t
e
A
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
$
0
$
0
$
2
$
2
$
4
$
4
$
6
$
6
$
8
$
8
$
1
0
$
1
2
$
1
4
$
1
6
F
Y
2
0
0
5
F
Y
2
0
0
6
F
Y
2
0
0
7
F
Y
2
0
0
8
F
Y
2
0
0
9
F
Y
2
0
1
0
F
Y
2
0
1
1
F
Y
2
0
1
2
F
Y
2
0
1
3
F
Y
2
0
1
4
B i l l i o n s
L
o
c
a
l
1
8
-
m
i
l
l
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
F
u
n
d
G
F
/
G
P
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
A
R
R
A
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
1
9
1
9
E
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
f
e
d
e
r
a
l
f
u
n
d
s
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
,
t
o
t
a
l
F
Y
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
i
s
a
t
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
l
e
v
e
l
a
s
F
Y
2
0
0
5
-
0
6
(
n
o
t
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
f
o
r
i
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
)
.
A
R
R
A
:
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
a
n
d
R
e
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
A
c
t
o
f
2
0
0
9
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
S
h
e
e
t
:
F
Y
s
1
4
a
n
d
1
5
Y
T
D
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
F
Y
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
F
Y
2
0
1
4
-
1
5
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
B
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
$
2
9
1
.
5
$
3
5
1
.
3
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
F
u
n
d
(
S
A
F
)
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
1
1
,
5
6
0
.
0
1
1
,
9
3
1
.
8
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
/
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
(
G
F
/
G
P
)
2
3
4
.
9
2
3
4
.
9
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
1
,
7
6
4
.
4
1
,
7
6
4
.
4
M
P
S
E
R
S
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
F
u
n
d
1
5
6
.
0
1
8
.
0
T
O
T
A
L
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
$
1
3
,
7
1
5
.
3
$
1
3
,
9
4
9
.
1
E
X
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
K
-
1
2
:
F
Y
1
4
Y
T
D
a
n
d
F
Y
1
5
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
$
1
3
,
2
5
7
.
4
$
1
3
,
5
0
2
.
6
F
Y
1
5
E
x
e
c
R
e
c
P
r
e
s
c
h
o
o
l
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
-
-
-
6
5
.
0
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l
K
-
1
2
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
$
1
2
,
9
2
8
.
7
$
1
3
,
5
6
7
.
6
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l
P
o
s
t
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
$
3
9
8
.
1
$
3
9
8
.
1
T
O
T
A
L
E
X
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
$
1
3
,
6
5
5
.
5
$
1
3
,
9
6
5
.
7
T
o
t
a
l
C
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
y
e
a
r
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
$
5
9
.
8
(
$
1
6
.
6
)
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
E
N
D
I
N
G
B
A
L
A
N
C
E
$
3
5
1
.
3
$
3
3
4
.
7
(
D
o
l
l
a
r
s
i
n
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
2
0
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
S
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
A
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
"
A
p
e
r
-
p
u
p
i
l
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
a
m
o
u
n
t
t
h
a
t
p
a
y
s
t
h
e
b
u
l
k
o
f
s
c
h
o
o
l
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
a
s
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
A
s
c
h
o
o
l
f
i
n
a
n
c
e
r
e
f
o
r
m
s
i
n
1
9
9
4
-
9
5
"
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
a
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
(
p
e
r
p
u
p
i
l
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
a
m
o
u
n
t
)
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
l
y
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
i
n
1
9
9
4
-
9
5
,
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
w
h
a
t
t
h
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
b
o
t
h
s
t
a
t
e
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
l
f
u
n
d
s
o
n
a
p
e
r
-
p
u
p
i
l
b
a
s
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
i
o
r
y
e
a
r
"
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
1
9
9
4
-
9
5
l
e
v
e
l
s
:
#
M
i
n
i
m
u
m
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
:
$
4
,
2
0
0
#
B
a
s
i
c
L
e
v
e
l
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
:
$
5
,
0
0
0
#
S
t
a
t
e
G
u
a
r
a
n
t
e
e
d
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
(
H
o
l
d
-
H
a
r
m
l
e
s
s
)
l
e
v
e
l
s
e
t
:
$
6
,
5
0
0
"
I
n
F
Y
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
,
v
a
r
i
e
s
f
o
r
K
-
1
2
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
f
r
o
m
a
l
o
w
o
f
$
7
,
0
7
6
p
e
r
p
u
p
i
l
t
o
a
h
i
g
h
o
f
$
1
1
,
8
8
4
2
2
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
B
a
s
i
c
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
A
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
"
T
h
e
B
a
s
i
c
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
w
a
s
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
g
o
a
l
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
i
n
1
9
9
4
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
A
r
e
f
o
r
m
s
,
a
n
d
i
t
i
s
s
e
t
b
y
t
h
e
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
u
r
e
e
a
c
h
y
e
a
r
a
s
a
t
a
r
g
e
t
p
e
r
-
p
u
p
i
l
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
l
e
v
e
l
"
I
n
F
Y
1
9
9
9
-
2
0
0
0
,
a
l
l
s
c
h
o
o
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
i
n
M
i
c
h
i
g
a
n
r
e
a
c
h
e
d
t
h
e
B
a
s
i
c
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
,
a
f
t
e
r
w
h
i
c
h
p
o
i
n
t
a
l
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
e
x
c
e
p
t
f
o
r
t
w
o
y
e
a
r
s
i
n
w
h
i
c
h
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
q
u
i
t
y
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
w
e
r
e
m
a
d
e
t
o
t
h
o
s
e
a
t
t
h
e
M
i
n
i
m
u
m
t
o
d
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
e
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
g
a
p
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
o
s
e
a
t
t
h
e
t
o
p
a
n
d
b
o
t
t
o
m
"
I
n
F
Y
2
0
0
7
-
0
8
,
t
h
e
l
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
u
r
e
r
e
-
s
e
t
t
h
e
B
a
s
i
c
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
t
o
e
q
u
a
l
t
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
G
u
a
r
a
n
t
e
e
d
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
r
e
i
n
s
t
a
t
e
d
t
h
e
2
x
f
o
r
m
u
l
a
u
n
d
e
r
w
h
i
c
h
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
a
t
t
h
e
b
o
t
t
o
m
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
t
w
i
c
e
a
s
m
u
c
h
a
n
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
a
s
t
h
o
s
e
a
t
t
h
e
B
a
s
i
c
o
r
a
b
o
v
e
.
A
l
l
o
t
h
e
r
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
a
n
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
o
m
e
w
h
e
r
e
i
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
o
n
a
s
l
i
d
i
n
g
s
c
a
l
e
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
f
o
r
m
u
l
a
"
I
n
F
Y
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
,
t
h
e
l
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
u
r
e
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
t
h
e
B
a
s
i
c
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
$
3
0
a
n
d
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
t
h
e
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
$
6
0
p
l
u
s
a
$
5
0
e
q
u
i
t
y
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
a
t
o
t
a
l
o
f
$
1
1
0
p
e
r
p
u
p
i
l
.
2
3
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
$
4
,
2
0
0
$
7
,
3
1
6
$
7
,
0
7
6
$
5
,
0
0
0
$
6
,
5
0
0
$
8
,
4
8
9
$
8
,
0
4
9
$
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
$
6
,
0
0
0
$
7
,
0
0
0
$
8
,
0
0
0
$
9
,
0
0
0
1 9 9 5
1 9 9 6
1 9 9 7
1 9 9 8
1 9 9 9
2 0 0 0
2 0 0 1
2 0 0 2
2 0 0 3
2 0 0 4
2 0 0 5
2 0 0 6
2 0 0 7
2 0 0 8
2 0 0 9
2 0 1 0
2 0 1 1
2 0 1 2
2 0 1 3
2 0 1 4
S
t
a
t
e
G
u
a
r
a
n
t
e
e
d
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
B
a
s
i
c
M
i
n
i
m
u
m
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
A
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
G
r
o
w
t
h
S
i
n
c
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
A
I
n
F
Y
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
,
a
2
x
f
o
r
m
u
l
a
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
p
l
u
s
a
n
e
q
u
i
t
y
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
w
i
l
l
b
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
M
i
n
i
m
u
m
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
u
p
b
y
$
1
1
0
,
w
h
i
l
e
t
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
G
u
a
r
a
n
t
e
e
d
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
b
y
j
u
s
t
$
3
0
,
d
e
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
g
a
p
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
t
w
o
t
o
$
9
7
3
.
*
D
o
e
s
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
s
o
f
3
7
h
o
l
d
h
a
r
m
l
e
s
s
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
t
o
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
o
c
a
l
m
i
l
l
a
g
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
t
o
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
s
t
a
t
u
t
o
r
y
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
s
a
b
o
v
e
t
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
G
u
a
r
a
n
t
e
e
d
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
.
2
4
P
e
r
P
u
p
i
l
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
A
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
s
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
/
D
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
$
1
5
3
$
1
5
5
$
1
5
4
$
2
3
8
$
3
0
0
$
3
0
0
$
2
0
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
1
7
5
$
2
1
0
$
4
8
$
4
8
$
4
8
$
5
6
$
5
6
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
--
$
4
7
0
$
4
7
0
$
3
0
$
3
0
$
3
0
$
3
0
6
$
3
1
0
$
3
0
8
$
4
6
$
5
3
0
$
4
0
0
$
9
6
$
1
1
2
$
1
1
0
F
Y
9
6
F
Y
9
7
F
Y
9
8
F
Y
9
9
F
Y
0
0
F
Y
0
1
F
Y
0
2
F
Y
0
3
F
Y
0
4
F
Y
0
5
F
Y
0
6
F
Y
0
7
F
Y
0
8
F
Y
0
9
F
Y
F
Y
1
0
*
F
Y
F
Y
1
1
*
F
Y
1
2
F
Y
F
Y
1
3
*
F
Y
F
Y
1
4
*
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
a
t
S
t
a
t
e
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
a
t
M
i
n
i
m
u
m
(
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
$
)
P e r P u p i l C h a n g e
*
N
o
t
e
s
:
1
.
1
.
F
Y
2
0
1
0
s
c
h
o
o
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
w
a
s
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
$
1
5
4
p
e
r
p
u
p
i
l
,
a
n
d
F
Y
2
0
1
1
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
w
a
s
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
a
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
$
1
6
p
e
r
p
u
p
i
l
.
2
.
2
.
F
o
r
F
Y
2
0
1
3
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
w
i
t
h
a
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
b
e
l
o
w
$
6
,
9
6
6
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
a
n
e
q
u
i
t
y
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
u
p
t
o
$
1
2
0
p
e
r
p
u
p
i
l
.
3
.
3
.
F
o
r
F
Y
2
0
1
4
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
r
a
n
g
e
d
f
r
o
m
$
3
0
-
$
6
0
,
w
i
t
h
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
w
i
t
h
a
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
b
e
l
o
w
$
7
,
0
2
6
a
l
s
o
r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
a
n
e
q
u
i
t
y
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
u
p
t
o
$
5
0
p
e
r
p
u
p
i
l
.
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
2
5
2
5
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
A
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
S
t
a
t
e
/
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
M
i
x
"
E
a
c
h
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
l
e
v
i
e
s
1
8
m
i
l
l
s
o
n
n
o
n
-
h
o
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
"
S
t
a
t
e
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
s
l
o
c
a
l
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
1
8
m
i
l
l
s
o
n
a
p
e
r
-
p
u
p
i
l
b
a
s
i
s
"
S
t
a
t
e
d
e
d
u
c
t
s
p
e
r
-
p
u
p
i
l
l
o
c
a
l
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
l
e
s
s
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
o
r
s
t
a
t
e
g
u
a
r
a
n
t
e
e
d
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
p
e
r
p
u
p
i
l
a
m
o
u
n
t
"
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
a
b
o
v
e
t
h
e
s
t
a
t
e
g
u
a
r
a
n
t
e
e
d
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
(
h
o
l
d
h
a
r
m
l
e
s
s
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
)
a
r
e
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
b
y
l
a
w
t
o
l
e
v
y
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
i
l
l
s
w
i
t
h
v
o
t
e
r
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
t
h
e
i
r
s
t
a
t
u
t
o
r
y
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
2
6
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
E
q
u
i
t
y
A
m
o
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
"
B
e
f
o
r
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
A
,
t
h
e
p
e
r
p
u
p
i
l
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
h
i
g
h
e
s
t
-
a
n
d
l
o
w
e
s
t
-
f
u
n
d
e
d
K
1
2
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
w
a
s
a
l
m
o
s
t
$
6
,
9
0
0
o
r
3
:
1
"
I
n
F
Y
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
,
t
h
e
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
h
i
g
h
e
s
t
a
n
d
l
o
w
e
s
t
K
-
1
2
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
s
$
4
,
8
0
8
,
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
1
.
7
:
1
"
I
n
F
Y
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
,
e
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
3
6
h
o
l
d
h
a
r
m
l
e
s
s
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
w
h
o
s
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
p
e
r
p
u
p
i
l
e
x
c
e
e
d
s
t
h
e
B
a
s
i
c
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
,
t
h
e
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
t
o
p
a
n
d
t
h
e
b
o
t
t
o
m
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
t
o
$
9
7
3
,
d
o
w
n
f
r
o
m
a
g
a
p
o
f
$
2
,
3
0
0
w
h
e
n
P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
A
w
a
s
f
i
r
s
t
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
2
7
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
8
0
%
o
f
p
u
p
i
l
s
a
r
e
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
e
d
i
n
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
w
i
t
h
a
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
a
t
o
r
w
i
t
h
i
n
$
5
0
0
o
f
t
h
e
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
$
7
,
0
7
6
4
9
%
3
1
%
9
%
5
%
4
%
0
%
1
%
0
%
1
%
0
% 1
%
x
=
$
7
,
0
7
6
$
7
,
0
7
6
<
x
<
$
7
,
5
7
6
$
7
,
5
7
6
<
x
<
$
8
,
0
7
6
$
8
,
0
7
6
<
x
<
$
8
,
5
7
6
$
8
,
5
7
6
<
x
<
$
9
,
0
7
6
$
9
,
0
7
6
<
x
<
$
9
,
5
7
6
$
9
,
5
7
6
<
x
<
$
1
0
,
0
7
6
$
1
0
,
0
7
6
<
x
<
$
1
0
,
5
7
6
$
1
0
,
5
7
6
<
x
<
$
1
1
,
0
7
6
$
1
1
,
0
7
6
<
x
<
$
1
1
,
5
7
6
x
>
$
1
1
,
5
7
6
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
M
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
x
=
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
P
e
r
P
u
p
i
l
F
Y
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
P
u
p
i
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
E
q
u
i
t
y
A
m
o
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
2
8
S
P
E
C
I
A
L
E
D
U
C
A
T
I
O
N
F
U
N
D
I
N
G
3
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
"
S
e
c
o
n
d
l
a
r
g
e
s
t
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
F
Y
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
#
$
9
8
0
.
4
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
t
a
t
e
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
#
$
4
4
4
.
0
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
f
e
d
e
r
a
l
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
"
R
e
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
s
s
c
h
o
o
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
o
s
t
s
o
f
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
n
g
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
"
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
r
e
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
r
a
t
e
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
M
i
c
h
i
g
a
n
S
u
p
r
e
m
e
C
o
u
r
t
i
n
D
u
r
a
n
t
v
.
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
M
i
c
h
i
g
a
n
i
n
1
9
9
7
:
#
2
8
.
6
1
3
8
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
s
#
7
0
.
4
1
6
5
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
s
"
L
o
c
a
l
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
m
i
l
l
a
g
e
s
,
l
e
v
i
e
d
b
y
e
a
c
h
I
S
D
,
w
i
l
l
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
a
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
$
9
0
9
.
5
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
i
n
F
Y
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
.
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
3
1
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
A
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
$
1
,
3
0
1
$
1
,
3
6
7
$
1
,
3
9
7
$
1
,
4
1
5
$
1
,
4
4
9
$
1
,
4
8
6
$
1
,
3
6
9
$
1
,
4
1
5
$
1
,
4
3
5
$
1
,
4
2
4
F
Y
2
0
0
5
F
Y
2
0
0
6
F
Y
2
0
0
7
F
Y
2
0
0
8
F
Y
2
0
0
9
F
Y
2
0
1
0
F
Y
2
0
1
1
F
Y
2
0
1
2
F
Y
2
0
1
3
F
Y
2
0
1
4
M i l l i o n s
T
h
i
s
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
c
a
l
i
s
9
.
5
%
h
i
g
h
e
r
i
n
F
Y
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
t
h
a
n
i
n
F
Y
2
0
0
4
-
0
5
,
h
o
w
e
v
e
r
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
E
d
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
4
.
1
%
l
o
w
e
r
i
n
F
Y
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
t
h
a
n
i
t
s
r
e
c
e
n
t
h
i
g
h
i
n
F
Y
2
0
1
0
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
M
P
S
E
R
S
C
O
S
T
S
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
M
P
S
E
R
S
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
e
s
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
F
u
t
u
r
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
1
4
%
1
5
%
1
5
%
1
1
%
1
1
%
1
2
%
1
2
%
1
2
%
1
3
%
1
3
%
1
5
%
1
6
%
1
8
%
1
7
%
1
7
%
1
7
%
2
1
%
2
4
%
2
7
%
3
2
%
3
6
%
3
6
%
3
6
%
3
4
%
3
4
%
3
4
%
2
4
%
2
5
%
2
6
%
2
6
%
2
6
%
2
6
%
2
6
%
2
6
%
F
Y
9
5
F
Y
9
6
F
Y
9
7
F
Y
9
8
F
Y
9
9
F
Y
0
0
F
Y
0
1
F
Y
0
2
F
Y
0
3
F
Y
0
4
F
Y
0
5
F
Y
0
6
F
Y
0
7
F
Y
0
8
F
Y
0
9
F
Y
1
0
F
Y
1
1
F
Y
1
2
F
Y
1
3
F
Y
1
4
F
Y
1
5
F
Y
1
6
F
Y
1
7
F
Y
1
8
F
Y
1
9
F
Y
2
0
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
P
A
3
0
0
o
f
2
0
1
2
N
o
t
e
:
F
u
t
u
r
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
r
a
t
e
s
a
r
e
f
r
o
m
O
f
f
i
c
e
o
f
R
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
a
c
t
u
a
r
i
a
l
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
.
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
S
h
a
r
e
A
f
t
e
r
P
A
3
0
0
o
f
2
0
1
2
S
t
a
t
e
S
h
a
r
e
a
f
t
e
r
P
A
3
0
0
o
f
2
0
1
2
T
h
e
s
t
a
t
e
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
M
P
S
E
R
S
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
e
i
s
$
4
0
3
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
i
n
F
Y
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
o
$
6
7
3
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
i
n
F
Y
2
0
1
4
-
1
5
3
3
T
Y
P
E
S
O
F
S
C
H
O
O
L
S
3
5
T
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
,
L
o
c
a
l
l
y
G
o
v
e
r
n
e
d
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
"
T
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
o
c
a
l
s
c
h
o
o
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
h
a
v
e
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
l
l
y
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
s
c
h
o
o
l
b
o
a
r
d
s
"
5
4
8
t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
o
c
a
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
"
1
,
3
7
7
,
0
5
0
p
u
p
i
l
s
o
r
9
0
.
4
%
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
a
t
e
w
i
d
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
p
u
p
i
l
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
3
6
P
u
b
l
i
c
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
c
a
d
e
m
i
e
s
"
P
u
b
l
i
c
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
c
a
d
e
m
i
e
s
(
P
S
A
s
)
a
r
e
i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
f
o
r
m
e
d
b
y
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
o
r
g
r
o
u
p
s
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
p
a
r
e
n
t
s
a
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
t
o
t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
c
h
o
o
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
"
P
S
A
s
a
r
e
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
t
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
b
y
p
u
b
l
i
c
u
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i
e
s
,
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
c
o
l
l
e
g
e
s
,
i
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
s
c
h
o
o
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
,
l
o
c
a
l
s
c
h
o
o
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
"
P
A
2
7
7
o
f
2
0
1
1
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
t
h
e
l
i
m
i
t
o
n
u
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
-
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
P
S
A
s
f
r
o
m
1
5
0
(
r
e
a
c
h
e
d
i
n
1
9
9
9
)
t
o
3
0
0
i
n
2
0
1
2
a
n
d
5
0
0
i
n
2
0
1
4
,
a
f
t
e
r
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
c
a
p
i
s
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
#
T
h
e
b
i
l
l
a
l
s
o
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
a
s
i
n
g
l
e
P
S
A
t
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
i
t
e
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
g
r
a
d
e
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
P
u
b
l
i
c
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
c
a
d
e
m
i
e
s
"
2
9
7
P
u
b
l
i
c
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
c
a
d
e
m
i
e
s
"
1
4
0
,
2
7
5
p
u
p
i
l
s
i
n
P
S
A
s
o
r
9
.
2
%
o
f
s
t
a
t
e
w
i
d
e
p
u
p
i
l
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
"
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
s
i
z
e
o
f
a
P
S
A
i
s
a
b
o
u
t
4
7
0
p
u
p
i
l
s
p
e
r
s
c
h
o
o
l
"
F
Y
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
P
S
A
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
e
q
u
a
l
s
t
h
e
l
o
w
e
r
o
f
:
#
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
s
c
h
o
o
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
n
w
h
i
c
h
i
t
i
s
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
l
y
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
o
r
#
$
7
,
1
6
8
p
e
r
p
u
p
i
l
3
7
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
3
8
P
u
b
l
i
c
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
c
a
d
e
m
i
e
s
0 2
0
,
0
0
0
4
0
,
0
0
0
6
0
,
0
0
0
8
0
,
0
0
0
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
4
0
,
0
0
0
1
6
0
,
0
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
1
5
0
2
0
0
2
5
0
3
0
0
3
5
0
$ 5 2 - . " * / ' * 3 4 , - 2
$ 5 ' . - ( % ( , 1 1 . ! ( & ) * / - * 4
#
5
/
'
*
3
1
+
$
%
!
4
&
0
)
$
5
2
-
.
"
*
/
'
*
3
4
,
-
2
P
S
A
s
M
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
C
y
b
e
r
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
3
9
"
C
y
b
e
r
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
a
r
e
a
t
y
p
e
o
f
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
c
h
o
o
l
a
c
a
d
e
m
y
"
F
Y
2
0
1
0
-
1
1
w
a
s
f
i
r
s
t
y
e
a
r
o
f
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
"
P
A
1
2
9
o
f
2
0
1
2
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
l
i
m
i
t
s
o
n
c
y
b
e
r
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
:
#
L
i
m
i
t
o
n
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
b
y
s
t
a
t
e
w
i
d
e
e
n
t
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
t
o
5
i
n
2
0
1
3
,
1
0
i
n
2
0
1
4
,
a
n
d
1
5
s
t
a
r
t
i
n
g
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
5
#
E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
2
,
5
0
0
i
n
f
i
r
s
t
y
e
a
r
,
5
,
0
0
0
i
n
s
e
c
o
n
d
y
e
a
r
,
a
n
d
1
0
,
0
0
0
i
n
t
h
i
r
d
y
e
a
r
"
I
n
F
Y
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
#
2
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
c
y
b
e
r
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
f
r
o
m
F
Y
2
0
1
0
-
1
1
w
i
t
h
e
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
t
o
t
a
l
i
n
g
5
,
1
7
0
#
5
n
e
w
c
y
b
e
r
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
i
n
F
Y
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
w
i
t
h
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
e
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
t
o
t
a
l
i
n
g
9
1
0
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
(
E
A
A
)
4
0
"
C
r
e
a
t
e
d
b
y
a
n
i
n
t
e
r
-
l
o
c
a
l
a
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
e
t
r
o
i
t
P
u
b
l
i
c
S
c
h
o
o
l
(
D
P
S
)
a
n
d
E
a
s
t
e
r
n
M
i
c
h
i
g
a
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
i
n
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
1
"
E
A
A
a
s
s
u
m
e
d
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
o
f
1
5
D
P
S
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
i
n
F
Y
2
0
1
2
-
1
3
#
9
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
/
m
i
d
d
l
e
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
#
6
h
i
g
h
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
#
E
A
A
c
o
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
3
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
t
o
a
P
S
A
#
T
o
t
a
l
e
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
i
n
t
h
e
E
A
A
a
n
d
i
t
s
P
S
A
d
r
o
p
p
e
d
f
r
o
m
9
,
3
0
0
i
n
F
Y
2
0
1
2
-
1
3
t
o
7
,
5
2
5
i
n
F
Y
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
"
T
a
r
g
e
t
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
l
o
w
e
s
t
a
c
h
i
e
v
i
n
g
5
%
o
f
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
D
E
C
L
I
N
I
N
G
E
N
R
O
L
L
M
E
N
T
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
*
F
Y
s
1
4
a
n
d
1
5
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
f
r
o
m
J
a
n
2
0
1
4
c
o
n
s
e
n
s
u
s
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
D
e
c
l
i
n
i
n
g
E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
T
o
t
a
l
P
u
p
i
l
M
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
C
o
u
n
t
s
1
.
5
9
1
.
6
2
1
.
6
5
1
.
6
7
1
.
6
9
1
.
7
0
1
.
7
1
1
.
7
1
1
.
7
1
1
.
7
1
1
.
7
1
1
.
7
0
1
.
6
8
1
.
6
5
1
.
6
2
1
.
6
0
1
.
5
7
1
.
5
5
1
.
5
4
1
.
5
2
1
.
5
1
F
Y
9
5
F
Y
9
6
F
Y
9
7
F
Y
9
8
F
Y
9
9
F
Y
0
0
F
Y
0
1
F
Y
0
2
F
Y
0
3
F
Y
0
4
F
Y
0
5
F
Y
0
6
F
Y
0
7
F
Y
0
8
F
Y
0
9
F
Y
1
0
F
Y
1
1
F
Y
1
2
F
Y
1
3
F
Y
1
4
*
F
Y
1
5
*
P
u
p
i
l
B
l
e
n
d
(
%
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
f
a
l
l
/
%
p
r
i
o
r
F
e
b
)
5
0
/
5
0
F
Y
s
9
5
9
7
6
0
/
4
0
F
Y
s
9
8
9
9
7
5
/
2
5
F
Y
0
0
8
0
/
2
0
F
Y
s
0
1
0
4
7
5
/
2
5
F
Y
s
0
5
1
1
9
0
/
1
0
F
Y
1
1
-
1
3
9
0
/
1
0
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
F
e
b
F
Y
1
4
F
e
w
e
r
p
u
p
i
l
s
m
e
a
n
s
a
l
o
s
s
o
f
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
t
o
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
.
O
v
e
r
2
/
3
o
f
a
l
l
t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
(
n
o
n
-
P
S
A
)
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
a
n
d
o
v
e
r
1
/
3
o
f
P
S
A
s
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
d
d
e
c
l
i
n
i
n
g
e
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
f
r
o
m
F
Y
2
0
1
2
-
1
3
t
o
F
Y
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
.
4
2
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
K
-
1
2
E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
,
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
,
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
I
n
d
e
x
e
d
t
o
1
0
0
f
o
r
F
Y
1
9
9
5
5
0
7
5
1
0
0
1
2
5
1
5
0
1
9
9
5
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
7
1
9
9
8
1
9
9
9
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
T
o
t
a
l
s
t
a
t
e
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
l
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
(
i
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
-
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
)
T
o
t
a
l
p
u
p
i
l
e
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
s
c
h
o
o
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
c
h
a
r
t
e
r
s
)
4
3
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
F
U
N
D
B
A
L
A
N
C
E
S
A
N
D
D
E
F
I
C
I
T
S
4
5
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
F
u
n
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
s
a
n
d
D
e
f
i
c
i
t
s
T
o
t
a
l
f
u
n
d
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
s
d
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
f
r
o
m
a
h
i
g
h
o
f
$
2
.
0
b
i
l
l
i
o
n
i
n
F
Y
2
0
0
2
-
0
3
t
o
$
1
.
2
b
i
l
l
i
o
n
i
n
F
Y
2
0
1
2
-
1
3
.
T
o
t
a
l
f
u
n
d
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
s
a
s
a
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
d
e
c
l
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
1
3
.
7
%
i
n
F
Y
2
0
0
2
-
0
3
t
o
8
.
7
%
i
n
F
Y
2
0
1
2
-
1
3
.
D
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
,
t
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
w
i
t
h
a
d
e
f
i
c
i
t
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
f
r
o
m
1
0
t
o
4
6
.
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
0
.
0
%
2
.
0
%
4
.
0
%
6
.
0
%
8
.
0
%
1
0
.
0
%
1
2
.
0
%
1
4
.
0
%
1
6
.
0
%
$
0
$
5
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
$
2
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
5
0
0
F
Y
2
0
0
3
F
Y
2
0
0
4
F
Y
2
0
0
5
F
Y
2
0
0
6
F
Y
2
0
0
7
F
Y
2
0
0
8
F
Y
2
0
0
9
F
Y
2
0
1
0
F
Y
2
0
1
1
F
Y
2
0
1
2
F
Y
2
0
1
3
M i l l i o n s
T
o
t
a
l
S
t
a
t
e
w
i
d
e
F
u
n
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
s
T
o
t
a
l
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
s
a
s
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
F
u
n
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
s
T
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
4
6
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
t
h
a
t
e
n
d
e
d
F
Y
2
0
1
2
-
1
3
w
i
t
h
a
d
e
f
i
c
i
t
.
W
h
i
l
e
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
1
6
5
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
,
o
r
2
0
%
,
h
a
v
e
a
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
f
u
n
d
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
5
%
o
f
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
.
3
0
0
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
,
o
r
3
7
%
,
o
f
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
h
a
v
e
a
f
u
n
d
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
e
x
c
e
e
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
1
5
%
o
f
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
.
F
i
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
I
n
D
e
f
i
c
i
t
0
%
-
1
%
1
%
-
5
%
5
%
-
1
0
%
1
0
%
-
1
5
%
G
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
1
5
%
2
0
0
3
#
1
0
3
6
9
0
1
2
5
1
4
6
3
3
8
%
1
.
4
4
.
9
1
2
.
2
1
7
.
0
1
9
.
9
4
6
.
0
2
0
1
3
#
4
6
6
4
1
0
1
1
6
3
1
3
4
3
0
2
%
5
.
7
7
.
9
1
2
.
4
2
0
.
1
1
6
.
5
3
7
.
2
4
6
H
o
u
s
e
F
i
s
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
y
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
F
o
r
m
o
r
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
A
i
d
b
u
d
g
e
t
,
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
:
B
e
t
h
a
n
y
W
i
c
k
s
a
l
l
b
w
i
c
k
s
a
l
l
@
h
o
u
s
e
.
m
i
.
g
o
v
K
a
r
e
n
S
h
a
p
i
r
o
k
s
h
a
p
i
r
o
@
h
o
u
s
e
.
m
i
.
g
o
v
(
5
1
7
)
3
7
3
-
8
0
8
0
Exhibit 11
Plaintiffs,
VS.
as Governor of the state of Michigan
Defendant.
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BREAKLY, JOLINDA JACH and
BARBARA RAMBER, DODAK BLOSS and
Case No. 2:12-cv-10038-DML-MJH
DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY J. DOLEHANTY
I, TIMOTHY J. DOLEHANTY, hereby declare under penalty of perjury:
1. I am the Controller/Administrator for Ingham County (the "County"). I have worked for
the County since July, 2013. In my capacity as Controller/Administrator, I am the chief financial
and administrative officer of the county. Previously, I served as Administrator/Controller for
Isabella County from 2004 to 2013, Controller for Chippewa County from 2001 to 2004, and
Administrator for Wexford County from 1999 to 2001. I have personal knowledge of the facts
contained in this Declaration except where they are stated to be upon information and belief. As
to those facts that are stated to be upon information and belief', I believe them to be true.
1
INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING BENEFITS FROM INGHAM COUNTY
2. Ingham County as of January 1, 2014 had a total of 1,053 employees eligible to
participate in group health insurance plan(s) through the County, either on an individual basis or
on a family basis in the case of employees who enroll family members in the group plans.
3. 798 County employees have elected to participate in the County's group health insurance
plans. A total of 1,977 individuals are insured through the group health plans made available to
County employees and their families.
4. Ingham County began providing health care benefits to same-sex domestic partners of its
Managerial/Confidential employee group and several of its bargaining units in 2003. In order to
comply with the Michigan Supreme Court's ruling in National Pride at Work v. Governor, the
County terminated domestic partner coverage as of July 31, 2008. In August of 2008 Ingham
County instituted a policy of offering "Other Qualified Adult" benefits to its employees. This
benefits program allowed each eligible employee to enroll someone other than a spouse, a
dependent as defined by the Internal Revenue Service, or a child, in the County's health care
plans. This other enrolled individual was referred to as an Other Qualified Adults ("OQA").
5. In order to qualify for this benefit, the OQA and the County employee both were required
to meet a number of criteria. Specifically, the OQA was required to be at least 21 years of age,
mentally competent to consent to a contract, ineligible to inherit from the County employee
under Michigan's laws of intestate succession, ineligible for coverage under any other County
employee or retiree medical benefits plan, and ineligible for coverage under any other
comparable medical plan (such as Medicare or another employer). Both the OQA and associated
employee were also required to be unmarried, to attest that they had shared a residence for at
least 18 consecutive months immediately prior to the start of the coverage, and to not be related
2
to a degree close enough to preclude their marriage in Michigan. Finally, the OQA and
employee were required to prove their financial interdependence with one another.
6. As of January 1, 2014, the language specifically authorizing the OQA benefit was not
included in the following collective bargaining agreements: Fraternal order of Police (FOP) 9-1-
1 Dispatchers, FOP Animal Control, FOP Supervisors, FOP Corrections, Ingham County
Employees Associate (ICEA) Friend of the Court Crew Leaders, and ICEA Ingham County
Employee Association Park Rangers. The total number of employees eligible for health
insurance in these collective bargaining units is 163.
7. Of the 798 employees explicitly authorized to add OQAs to their health insurance
benefits, only five had done so as of January 1, 2014. The participation rate, meaning the
number of employees who had enrolled OQAs relative to the total number of County employees
specifically eligible to do so, was only 0.006%.
8. Of the five OQAs County employees enrolled in health insurance coverage, two were of
the same sex as those employees. In other words, out of 798 County employees specifically
eligible to enroll OQAs in health insurance benefits, only two or 0.003%, enrolled OQA5 of the
same sex in their plans.
9. Ingham County annually conducts an open enrollment period for its employee benefit
plans and enters into contractual agreements with its health insurers for the ensuing calendar year
based on the results of that open enrollment period. Accordingly, if provisions of the Domestic
Partner Benefits Restriction Act become permanent, OQA benefits will terminate as the various
collective bargaining agreements expire.
3
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF OQA BENEFITS
10. When Ingham County began offering domestic partner benefits in 2003 and then replaced
that program with OQA benefits in 2008, it was required to invest staff time in administrative
tasks related to the initiation of the new benefits program. This included time spent creating the
requisite forms and other documents necessary to institute the benefits programs, notification to
the County's employees and human resources and financial services personnel who oversee the
administration of benefits, and changes to the payroll system so that the benefits could be
appropriately accounted for and reported as imputed taxable income to the employee. However,
the staff time required to make these changes was minimal, and did not result in appreciable
expense to the County. In addition, similar minimal administrative costs may be incurred in
order to once again change the existing benefits system if the County is forced to discontinue the
OQA program in the future.
11. Like the initiation costs expended in 2003 and updated in 2008, administrative costs
associated with Ingham County's provision of OQA benefits are de minimis. Given the small
numbers of participants, the staff time spent processing applications for OQA benefits and
administering the program on an ongoing basis have been insignificant.
COST OF INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR OQAs
12. Currently, Ingham County provides health care benefits to the vast majority of its
employees and their families through a single insurance carrier, Physicians Health Plan of Mid-
Michigan ("PHP"). In addition, 54 Sheriff s Office employees and their dependents are covered
through a different carrier and plan, COPS Trust. Overall, county employees contribute
approximately 20% of the health care premiums.
4
13. The total cost to Ingham County of providing health coverage to employees and other
beneficiaries for the year 2014 will be approximately $10,035,000. The projected average total
cost to the County of providing health coverage will be approximately $12,575 per covered
person for 2014. The total projected cost to the County of providing health insurance to five
OQAs for the year 2014 will be $22,163 or 0.002% of total expenditures on health insurance for
the year.
14. The County offers three different plan options through our main insurer, PHP. The
insurer calculates insurance premiums for Ingham County's insurance plans by category, and the
premiums paid by the County are calculated based on the total number of covered employees and
other beneficiaries. The County's cost to provide health insurance in our highest cost plan to one
employee is $6,095. The County's cost to provide coverage to an employee plus one additional
person in that plan is $13,363. The County's cost to provide coverage to an employee and
multiple family members in that plan is $15,671. The insurer does not distinguish among
different enrollment categories or demographic groups in setting these rates, and thus charges the
same premium for an OQA as it does for a spouse.
15. Ingham County has additionally allowed employees to enroll OQAs in dental insurance
and vision insurance benefit plans if they so choose. However, the County is self-insured for
dental and vision coverage, and charges back its employer costs based on one set rate, not
dependent on the addition of OQAs or other family members to coverage. In other words,
employees' decision to enroll OQAs in dental and vision insurance plans has no impact on the
budgeted costs of those plans to the County.
5
16. Ingham County reports the value of benefits provided to an employee's OQA as income
imputed to the employee for purposes of state and federal taxes on the on the value of the OQAs'
benefits.
SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR OQA BENEFITS
17. In 2012 the County collected approximately $140.53 million in revenues (excluding
interfund transfers and the Medical Care Facility). These County revenues included the
following: $38.5 million (25.9%) from state sources (including state revenue sharing payments);
$10.6 million (7.1%) from federal sources; $8.5 million (5.7%) from Medicaid and Medicare;
$62.0 million (41.8%) from local property taxes; $29.6 million (19.9%), in Charges for Services;
and $9.0 million (6.1%) from other sources. Sources of funding for benefits provided to each
County employee (and other individuals covered through that employee) vary depending on the
employee's role in County government.
BENEFITS TO INGHAM COUNTY OF PROVIDING OQA COVERAGE
18. In February 2008, the Ingham County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution
initiating the OQA benefits program. A copy of the resolution is attached as Exhibit "A."
19. In their February 2008 resolution, the County Commissioners noted that the County is
committed to providing its residents access to health care, and that extending coverage to the
OQAs of employees furthered this goal.
20. In November 2011, the Ingham County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution
urging Governor Rick Snyder to veto then-pending bills HB 4770 and HB 4771. A copy of this
resolution is attached as Exhibit "B." HB 4770, otherwise known as the Domestic Partner
Benefits Restriction Act, was later signed by the Governor and took effect as Public Act 297 of
6
2011 which obligated the County to discontinue its practice of providing benefits to other
qualified adults.
21. In their November 2011 resolution, the County Commissioners noted that "the extension
of benefits to domestic partners is an increasing trend in the private and public sector both
nationally and internationally..." They also opined that the proposed legislation would create
difficulty "recruiting the new employees with the appropriate level of skill, training, and
experience necessary to replace those lost in the exodus that would result from this legislation..."
22. The County Commissioners further stated in their November 2011 resolution that "the
intention of this legislation represents nothing less than an unconscionable attack on the rights of
Michigan's gay and lesbian citizens, by purposefully and disproportionately affecting the ability
of individuals of a minority sexual orientation to access affordable healthcare and other
benefits..."
23. In addition, the County Commissioners predicted in their November 2011 resolution that
"if this legislation were signed into law, Ingham County would be construed to be a less
desirable employer to potential employees."
24. In July, 2013 a Federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the
Domestic Partner Benefits Restrictioh Act.
25. In August 2013, the Ingham County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution to
authorize immediate reinstatement of health insurance benefits for other qualified adults using
the same criteria in place prior to the passage of the Domestic Partner Benefits Restriction Act.
A copy of this resolution is attached as Exhibit "C."
26. Ingham County recruits employees for many positions that private sector employers
recruit for as well. Administrative assistants, information technology professions and
7
administrators, human resources professionals, maintenance workers, nurses, doctors, attorneys,
and numerous other types of workers are employed both by the County and by private sector
employers in Michigan.
27. Providing OQA benefits helps the County to retain qualified individuals once it has hired
them. As of early 2014, five employees were taking advantage of the OQA benefits, of whom up
to two may have been providing coverage to their same-sex domestic partners. The loss of this
benefit is, in effect, a loss of income for these employees' families, and in some cases may leave
employees' family members without access to any health insurance coverage. There is a risk
that these employees will seek other employment that can provide better benefits for the
employees and their families.
28. Other major employers in Ingham County that currently make benefits available to the
same-sex domestic partners of some or all of their employees include General Motors, the State
of Michigan, and Michigan State University.
29. Ingham County perceives OQA benefits as an effective investment. The County does not
wish to terminate these benefits, although it may be forced to cease providing benefits to
employees' OQAs as a consequence of the Domestic Partner Benefits Restriction Act.
30. Ending OQA benefits for Ingham County employees would not impact the amount of
State money the County receives. Any cost savings associated with an involuntary termination
of OQA benefits to the five employees resulting from the Domestic Partner Benefits Restriction
Act would accrue to the County or potentially to the federal government, not to the state.
Ingham County would prefer to continue investing in OQA benefits rather than accrue these
negligible, putative cost savings.
8
TIMOTHY J. DOLEHANTY
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct. Executed this 27 th day of January, 2014.
9
Exhibit 1.A
ADOPTED - NOVEMBER 8, 2011
Agenda Item No. 6
Introduced by the County Services Committee of the:
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE GOVERNOR TO REFUSE TO ENACT
THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS
RESTRICTION ACT
RESOLUTION #11-340
WHEREAS, the Michigan House of Representatives and Senate recently passed HB 4770, the
Public Employee Domestic Partner Benefits Restriction Act, and HB 4771, an amendment to
1947 PA 336; and
WHEREAS, the extension of benefits to domestic partners is an increasing trend in the private
and public sector both nationally and internationally; and
WHEREAS, prohibiting the collective bargaining for domestic partner benefits would affect a
hostile, anti-union environment that would be prohibitive for recruiting the new employees with
the appropriate level of skill, training, and experience necessary to replace those lost in the
exodus that would result from this legislation; and
WHEREAS, the intention of this legislation represents nothing less than an unconscionable
attack on the rights of Michigan's gay and lesbian citizens, by purposefully and
disproportionately affecting the ability of individuals of a minority sexual orientation to access
affordable healthcare and other benefits; and
WHEREAS, if this legislation were signed into law, Ingham County's policies regarding its
employees and the benefits packages that it extends to them would be affected; and
WHEREAS, if this legislation were signed into law, Ingham County would be construed to be a
less desirable employer to potential employees.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ingham County Board of Commissioners calls on
Governor Rick Snyder to veto the Public Employee Domestic Partner Benefits Restriction Act.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Clerk shall send copies of this resolution to
Governor Rick Snyder, the Ingham County State Legislative Delegation, and the Michigan
Association of Counties.
COUNTY SERVICES: Yeas: De Leon, Copedge, Celentino, Schor, Dragonetti
Nays: Vickers Absent: None Approved 11/01/11
Exhibit 1.B
ADOPTED - FEBRUARY 26, 2008
Agenda Item No. 10
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING OFFERING OTHER QUALIFIED ADULT BENEFITS
TO MANAGERIAL/CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES
RESOLUTION #08-042
WHEREAS, Ingham County is committed to providing access to healthcare to its residents; and
WHEREAS, flexibility in providing benefits to non-traditional households contributes to
meeting this goal; and
WHEREAS, the Controller, Benefits and Insurance staff and the County Attorney have
developed eligibility criteria which clearly defines the requirements for participation.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Other Qualified Adult (OQA) benefits for
Managerial/Confidential employees be provided no later than August 1, 2008.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Managerial/Confidential Personnel Manual shall be
updated to incorporate a revised Health Insurance Program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, a special open enrollment period shall be held to allow eligible
dependents to enroll into the health plan of their choice.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board Chairperson and County Clerk are authorized to
sign appropriate documents after review as to form by the County Attorney, as needed.
COUNTY SERVICES: Yeas: Nolan, De Leon, Copedge, Soule, Grebner
Nays: Severino Absent: None Approved 2/19/08
FINANCE: Yeas: Grebner, Hertel, Weatherwax-Grant
Nays: Dougan Absent: Celentino, Schor Approved 2/20/08
Exhibit 1.0
ADOPTED - AUGUST 27, 2013
Agenda Item No. 11
RESOLUTION TO REAFFIRM THAT HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS WILL
BE PROVIDED
TO EMPLOYEE'S OTHER QUALIFIED ADULTS
RESOLUTION # 13 - 339
WHEREAS, Ingham County has previously provided health insurance benefits to employee's
other qualified adults; and
WHEREAS, the State of Michigan passed Public Act 297 in 2011 which no longer allowed
municipalities to provide these benefits; and
WHEREAS, On July 1, 2013, a Federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the
enforcement of Public Act 297.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ingham County Board of Commissioners grants
authorization to the immediate reinstatement of health insurance benefits for other qualified
adults using the same criteria in place prior to the passage of PA 297.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Controller/Administrator is authorized to make the
necessary budget adjustments as required.
COUNTY SERVICES: Yeas: Koenig, Celentino, Holman, Nolan, Tsernoglou, Maiville
Nays: None Absent: De Leon Approved 8/20/13
FINANCE: The Finance Committee will meet on 8/22/13.
Exhibit 12
Exhibit 13
Page 1
1
2
SOUTHERN DIVISION
3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4
)
THERESA BASSETT and CAROL )
5
KENNEDY, PETER WAYS and JOE )
BREAKEY, JOLINDA JACH and )
6
BARBARA RAMBER, DOAK BLOSS and)
GERARDO ASCHERI, DENISE MILLER)
7
and MICHELLE JOHNSON, )
)
8
Plaintiffs, )
)
9
-vs- )File No.
)2:12-cv-10038
10
RICHARD SNYDER, in his )JUDGE LAWSON
official capacity as Governor )MAG. HLUCHANIUK
11
of the State of Michigan, )
)
12
Defendant. )
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
13
14
D E P O S I T I O N
15
of DAVID COMSA, a witness called by Defendant, taken
16
before Melinda S. Nardone, Certified Shorthand Reporter
17
and Notary Public, at 2555 South State Street, Ann
18
Arbor, Michigan, on Thursday, February 13, 2014, noticed
19
for the hour of 10:00 a.m.
20
21
HECKAMAN & NARDONE, INC.
22
Certified Shorthand Reporters
P.O. Box 27603
23
Lansing, Michigan 48909
(517) 349-0847
24
Fax: (517) 244-0805
msnardone5@gmail.com
25
Page 2
1
APPEARANCES:
2
KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP
300 North LaSalle
3
Chicago, Illinois 60654
By
4
DEBRA LEFLER, J.D.
5
On behalf of Plaintiffs.
6
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
State Operations Division
7
525 West Ottawa Street
2nd Floor
8
By
9
ROCK WOOD, J.D.
10
On behalf of Defendant.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 8
1
MR. WOOD: Okay, I will try not to be too
2
ponderous, but I'll try to read the titles of everything
3
as I use it.
4
MS. LEFLER: Okay.
5
(Whereupon Deposition Exhibit No. 1
6
marked for identification.)
7
BY MR. WOOD:
8
Q. So we've marked Exhibit 1. Is that the current
9
version or has it changed in any way?
10
A. That is the current version.
11
Q. So nothing's changed since March of 2012,
12
correct?
13
A. That is correct.
14
Q. Okay. And is there any other document that sets
15
forth the current other eligible adult benefit criteria
16
or terms, any other written product that we could look
17
at?
18
A. To my knowledge this is the sum -- this is the
19
totality of it.
20
Q. And were you involved in passing this other
21
eligible adult benefits?
22
A. I was involved with outside counsel to prepare
23
this document.
24
Q. And was there a vote of any sort that was taken
25
to implement this policy?
Page 9
1
A. I don't recall.
2
Q. If there was a vote, would it be the school board
3
that would vote on that or would it be some other group?
4
A. It would be the school board if there was a vote.
5
Q. But you can't remember if it was an
6
administrative act or a vote by the board or some other
7
act?
8
A. Yes, I don't recall.
9
Q. And do you know if there was any study or
10
information gathered during the process that this policy
11
was developed as the rationale for the policy?
12
A. Well, prior to this other eligible adult policy
13
we had a policy, as I recall, it was the other qualified
14
adult. And then I think there was a court ruling, I
15
think it was a Kalamazoo case, and there was the
16
marriage act, I believe, and the court set forth some
17
guidelines about what could or could not be provided to
18
employees. And so as a result of that I worked with
19
outside counsel to develop the otherwise eligible adult
20
benefit that we believed complied with the court ruling.
21
So that's the study, if you will, that we did.
22
Q. So there wasn't a survey of either the board or
23
the parents or of some industry or social study that was
24
used specifically for the other eligible adult benefit
25
policy?
Page 17
1
questions that they would like someone to be able to
2
testify about, and there are ten of those. And Exhibit
3
Number 2 corresponds to some of those, correct?
4
A. That is correct.
5
Q. Okay. Can we -- can you explain for us how
6
Exhibit 2 corresponds to the deposition notice?
7
A. Sure. If you'd look at Exhibit Number 2, those
8
should correlate like, for instance, number one
9
asks -- number one on Deposition Exhibit 3, the notice
10
of deposition, requests that someone testify to the
11
rationale and/or purpose of the school's other qualified
12
adult criteria. And if you look over to Exhibit Number
13
2 it says July 2009 is when the OQA was involved and
14
there's a note for me to detail the rationale. Of
15
course Mr. Gangi didn't provide that. And as you go
16
through each number the information requested in the
17
notice of dep should be reflected in Exhibit Number 2.
18
Q. And let's just cover number one while we're
19
there.
20
A. Sure.
21
Q. It requests the rationale and/or purpose for the
22
school's other qualified adult criteria and policy by
23
which medical insurance benefits are provided to
24
qualified domestic partners of the Ann Arbor public
25
school employees. Could you tell us what the rationale
Page 18
1
and/or purpose was?
2
A. Yeah, the rationale in Ann Arbor, prior to me
3
arriving, there was a domestic partner benefit which
4
subsequently morphed into the otherwise qualified adult
5
policy and now the current otherwise eligible adult
6
policy, and it's the philosophy of the Ann Arbor Board
7
of Education to provide medical benefits to all eligible
8
employees regardless of their race or sex or sexual
9
preference. We found that in Ann Arbor we have a policy
10
against discrimination based on sex or sexual
11
orientation and to have a diverse qualified workplace
12
where we can attract qualified diverse personnel to work
13
here. It's the feeling of the Ann Arbor Board of
14
Education that to provide benefits to all of our
15
employees who are eligible is the right thing to do.
16
Q. And do you know if there was any economic study
17
done in terms of either the cost or the -- a study of
18
the ability to compete, any kind of survey or analysis
19
that would show that they couldn't get enough people to
20
apply for positions in the absence of this type of
21
policy, anything along those lines?
22
A. None that I conducted. I don't know if any was
23
conducted prior to me arriving with those earlier
24
policies. I do know that the University of Michigan,
25
which is probably the largest employer in Washtenaw
Page 19
1
County, provides those benefits and we compete in a
2
general sense with, you know, some of the candidates
3
that they maybe have openings for. We do attract
4
teachers from all over and other staff and I know that
5
those benefits are often provided in the private sector
6
and it's our feeling that to be competitive that we
7
treat all our employees equally.
8
Q. Other than a general feeling of trying to be
9
competitive, you're not aware of any empirical data or
10
study or analysis that the school did or the school
11
district did that would support the policy, for example,
12
they weren't getting enough people to apply for open
13
positions or something along those lines?
14
A. I do know that I think -- I think some of the
15
plaintiffs are our employees and they indicated that
16
they would have to leave our employment if the benefits
17
were taken away because they needed the coverage.
18
Q. Any other, for instance, study or empirical data
19
of any sort?
20
A. I did no study.
21
Q. Are you aware of any such study or empirical
22
data?
23
A. I am not.
24
Q. And do you know what the impact or effect would
25
be of the Affordable Health Care Act, for example, on
Page 20
1
the employees that you mentioned, whether they could or
2
their partner could obtain benefits under that act such
3
that they would not need benefits under the otherwise
4
eligible adult policy?
5
A. I think all of our employees who are eligible for
6
coverage would get that coverage through us and not be
7
forced to elect coverage under the Affordable Health
8
Care Act, but I don't know what is available, it seems
9
to be changing every day. So the answer to your
10
question is I don't know.
11
Q. Okay.
12
A. How is that?
13
Q. Fair enough. Just to go back to one of your
14
statements.
15
A. Sure.
16
Q. You said that you as the school district compete
17
with the University of Michigan for some candidates.
18
What would be those kinds of candidates that you would
19
be competing with the University of Michigan?
20
A. Well, for instance, they have a general counsel's
21
office. I'm sure that if I were to leave here that
22
the -- and there was an opening posted for general
23
counsel and U of M had a posting for attorneys that
24
would be one. HR professionals, psychologists, social
25
workers, maintenance workers, custodians, all, you know,
Page 21
1
the same. And besides the University of Michigan other
2
private employers as well for those categories that we
3
have here.
4
Q. Would it be for teachers or would that not be a
5
category where it would compete?
6
A. Well, it could be for teachers. I don't know
7
what the requirements are to be instructors or
8
professors at the university, but we have teachers here
9
that hold Ph.D.'s and master's degrees.
10
Q. Going on to item number two on Exhibit 2, which
11
also correlates to item number two on the deposition
12
notice, the question was to identify the number of other
13
qualified adults provided medical insurance benefits by
14
the school district, including the number that are
15
opposite sex partners and the number that are same sex
16
partners; the number of OQA dependents also covered.
17
A. Yes.
18
Q. And do we have that information on number two?
19
A. We made a best -- or Mr. Gangi provided me
20
information that is an approximation, and it indicates
21
ten same sex and ten opposite sex. And he indicated and
22
I agree, we don't ask that question when employees apply
23
for the benefit, so that is our best guess,
24
approximately 20.
25
Q. And when they say best guess, are they basing
Page 22
1
that on some that they know and then they are just
2
trying to figure out the rest or is he just splitting
3
the difference or how do we --
4
A. I think it was the first, some that we
5
anecdotally may know because of who they are, and others
6
just probably an approximation.
7
MR. WOOD: And so what I'd like to do, just
8
so we kind of have all three of these in front of us,
9
I'm going to mark your declaration as Exhibit Number 4
10
and I'm going to -- we'll lay all three of these out in
11
front of us because I think they kind of track each
12
other.
13
14
15
BY MR. WOOD:
16
Q. Let me show you what's Exhibit Number 4. Is that
17
a declaration that you signed?
18
A. It is.
19
Q. And did you type that or did someone else type
20
it?
21
A. You know, I don't recall.
22
Q. Do you know if plaintiffs' counsel helped prepare
23
it in any way?
24
A. I know that I spoke with plaintiffs' counsel, but
25
I can't recall who prepared the final product.
Page 24
1
in here?
2
A. Only to the effect that Exhibit Number 2 may have
3
some more current numbers.
4
Q. And that's kind of why I pulled it out when I did
5
because I think --
6
A. Sure.
7
Q. -- the subpoena for the deposition, Exhibit
8
Number 2, and Exhibit Number 4 kind of all have some of
9
the same information. So if we look at, for example,
10
Exhibit Number 4, paragraph two, it says Ann Arbor
11
public schools has a total of approximately 1800
12
employees; would that still be true today?
13
A. Yeah, 1800 full-time employees is probably pretty
14
close.
15
Q. And so out of 1800 you have approximately 20
16
taking advantage of the OEA policy, correct?
17
A. Correct.
18
Q. As you look at paragraph three of your
19
declaration would the numbers be approximately still the
20
same as they were in 2012?
21
A. I would assume so.
22
Q. You don't have any reason to believe there would
23
be any drastic change?
24
A. I do not.
25
Q. It just might be maybe a few numbers off one way
Page 25
1
or the other?
2
A. That's correct.
3
Q. And paragraph five in the declaration says out of
4
approximately 1800 employees who are eligible to take
5
advantage of the OEA benefits only 33 were doing so as
6
of January 2012; do you see that?
7
A. I do.
8
Q. So it looks like the number has dropped from 33
9
to 20 as of February of 2014, correct?
10
A. Correct.
11
Q. Do you know of any reason that that -- for that
12
drop?
13
A. No.
14
Q. And if we wanted to figure out the percentage in
15
number five we would just use 20 into 1800 as opposed to
16
33, correct?
17
A. Correct.
18
Q. Paragraph number seven talks about the collective
19
bargaining agreements that the school district has; is
20
that still accurate, the information set forth in that
21
paragraph?
22
A. Yes, we still have seven collective bargaining
23
agreements.
24
Q. And when do those expire, do you know?
25
A. The teachers' contract has a revenue formula that
Page 26
1
has to be met before the contract expires and I've got
2
the dates here.
3
Q. Okay.
4
A. We have a contract with Quad A, which are the
5
principals, they have a salary reopener in -- this year.
6
We have a contract with office professionals, that
7
contract expires in 2015. We have a contract with
8
AFSCME, our custodial and maintenance group; their
9
contract is due to be negotiated this year. We have a
10
contract with the office professionals, our clerical
11
group, that expires in 2015. We have a group of mid
12
management, I would call them, ASCSA coordinators; we
13
have a wage and fringe benefit reopener with them this
14
year. And we have a technical support group through
15
AFSCME that expires this year as well.
16
Q. Wonderful, thank you.
17
A. You're welcome.
18
Q. Now, the paragraph eight of the declaration sets
19
forth the historical costs of implementing the OEA
20
policy, correct?
21
A. Correct.
22
Q. So since those are historical, those wouldn't
23
have changed since your 2012 declaration, would they?
24
A. No, they wouldn't have.
25
Q. Okay. And then if you were, meaning the school
Page 28
1
A. Well, we wouldn't have to provide the benefit,
2
but I don't know what the other costs would be. I
3
couldn't categorize them if we lost employees or -- lost
4
trained employees, but clearly we wouldn't have the
5
costs that are reflected on Exhibit Number 2.
6
Q. Now, in your declaration, page four, paragraph
7
11, those look like your annual overall costs for health
8
insurance, and I'm surmising that that would be the type
9
of information that would be reflected on the school's
10
website or the school district's website under the
11
personal expenditures chart of what's called the budget
12
transparency reporting; would that be fair?
13
A. That would be fair.
14
MR. WOOD: And so let me just show you and
15
I'll mark these as 5 and 6. Let's mark that one as 5
16
and that one as 6 and for -- I'll stop talking while you
17
mark them and then I'll tell what they are.
18
(Whereupon Deposition Exhibit Nos. 5 & 6
19
20
MR. WOOD: And just for the record and for
21
Debra's benefit, what I marked as Number 5 was filed by
22
the plaintiffs' counsel with the court on March 8th and
23
it, I think, is a print off from the school district's
24
website. It is a chart, a pie chart, and it says, Ann
25
Arbor Public Schools (81010) FY 2009 general fund, and
Page 29
1
it looks like it talks about personnel expenditures.
2
And then there is a chart that's Exhibit
3
Number 6 which apparently is the same chart off the
4
current website which is for, instead of fiscal year
5
2009, as Number 5, Exhibit Number 5 was, this is Exhibit
6
Number 6 relating to fiscal year 2012 to 2013.
7
BY MR. WOOD:
8
Q. And the reason I marked those at this time,
9
Mr. Comsa, is I just thought that perhaps those
10
correlate to paragraph 11 where we would find similar
11
type of information. Would that be where a member of
12
the public could find this type of information?
13
A. Yes.
14
Q. And in paragraph number 12 it says, the
15
district's -- this is the -- I'm sorry, paragraph number
16
12 of your declaration, the second sentence says the
17
district's average cost to provide insurance to one
18
employee is $4,672 annually for the 2011-2012 plan year;
19
do you see that?
20
A. I do.
21
Q. Do you know what the current cost is for the
22
district, the average cost to provide insurance to one
23
employee?
24
A. I do not.
25
Q. Do you have any reason to believe it would be
Page 30
1
drastically different from the figure in
2
number -- paragraph number 12?
3
A. No, it shouldn't be.
4
Q. Do you know how many of the 20 OEAs that are
5
currently insured by the school district have
6
dependents?
7
A. I do not.
8
Q. And if we needed to find out that information how
9
could we identify that?
10
A. I'm not certain if those records would be kept by
11
the insurer or not.
12
Q. Okay. Now, on page five of the declaration,
13
which is Exhibit 4, for the record.
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. And then that's the continuation of paragraph 12,
16
it says in the first full sentence of that page, the
17
district's average cost to provide insurance to one OEA
18
annually for this plan is $6,192; do you see that?
19
A. Yeah, that's for the plan year.
20
Q. And do you believe that that's consistent with
21
the current cost of the OEA coverage?
22
A. Subject to any increases in cost, but, yes, that
23
probably generally would be the same.
24
Q. So there may be some kind of incremental cost
25
increase over the last couple years, but it should be
Page 31
1
roughly in that neighborhood?
2
A. Yeah, I wouldn't guess there would be any drastic
3
change.
4
Q. Okay. So if that were the number we used, for
5
example --
6
A. Sure.
7
Q. -- 6,192, subject to whatever potential increase
8
happened since 2012, and we multiply that by 20 OEAs,
9
we'd have a little over 120 or $130,000, somewhere in
10
that neighborhood; would that be accurate?
11
A. If that was calculated correctly I would assume
12
so.
13
Q. I'm just doing 20 times 6,000 --
14
A. Sure.
15
Q. -- is 120,000?
16
A. Sure.
17
Q. So I did that in my head.
18
A. Sure.
19
Q. And then I figured I had the range just to --
20
A. Sure.
21
Q. -- give myself a little mathematical accuracy
22
there. So if that's true, then, does the OEA policy
23
cost the school district approximately 120 to $130,000 a
24
year given that there are 20 individuals that have taken
25
advantage of the policy?
Page 32
1
A. I think one of the questions on the notice of
2
deposition is, I think, in number three, asks the net
3
AAPS cost to cover OQAs.
4
Q. Okay, wonderful, yes, you're exactly correct.
5
A. And Mr. Gangi calculated this on a calendar year
6
as opposed to the school's fiscal year which is July 1
7
to June 30. And it's number three on Exhibit Number 2
8
and the information that he provided me as set forth
9
there, it says the cost -- net cost to cover OQA for
10
2011 was 244,408; 2012 it was 312,311, and 2013 was
11
202,237. Now, I'm not certain how he calculated that as
12
opposed to the calculation we're doing now, but that is
13
the information he provided me.
14
Q. And, for the record, I'm doing this off the top
15
of my head so I could very well be off mathematically
16
and obviously the insurer is going to have better
17
detailed information than me.
18
A. Sure.
19
Q. It looks like on Exhibit 2 there was a drop from
20
2012 to 2013 of about $110,000, which might correspond
21
to the fact that there were 33 OEAs and now there's only
22
20. Do you know something that happened between those
23
two years, between 2012 and 2013; was there a
24
reorganization or a closing of a school or anything?
25
A. No, there was not.
Page 34
1
$100,000. And we're just part of -- we're complying
2
with that legislation.
3
Q. Do you know who creates this chart?
4
A. It probably -- well, it would be the business and
5
finance office.
6
Q. You don't have a role in creating that chart,
7
fair?
8
A. That's fair.
9
Q. So if we go to the deposition notice, item number
10
three, the school district's costs to provide coverage
11
for each year, we just answered that?
12
A. Correct.
13
Q. And number four says the total costs to the
14
school district to provide medical insurance benefits
15
for employees for each fiscal year beginning 2008 and
16
the relationship of these costs to other cost or expense
17
categories. And what is it that Exhibit 2, the
18
information from the insurer, tells us in this regard?
19
A. If you look at number four on Exhibit 2, 4 a, b
20
c, and d reflects what I believe to be the fiscal year
21
cost to provide medical insurance for our employees.
22
Q. And do you know how the cost of health insurance
23
or medical benefits has risen or fallen in comparison to
24
other benefits that the school district offers?
25
A. In preparation for this deposition I spoke
Page 40
1
insurance coverage and he indicated, I'm sure he's going
2
to appreciate that he ignored the small self-funded
3
portion. We have a small self-funded group still, I
4
think it's 40 people or less, that probably will need to
5
enroll into insured coverage because insurance companies
6
I think wanted to have at least 50 in the self-insurance
7
piece, so the correct answer would be we have -- we
8
purchase insurance coverage and we have a small self-
9
funded group as well.
10
Q. Do you know if any of the OEAs are in the self
11
funded group?
12
A. I do not.
13
Q. Would there be a way to determine that?
14
A. I don't know.
15
Q. Is there a certain category or group of worker
16
that's in the self funded, for example, a certain title
17
or a certain age group or seniority group or something
18
along those lines?
19
A. You know, I don't know what the self-funded group
20
is.
21
Q. Item number seven asks for the source of funding
22
used to pay employee medical benefits including OQA --
23
A. Yes.
24
Q. -- and OQA dependent benefits.
25
A. Yes.
Page 41
1
Q. And on that one --
2
A. Mr. Gangi punted to me and says Dave Comsa to
3
detail. So I talked briefly with Nancy Hoover and, you
4
know, we have several sources of revenue at the
5
district, we have our per pupil grants, we have property
6
taxes, we have other grants, federal grants, et cetera.
7
The best answer would be that the source of funds to pay
8
for this would be our general funds.
9
Q. And just so I know, what funds does the school
10
district receive from the state; what would be the types
11
of funds?
12
A. I know that we receive our per pupil allotment,
13
which is hopefully going to go up this year. I think we
14
receive property taxes and there are other funds in
15
there that I really can't speak to. The business office
16
would be able to detail all of our income.
17
Q. Number eight on the deposition notice says any
18
adjustments to the employee copays for medical benefits
19
for each fiscal year beginning with 2008 for each
20
exclusively represented bargaining group, for non-
21
exclusively represented employees, and for all other
22
employees. And then that corresponds to Exhibit 2,
23
correct?
24
A. Correct.
25
Q. And could you tell us what Exhibit 2 tells us in
Exhibit 14
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
3 SOUTHERN DIVISION
4
5 THERESA BASSETT and CAROL
6 KENNEDY, PETER WAYS and JOE
7 BREAKEY, JOLINDAJACH and BARBARA
8 RAMBER, DOAKBLOSS and GERARDO
9 ASCHERI, DENISE MILLER and
10 MICHELLE JOHNSON,
11 Plaintiffs,
12 vs. Case No. 2:12-cv-10038
13 Hon. David M. Lawson
14 RICHARD SNYDER, in his official
15 capacity as Governor of the state
16 of Michigan,
17 Defendant.
18 __________________________
19 The Deposition of JOSEPH PRICE, Ph.D.,
20 Taken at 525 West Ottawa Street, 2nd Floor,
21 Lansing, Michigan,
22 Commencing at 8:03 a.m.,
23 Monday, February 3, 2014,
24 Before Deana M. Ryan, CSR-3715.
25
Page 1
Veritext Legal Solutions Midwest
www.veritext.com 888-391-3376
1 APPEARANCES:
2
3 BRADLEY H. WEIDENHAMMER
4 Kirkland & Ellis, L.L.P.
5 300 North Lasalle Drive
6 Chicago, Illinois 60654
7 312.862.2649
8 Appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs.
9
10 ROCK WOOD
11 State of Michigan
12 State Operations Division
13 525 West Ottawa, 2nd Floor
14 Lansing, Michigan 48933
15 517.373.1162
16 Appearing on behalf of the Defendant.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 2
1 However you define costs and benefits -- I understand
2 you would define them broadly -- but however defined
3 it was your task and mission in this case to assess
4 both the costs and the benefits of the Benefit
5 Restriction Act, correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. So when you say the economic impact you're talking
8 about the net economic impact, right?
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. Benefits less cost, right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. As an economist when you assess the economic impact of
13 something it's common to assess both the benefits and
14 the costs, correct?
15 A. That would be true if you needed to come up with a
16 specific number, but, yeah, you would evaluate both
17 the costs and benefits of the policy change.
18 Q. But even if your task weren't to come up with a
19 specific number, if your task is to analyze the net
20 outcome or the net impact of something you need to
21 consider both the costs and the benefits, correct?
22 A. Again, if you didn't -- if you weren't getting an
23 exact number you wouldn't be able to quantify all
24 those pieces so if you left a piece out it wouldn't
25
Page 33
1 affect the whole picture. No, your job would be to
2 look at both costs and benefits.
3 Q. Right. So to be clear, as an economist examining
4 economic impact of something you would look at both
5 costs and benefits, correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, let me refer to paragraph nine of your report,
8 please. Just for the record, as I'm referring to your
9 report throughout the day you'll understand I'm
10 referring to Exhibit 1, correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Look at paragraph nine, please. In paragraph nine,
13 first sentence, you say marriage provides economic
14 benefits to the State of Michigan by reducing welfare
15 benefits, increasing tax revenue, and reducing costs
16 incurred by the State related to criminal justice and
17 health care. Do you see that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. The first part of that sentence you say marriage
20 provides economic benefits to the State of Michigan.
21 You mean net economic benefits?
22 A. Actually the way I phrased this sentence is economic
23 benefits.
24 Q. As part of your analysis in this case did you actually
25
Page 34
1 benefits to married couples produces economic benefits
2 for the State of Michigan?
3 A. Again, the way I've kind of stated it here in the
4 report is by restricting health benefits to married
5 couples it creates an incentive for couples to marry
6 and marriage produces economic benefits for the State
7 of Michigan.
8 Q. Do you agree that it's also important to consider
9 whether restricting partner health benefits to married
10 couples creates any economic costs or detriments to
11 the State of Michigan?
12 A. That would be helpful. I wasn't aware of any while
13 writing this report.
14 Q. Aside from whether you were aware of any you said it
15 would be helpful. It would be important, wouldn't it?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. In fact, without understanding any costs associated
18 with restricting partner health benefits to married
19 couples it wouldn't be possible to opine on whether it
20 creates a net economic benefit, correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, further down in paragraph nine you say allowing
23 partner health benefits to extend to cohabiting
24 couples increases the relative incentive to cohabit
25
Page 37
1 couples will result in higher costs borne by the State
2 of Michigan. To the extent that the shift toward
3 marriage imposes certain costs are you balancing those
4 out in your statement that the shift toward marriage
5 will result in higher costs; in other words, are you
6 including avoided costs in that?
7 A. Again, as an economist I was focusing primarily on
8 these broader economic costs via education, health,
9 criminal justice. Based on my reading of the
10 literature I didn't see any evidence that marriage
11 would raise the cost in those areas.
12 Q. Well, my question wasn't limited to marriage but we'll
13 get back to that.
14 Do you have any opinion in this case about
15 whether the Benefit Restriction Act is rational from
16 an economic perspective?
17 A. Yes. The State of Michigan defines marriage as
18 between a man and a woman and I think a state has a
19 rational interest in promoting marriage.
20 Q. Now, do you say it's got a rational interest in
21 promoting marriage from an economic sense or from some
22 other context?
23 A. From an economic sense.
24 Q. To the extent you're offering any opinion about the
25
Page 39
1 rationale or whether the law is rational you're
2 offering that opinion in the economic sense, correct?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. You're not here to offer opinions about broader moral
5 or societal rationales for the Benefit Restriction
6 Act, correct?
8 Q. Now, in an economic sense do you agree that a law is
9 rational if its benefits outweigh its costs?
10 A. I don't know how to legally answer that question.
11 Q. Well, from the perspective -- you said that you have
12 an opinion that this particular law, the Benefit
13 Restriction Law, is rational from an economic sense,
14 right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And when you say the law is rational in an economic
17 sense what you're saying is that it's your opinion
18 that its benefits outweigh its cost in an economic
19 sense, correct?
20 MR. WOOD: Object to the form of the
21 question.
22 You can answer.
23 A. Again, I don't know if I would phrase it quite that
24 way, but as an economist I would say one rationale for
25
Page 40
1 regard that law as a rational law, would you?
2 A. Well, again, as an economist there's lots of reasons
3 why laws would be passed. If you are asking me for an
4 economic rationale for a law then I would use the
5 metric that the benefits exceed the costs.
6 Q. Right. Just to be clear, my question is in the
7 context of the opinions you say you have about the
8 economic rationale for this law, right?
9 A. That's right.
10 Q. And you said you believe that the Benefit Restriction
11 Act is an economically rational law, right?
13 Q. So within the context of your opinion as an economist
14 the law's benefits would have to outweigh its costs in
15 order for you to say it's rational, correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION:
18 DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 4
19 8:45 a.m.
20 BY MR. WEIDENHAMMER:
21 Q. I'm handing you what I'm marking as Exhibit 4. Take a
22 moment to review Exhibit 4, please.
23 MR. WOOD: Just for the record it looks
24 like this is a Supreme Court brief. To the extent
25
Page 42
1 to quantify the expected benefit from the marriage
2 premium that you identified in paragraph 21, right?
4 Q. But in your report you never try to quantify the
5 potential effect of increased municipal or state
6 salaries that might result from the marriage premium
7 you identified, correct?
8 A. I did not because, again, the marriage premium can
9 operate by taking on a new employer. That's my
10 rationale for not including that particular
11 expenditure in the report.
12 Q. My question wasn't about your rationale. My question
13 was in your report do you attempt to quantify the
14 effect of your marriage premium that you discuss in
15 paragraph 21 in terms of additional expenditures and
16 employee salaries?
17 A. No.
18 Q. In your report do you attempt to quantify at all the
19 decreases in tax revenues from same sex couples who
20 might relocate to a different state because of the
21 Benefit Restriction Act?
22 A. I do not.
23 Q. Do you have any empirical basis to say one way or the
24 other same tax couples might leave the state as a
25
Page 105
1 consequence of the Benefit Restriction Act?
2 A. I do not.
3 Q. That's just not something you considered at all,
4 right?
5 A. No.
6 Q. No, you didn't consider it?
7 A. I did not consider that.
8 Q. In your report do you consider at all or calculate the
9 cost of increasing -- the State increasing the ranks
10 of the uninsured as a result of the Benefit
11 Restriction Act?
12 A. Just the issue of Medicaid, and so when marriage rates
13 go up you have less people receiving Medicaid. I
14 would imagine that would also mean that you'd have
15 less people that are uninsured as well.
16 Q. But the effect of the Benefit Restriction Act -- one
17 of the effects is to take away benefits from some
18 people that might otherwise have them, right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you consider in your report or forming your
21 opinions at all the cost to the State of people who
22 were previously covered by health insurance no longer
23 being covered by health insurance?
24 A. I don't.
25
Page 106
1 Q. Have you made any effort in your report to quantify or
2 estimate the likelihood that the Benefit Restriction
3 Act would more likely motivate some couples to marry
4 than it would motivate other couples to leave the
5 state?
6 A. I don't.
7 Q. Do you know whether any neighboring states around
8 Michigan have similar employee benefit restrictions?
9 A. I don't.
10 Q. That's not something you tried to find out?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Did you consider or quantify at all for purposes of
13 your report the lost tax revenue from the domestic
14 partner benefits that have been prohibited by the
15 Benefit Restriction Act?
16 A. Repeat that again.
17 Q. Were you aware that benefits are taxed, right?
18 A. I wasn't aware of that.
19 Q. So fair to say that you didn't calculate any lost tax
20 revenue from the loss of other qualified adult
21 benefits; is that fair?
22 A. That's fair.
23 MR. WEIDENHAMMER: Do you mind if we take a
24 short break?
25
Page 107
1 Q. So Sampson doesn't offer an opinion other than to say
2 other relationships between besides marriage might
3 capture the crime suppressing benefits, right?
4 A. Sure.
5 Q. Fair to say Sampson doesn't support the proposition
6 that moving couples from cohabitation to marriage will
7 have any effect on crime, right?
8 A. His data wouldn't allow him to say that, yes.
9 Q. So as you sit here you wouldn't say that Sampson gives
10 you sufficient data to opine that moving couples from
11 cohabitation to marriage will reduce crime, right?
12 A. Again, since cohabiting couples are rather unstable
13 they kind of move in and out of singlehood, so, yeah,
14 this paper would not provide the clearest comparison
15 between cohabitation and married couples.
16 Q. Well, it doesn't provide any comparison, does it?
18 Q. So as you sit here today can you point to any data
19 that you cite in your paper for the proposition that
20 moving cohabiting couples from cohabitation to
21 marriage will have any effect on crime, right?
22 A. Nothing that I cite here in my report.
23 Q. You didn't re-analyze Sampson's data to get at that
24 question, did you?
25
Page 124
1 Q. And so with regard to evaluating the mechanisms that
2 Sampson hypothesizes and that you discuss in your
3 report you can't confidently say that those mechanisms
4 with regard to the Sampson cohort wouldn't be the same
5 or even greater with regard to cohabiting couples
6 today, right?
7 A. That's true.
8 Q. In your report, paragraph 25, you note that the state
9 spends money to capture and incarcerate criminals,
10 right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Do you have any idea how many municipal employees have
13 committed crimes in the past year in Michigan?
14 A. I don't know.
15 Q. Do you have any idea how many public employees have
16 committed crimes in Michigan in the last ten years?
17 A. I don't know.
18 Q. For any time period?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Do you have any data about the propensity of partners
21 of public employees in Michigan to commit crimes?
22 A. I don't know.
23 Q. You don't have any idea about what the crime rate is
24 for the public employees or their partners?
25
Page 126
1 underlies them?
2 A. Yeah, I don't remember if that was a priority of mine.
3 Q. Do you agree with me that the population whose
4 behavior you say the Benefit Restriction Act might
5 influence would be cohabiting people who would
6 otherwise get cohabiting benefits but instead are
7 incentivized to marry, right?
8 A. Well, it would be anyone that is considering marriage
9 and this would be an added benefit of marriage and so,
10 I mean, it doesn't necessarily have to be cohabiting
11 couples making that decision to marry.
12 Q. That's a fair clarification.
13 A. There are some people that don't cohabit before
14 marriage.
15 Q. Fewer all the time, though, right? Well, that's a
16 fair clarification. The two states of being that
17 you're primarily concerned with comparing in your
18 report are cohabitation versus marriage, right?
19 A. Those would be the -- yeah, that's probably a fair
20 comparison, yeah.
21 Q. Because what you're saying in your report is that by
22 denying cohabiting couples these health benefits you
23 are dis-incentivizing people to cohabit versus
24 marriage?
25
Page 134
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And the whole point of your report is that in your
3 view marriage versus cohabitation has economic
4 benefits for the state, right?
5 A. I think I was actually making a broader statement
6 about marriage versus other relationships.
7 Q. Well, you make some broader statements in your report
8 certainly, but my question is more for purposes of
9 evaluating the economic impact of the Benefit
10 Restriction Act, the relevant comparator is
11 cohabitation versus marriage, right?
12 A. I'm not sure that's exactly true.
13 Q. Is it generally true?
14 A. Well, cohabiting unions are rather unstable and so if
15 I were to compare the benefits of marriage to
16 cohabitation I've have to take into account that
17 cohabiting couples are going to move in and out of a
18 single status.
19 Q. Right, but, again, the point is the economic
20 incentives that you're creating -- that the
21 legislature is creating in your view are incentives
22 not to cohabit but instead to marry, right?
23 A. My understanding is they're creating an incentive to
24 marry. You can only have these benefits when you're
25
Page 135
1 Q. Is it fair to characterize that as the thrust of your
2 report?
3 A. Again, the Benefit Restriction Act is going to create
4 an incentive for people to marry and then once they
5 enter that marital union then the state gets to reap
6 the benefits of marriage. If they enter a cohabiting
7 union then there's actually -- I mean, the evidence is
8 such that it might not last that long so they would be
9 back into the single state.
10 Q. But also marriage might not last?
11 A. That's true.
12 Q. Whether people move in or out of the relationship is
13 kind of -- let's put that to one side.
14 A. Sure.
15 Q. The Benefit Restriction Act in your view changes the
16 incentive between cohabitation and marriage, right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And before the Benefits Restriction Act in some
19 locations for some public employees they had the
20 option of either cohabiting or marrying and getting
21 the same sort of other qualifying adult benefits,
22 right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. The variable here is taking away -- making unequal the
25
Page 137
1 benefits between cohabitation and marriage, right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. So it's that inequality between cohabitation and
4 marriage that you're studying the economic impact of
5 in your report, right?
6 A. With the caveat that -- you need to be careful because
7 people don't stay in cohabiting unions.
8 Q. Well, they don't stay in marriages either all the
9 time, right?
10 A. That's right, but the cohabitation dissolution rates
11 are much higher than marriage rates.
12 Q. And that's one of the reasons that you believe that
13 marriage creates greater sort of economic benefits to
14 the state than cohabitation?
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. So that's built into the analysis?
17 A. Yeah. I mean, you would say, hey, there's married
18 people, there's people who aren't married, and some of
19 those people are going to be single or cohabiting and
20 you're saying what's the economic benefit of
21 encouraging more people to enter the married group.
22 So then you would want to compare it to people who
23 aren't married. Some of them are going to be
24 cohabiting and some are going to be single.
25
Page 138
1 Q. Right, but you're sort of identifying differences that
2 you believe exist between marriage and cohabitation,
3 right, like length of the relationship, for instance,
4 right? You said that was an important caveat between
5 marriage and cohabitation, right?
6 A. That's right.
7 Q. But my question was more fundamental. At heart what
8 you're opining on in your report is the economic
9 impact of the state passing this law, the Benefit
10 Restriction law, which makes unequal the economic
11 incentive to marry versus cohabit, right?
12 A. That's right.
13 Q. Let me ask you to look at Wood, which is Exhibit 8, at
14 page five, footnote one. Do you have that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. What Wood says in footnote one is this review does not
17 examine the effect of cohabitation on health or the
18 differing health effects of marriage and cohabitation.
19 Do you see that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Do you agree with me Wood doesn't provide any
22 empirical or even qualitative basis to distinguish
23 between health outcomes and cohabitation of marriage?
24 A. Yes.
25
Page 139
1 Q. I'm not asking about other studies. I'm asking you
2 what this sentence in Umberson communicates to you.
3 MR. WOOD: Asked and answered.
4 A. Again, I have no idea what Umberson was personally
5 trying to communicate but this language she's using is
6 very common in scholarly work to hedge against the
7 possibility that there's just things we don't know.
9 Q. Now, you haven't re-analyzed Umberson's data in any
10 way, have you?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Umberson doesn't provide empirical support for the
13 proposition that moving couples from cohabitation to
14 marriage will improve their health, does it?
15 A. I don't know.
16 Q. You don't know?
17 A. No, I don't.
18 Q. Do you know whether Umberson provides empirical
19 support for the proposition that marriage versus
20 cohabitation has any health premium?
21 A. I don't know.
22 Q. Is it something that you looked at when you were
23 reviewing Umberson to try to determine whether
24 Umberson provided empirical support for those
25
Page 157
1 propositions?
2 A. I don't know.
3 Q. It's not something you discuss in your report?
4 A. It's not something I discuss in the report.
5 Q. In the context of the opinions you're prepared to
6 offer in this case you don't have any opinion on
7 whether Umberson provides empirical support for the
8 proposition that marriage causes positive health
9 outcomes versus cohabitation; is that right?
11 Q. Did Umberson even study cohabitation; do you know?
12 A. I don't know.
13 Q. Is that something you ever concerned yourself with as
14 you were preparing your report?
15 A. Again, the perspective I'm taking is what are the
16 effects of marriage versus other kinds of structured
17 arrangements.
18 Q. Now I'd like you to answer my question.
19 A. Sure.
20 Q. Is that something you considered as you were preparing
21 your reports?
22 A. Not in this specific paragraph.
23 Q. Did you consider whether Umberson evaluated
24 cohabitation as part of preparing your report?
25
Page 158
1 Q. And you're just not sure whether people who had
2 previously been married but were presently cohabited
3 were part of the study?
4 A. I don't know.
5 Q. Again, that's just not something you concerned
6 yourself with as part of preparing your opinions in
7 this case, right?
8 A. For this particular article, yes.
9 Q. Do you know whether the word cohabitation even appears
10 in Umberson?
11 A. I don't know. The article was written in 1987.
12 Research on cohabitation has been a little more recent
13 than that.
14 Q. To be clear, you cite two studies for the proposition
15 that marriage is associated with positive health
16 outcomes, right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Do you cite any empirical basis in your report that
19 marriage provides positive health outcomes versus
20 cohabitation?
21 A. Again, that wasn't the comparison that I considered.
22 So, no, I don't -- in that section I don't compare
23 marriage and cohabitation specifically.
24 Q. But my question is a little broader than that. In
25
Page 160
1 your report do you cite any empirical basis for the
2 proposition that marriage creates positive health
3 outcomes versus cohabitation?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Let me ask you to look at Exhibit 6 again, please.
6 Let me know when you have that.
7 A. Okay.
8 Q. Do you have it?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Let me refer you to page ten, please, of Exhibit 6.
11 In the last paragraph before the heading conclusion on
12 page ten it says one of the primary difficulties that
13 can arise in these second-stage analyses is
14 interpreting the results in light of the fact that
15 these estimates only capture the causal impact of
16 marriage on the individuals whose decision to marry is
17 influenced by the particular instrument?
18 A. That's right.
19 Q. And then you go on to cite Stevenson's study in 2007,
20 which notes that it's important to differentiate
21 between the average marriage, which is likely to be a
22 happy one, and the marginal marriage that may be
23 created or spared by government policy, which may be
24 quite different. Do you see that?
25
Page 161
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. First of all, Stevenson's study, and you here in
3 Exhibit 6 use the term marginal marriages to indicate
4 marriages that wouldn't have occurred but for some
5 government policy, right?
7 Q. So if we use the term marginal marriage as we go
8 forward you'll understand that that's what I'm
9 referring to; is that right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. In fact, in the preceding sentence, the first sentence
12 of that paragraph you say -- you refer to individuals
13 whose decision to marry is influenced by a particular
14 instrument, right?
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. Again, what you're getting at is this concept of
17 marginal marriages, right?
18 A. Yeah. The key distinction is the marginal marriage
19 will differ based on which policy you're looking at.
20 For example, if your instrument is incarceration rates
21 then the marginal marriage is a woman who otherwise
22 would have been married to a man who is now in prison.
23 If your instrument is something like health
24 insurance benefits then the marginal marriage is the
25
Page 162
1 couple who chose to marry because of those benefits.
2 Q. Understanding that marginal marriages -- the exact
3 sort of population that fits the category of marginal
4 marriages will differ depending on the policy in
5 question --
7 Q. -- that's generating the margin, basically?
9 Q. But the concept will remain the same, which is that
10 marginal marriages refer to marriages that would not
11 have occurred but for the policy, fair?
12 A. Yep.
13 Q. So with regard to the Benefit Restriction Act marginal
14 marriages would refer to couples who would not have
15 gotten married but for the Benefit Restriction Act,
16 right?
17 A. Yeah. They might not realize that's the reason they
18 married but as an empiricist looking at it these are
19 the marriages that occurred that otherwise wouldn't
20 have.
21 Q. They wouldn't say as part of their vows, thank you,
22 Benefit Restriction Act. But as an empiricist when
23 you're evaluating the population you would
24 characterize the marginal marriages in the context of
25
Page 163
1 the Benefit Restriction Act as marriages that would
2 not have occurred but for the Act?
3 A. Yeah. I wouldn't actually be able to identify which
4 marriages are the marginal ones. All I would see is
5 the change in the marriage rate and I could attribute
6 that change to the change in the policy.
7 Q. Regardless of whether you can actually identify the
8 specific individuals conceptually the marginal
9 marriages represent the increase in the marriage rate
10 that you believe would happen as a result of the
11 Benefit Restriction Act, right?
13 Q. So in the context of the Benefit Restriction Act if I
14 say the marginal marriages you'll understand that I'm
15 referring to your conception of marriages that would
16 occur because of the Benefit Restriction Act that
17 wouldn't have otherwise occurred, right?
19 Q. And you'll understand that as we go forward, right?
20 A. Right.
21 Q. If you're ever confused about what I'm referring to
22 let me know right away, okay?
23 A. That's fine.
24 Q. Do you want to take a break?
25
Page 164
1 A. No.
2 Q. Again returning to the second sentence in that final
3 paragraph before the heading conclusion where you're
4 quoting Stevenson and Wolfers, you quote them as
5 saying it's important to differentiate between the
6 average marriage and the marginal marriage, right?
7 A. That's right.
8 Q. Do you agree with Stevenson in that regard?
9 A. If you're trying to estimate the causal effect of
10 marriage that's true.
11 Q. And Stevenson goes on to say that the marginal
12 marriage may be quite different from the average
13 marriage, right?
14 A. That's possible. I mean, again, it depends on the
15 policy underlying the marginal marriage. I think in
16 the case of the prisons it's pretty clear it's going
17 to create these negative marginal marriages for other
18 policies. It's not clear if the marginal marriage
19 would have a bigger impact than the average marriage.
20 Q. But the whole point is that marginal marriages are
21 qualitatively different in the sense that they're
22 marginal so you don't know whether that marginal
23 aspect creates the same or different outcomes versus
24 average marriages, fair?
25
Page 165
2 Q. And that's the whole point of what Stevenson is saying
3 there, right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And then in the final sentence in that same paragraph
6 in Exhibit 6 you go on to say that thus while these
7 particular results will not provide insight needed
8 into the public value created by the institution of
9 marriage, they provide the insight needed to consider
10 the consequences of policies designed to influence
11 marriage decisions; is that right?
13 Q. So there what you're saying basically is kind of the
14 converse, which is that outcomes that you see in
15 studies of marginal marriages tell you a lot about
16 those marginal marriages, right?
17 A. That's right.
18 Q. But they don't tell you much about the institution of
19 marriage generally?
20 A. That's true.
21 Q. And the converse is also true that studies showing
22 outcomes for average marriages don't tell you about
23 the outcomes you can expect from marginal marriages
24 necessarily, correct?
25
Page 166
1 A. That's right.
2 Q. So as an empirical matter you need to understand what
3 these marginal marriages are like in order to
4 determine whether average outcomes for marriage will
5 be manifested in those marginal marriages, right?
6 A. That' correct.
7 Q. Let me ask you to take a look at Exhibit 6, please,
8 and in particular the final sentence of the preceding
9 paragraph, so the paragraph on page ten where it
10 begins there have been a few articles. Do you see
11 that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Actually before we get into that let me ask you a
14 couple more general questions.
15 First of all, it's possible that marginal
16 marriages might be less stable than non-marginal
17 marriages, right?
18 A. It's possible.
19 Q. It's possible that marginal marriages might be less
20 happy than average marriages; is that fair?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. It's possible that marginal marriages might involve a
23 greater rate of spousal abuse than average marriages?
25
Page 167
1 Q. It's possible that marginal marriages might have a
2 higher divorce rate than average marriages?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. It's possible that marginal marriages might exhibit a
5 lower extent of commitment between the two partners
6 than average marriages; is that fair?
7 A. That's true.
8 Q. It's possible that partners in a marginal marriage
9 might invest less in child rearing than average
10 partners in a marriage, fair?
12 Q. It's possible that marginal marriages might show worse
13 outcome for children than average marriages, right?
15 Q. It's possible that marginal marriages may differ from
16 non-marginal in any number of ways, right?
17 A. Yes. All of those are actually the wrong comparison,
18 just to make that point clear.
19 Q. What do you mean by that?
20 A. Well, so if you're thinking about the effect of a
21 marginal marriage you actually don't want to compare
22 the outcome of the marginal marriage with the average
23 marriage. You want to compare the outcome of the
24 marginal marriages with the outcome they would have
25
Page 168
1 A. Again, that comparison between the marginal marriages
2 and average marriages doesn't help you know whether
3 the average -- the marginal marriage, how much better
4 off it is than if they hadn't married.
5 Q. But if you don't know what outcomes you can see for a
6 marginal marriage, in other words, if you can't assume
7 that marginal marriages exhibit the same outcomes as
8 average marriages, then you don't have any empirical
9 basis to say that marginal marriages produce better or
10 worse or the same outcomes as some other condition,
11 fair?
12 A. Again, you have to simplify that a little bit. I just
13 want to make sure that I am agreeing to something that
14 I know is true.
15 Q. If your basis for making a prediction about marginal
16 marriages is based on average marriages you need to
17 know the extent to which those marginal marriages will
18 actually manifest those benefits or those outcomes,
19 right?
20 A. That's true.
21 Q. And if you don't know the extent to which marginal
22 marriages actually demonstrate the outcomes that
23 average marriages do you just don't know anything
24 about those marginal marriage outcomes, right?
25
Page 170
1 A. That's true.
2 Q. So you can't compare those marginal marriages to any
3 state of being if you don't know anything about the
4 outcomes, right?
5 A. Again, this is a rather technical empirical issue that
6 one of the ways that we try to get at a causal
7 estimate of marriage is by using an instrument of
8 variable. One of the limitations of that approach is
9 that it only estimates the effect of marginal
10 marriage. There's other empirical approaches that try
11 to answer the same question.
12 One of the studies I cite is Korenman and
13 Neumark. They use a fixed effect approach which is
14 you're comparing people before and after they get
15 married. That's an alternative approach to doing
16 that.
17 Another way is maybe to control for the
18 section effect into marriage and try to adjust for
19 those section factors and see if there's a causal
20 effect that's left over.
21 Your questions are related to one empirical
22 method.
23 Q. Well, no. Actually my questions are restricted to a
24 particular type of marriage, which is to say marginal
25
Page 171
1 marriage. Marginal marriage we said before is a
2 marriage that is motivated or would not exist but for
3 some change in public policy, right?
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. So I'm getting at that particular type of marriage.
6 That's a distinct characteristic, right, between
7 marginal marriage and average marriage, right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And we discussed a moment ago that's why in Exhibit 6
10 you specifically differentiate between average
11 marriages and marginal marriage, right?
12 A. Yes, where that's possible with the data that you
13 have.
14 Q. The reason it's important to differentiate is because
15 one cannot assume as an empirical matter that marginal
16 marriages demonstrate the same outcomes as average
17 marriages, right?
18 A. That's true.
19 MR. WOOD: Is this a good time to take a
20 break?
21 MR. WEIDENHAMMER: Why don't we finish up
22 with this publication.
23 Let's go off the record.
24 (Discussion off the record at 11:35 a.m.)
25
Page 172
1 Q. Fair clarification. I'm focusing on policies that --
2 regardless of whether they're intended to marry,
3 policies that you believe have the effect of
4 incentivizing people to marry.
5 A. Incentivizing people to marry. That's a great way to
6 put it.
7 Q. So to ask the question again, in your report do you
8 cite any study showing that a policy that creates an
9 incentive to marry caused positive outcomes among the
10 marginal marriages?
11 A. I don't.
12 Q. Can you identify a study anywhere in the literature
13 that shows marginal marriages induced by policies and
14 incentivized marriage caused better outcomes than
15 cohabitation?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Can you identify any study anywhere in the literature
18 that shows that marginal marriage induced by marriage
19 incentive policies caused better outcome than
20 cohabitation with regard to receiving public
21 assistance?
22 A. No.
23 Q. With regard to Medicaid use?
24 A. Not aware of any.
25
Page 203
1 any published or working papers on that topic.
2 Q. What research have you done that you haven't published
3 or --
4 A. The paper with Kasey Buckles and Melanie Goaly about
5 blood test laws, we attempted to use that as a
6 potential instrument for marriage. It turns out it
7 has an effect on marriage but it's not a strong enough
8 first stage relationship to use as a second stage
9 paper.
10 Q. To the extent you've done any research on the topic of
11 whether marginal marriages show better outcome than
12 cohabitation your results have been inconclusive?
13 A. Again, it didn't have the power to make definitive
14 statements.
15 Q. Didn't have the power to say yes or no whether
16 marginal marriages show better outcomes than
17 cohabitation, right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Can you point to any studies anywhere showing that
20 marginal marriages induced by marriage incentive
21 policies produced outcomes comparable to non-marginal
22 marriage, average marriages?
23 A. I don't know of any.
24 Q. And you don't cite any in your report?
25
Page 205
1 A. I don't cite any in my report.
2 Q. Let me ask you to look again at your report, please,
3 paragraph 14. Do you see that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. In paragraph 14 you're citing a study by Thomas and
6 Sawhill, correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Thomas and Sawhill studied the way in which poverty
9 rates among children may vary by marital status of
10 their parents?
11 A. Yes.
12 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION:
13 DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 12
14 12:27 p.m.
16 Q. Sir, I'm handing you what I'm marking as Exhibit 12.
17 Do you recognize Exhibit 12 as the study that you cite
18 in paragraph 14 of your report?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You cite Thomas and Sawhill for the proposition that
21 only 7.6 percent of married parent families with
22 children are below the federal poverty line compared
23 with 34 percent for single parent families with
24 children and 21.5 percent for cohabiting couples with
25
Page 206
1 children, right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. First of all, Thomas and Sawhill don't conclude that
4 the observed difference in poverty rates between
5 married and cohabiting families are causally connected
6 to marriage, right?
7 A. I don't think so.
8 Q. They just say that it's a correlation they can
9 observe, right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And you haven't done any re-analysis of Thomas and
12 Sawhill's data to try to suss out whether the
13 relationship is causal or not, right?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. So you take Thomas and Sawhill's conclusion at face
16 value, right?
18 Q. In fact, Thomas and Sawhill don't conclude a marriage
19 causes lower poverty rates versus cohabiting families,
20 do they?
21 A. They don't.
22 Q. And they don't conclude that cohabiting family income
23 would increase if they married, do they?
24 A. They don't.
25
Page 207
1 A. That's right.
2 Q. So I'm asking what analysis they conducted and the
3 analysis they conducted assumes that moving from
4 cohabitation to marriage would not affect income or
5 poverty rates, right?
6 A. And I'm just saying that's based on an assumption that
7 the cohabiting couple stayed together as long as
8 married couples.
9 Q. But you agree that's an assumption Thomas and Sawhill
10 make?
12 Q. Let's look back at your report for a moment if we
13 could. In paragraph 14 do you cite any source or data
14 other than Thomas and Sawhill?
15 A. In paragraph 14?
16 Q. Yes.
17 A. In that particular paragraph just Thomas and Sawhill.
18 Q. But what you say in paragraph 14 is you say that
19 there's a difference that you can observe in the
20 poverty rates between single parent families and
21 cohabiting families, right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And then you can observe another difference between
24 cohabiting families and married couple families,
25
Page 210
1 A. It's possible, I mean, unless they choose to marry
2 instead of cohabit.
3 Q. But you don't know?
4 A. I don't know.
5 Q. Do you agree it's possible some people would have been
6 motivated by the domestic partner benefits to move
7 from single to cohabiting, right? That may not be
8 enough to move them into further step into marriage?
9 A. That's possible.
10 Q. And you haven't attempted to quantify how many people
11 fall into that first category of they might have been
12 incentivized not to marry, right?
13 A. That's right.
14 Q. But even aside from quantifying the number of people
15 in that condition would you agree with me at least
16 that by taking that incentive to cohabit away you're
17 increasing the likelihood that some subset will remain
18 single parent families instead of cohabiting families,
19 right?
20 A. Again, it depends on whether they choose to stay
21 single or whether they choose to marry.
22 Q. You acknowledge the possibility that some might choose
23 to stay single, right?
24 A. Relative to marriage, yes.
25
Page 217
1 Q. And relative to cohabit, right?
2 A. That's right.
3 Q. So to the extent you've removed that incentive to
4 cohabit the difference in the observed outcome between
5 single parent families and cohabiting families for
6 that subset of the population is a loss associated
7 with the Benefit Restriction Act, right?
8 A. That's true to the extent that those transitions
9 occur.
10 Q. So whatever the magnitude of that loss would be needs
11 to be factored in against the expected benefits of the
12 Benefit Restriction Act, right?
13 A. That's correct, with the caveat that -- yeah, that's
14 right.
15 Q. And so that's one of the sort of costs or losses or
16 however you want to characterize it that you need to
17 take into account or you would have to take into
18 account in order to determine whether the Benefit
19 Restriction Act is expected to have a net economic
20 benefit or a net economic loss or cost, right?
22 Q. Just to be clear, you haven't attempted to quantify
23 sort of the gross economic benefits you would expect
24 from the Benefit Restriction Act, right?
25
Page 218
2 Q. And you haven't attempted to quantify sort of the
3 gross economic costs to the Benefit Restriction Act?
5 Q. So you don't have an opinion specifically about
6 whether the Benefit Restriction Act creates a net
7 economic benefit or net economic loss, right?
8 A. I wouldn't be able to pin down a specific.
9 Q. But even qualitatively do you have an empirical basis
10 to say that it creates a net economic benefit versus a
11 loss?
12 A. I think what we could say is that --
13 Q. Sorry, who is we?
14 A. What I would have to claim as an expert is that I
15 believe that incentives change -- incentives change
16 the number of people who would marry and that marriage
17 has broad economic benefits for the State of Michigan.
18 I would be hard pressed to find counteracting benefits
19 that could outweigh that potential benefit. So for
20 example, the hypothetical that you provided recently,
21 I would be hard pressed to think that it could
22 generate enough benefits to offset the losses the
23 State of Michigan would incur by, you know, removing
24 an incentive for people to marry.
25
Page 219
1 Q. But you don't know how many employees affected by the
2 Benefit Restriction Act are single parent families,
3 right?
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. Or single generally, right?
7 Q. And you don't know how many employees affected by the
8 Benefit Restriction Act are cohabiting, right?
9 A. That's right.
10 Q. And you don't know how many are married, right?
11 A. That's right.
12 Q. And you don't know and can't say as you sit here today
13 how many of the single employees affected by the
14 Benefit Restriction Act could be motivated to cohabit
15 as a result of what was previously available to
16 domestic partner benefits, right?
17 A. That's right.
18 Q. And you don't have any empirical basis to estimate the
19 number that would be motivated to marry as a
20 consequence of the Benefit Reduction Act, right?
22 Q. So you have no empirical basis to even compare those
23 two numbers, right?
25
Page 220
1 right?
2 A. That's right. I focused on economic.
3 Q. Nowhere in your report is there any empirical analysis
4 or data or anything else that allows you to opine on
5 the social costs of restricting domestic partner
6 benefits, right?
8 Q. Referring again to your report on paragraph 13,
9 please, here again you're discussing marriage and
10 welfare benefits, correct?
12 Q. And in paragraph 13 you cite the Lichter study?
14 Q. You cite the Lichter study says that women who are
15 married have a 68 percent lower odds of being below
16 the poverty line and 79 percent chance of receiving
17 food stamps?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Those numbers that you discuss in paragraph 13 are
20 comparing married women to single women?
21 A. Right, I believe so. I don't know how they handle
22 cohabiting couples in that.
23 Q. But you know that the comparison is not between
24 cohabiting couples and married couples, right?
25
Page 230
1 A. That's right. It's between married and unmarried.
2 Q. Just to be clear, the numbers that you quote in
3 paragraph 13 is coming from Lichter comparing married
4 to unmarried, right?
5 A. That's what I believe to be true.
6 Q. As part of support for your opinions in this case you
7 don't draw any data from Lichter that would allow you
8 to compare cohabiting couples to married couples,
9 right?
10 A. I don't use their data.
11 Q. And you don't have any other empirical basis to
12 support the concept or the proposition that you state
13 in paragraph 13 as between married and cohabiting
14 couples, right?
15 A. I don't.
16 Q. You do not?
17 A. I do not.
18 Q. And Lichter also doesn't provided any comparison data
19 showing outcomes for cohabiting couples who are
20 induced to marry by government benefit or incentive,
21 right?
22 A. That's right.
23 Q. So in other words, Lichter doesn't show any outcome
24 for marginal marriages as we defined that term
25
Page 231
1 comparing single to married, right?
3 Q. And at no point in the work that you've done on this
4 case did you run an analysis of ACS data comparing
5 cohabiting couples to married couples?
6 A. Yeah. Let's be clear, it's comparing married
7 individuals to unmarried individuals, so the unmarried
8 would include be single and cohabiting people. I did
9 not compare cohabiting and married.
10 Q. For any purpose in your report, right?
12 Q. And so all of the analyses that you ran of the ACS
13 data compared non-married to married, correct?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. And you uniformly ignored cohabiting versus married as
16 a comparison?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Now, your analysis of the ACS number showed that
19 marriage was positively associated with reduced food
20 stamp use, right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. But your analysis didn't attempt to demonstrate
23 causation?
24 A. No, that would not be possible.
25
Page 239
1 marriage would cause their household income to
2 increase, would you?
3 A. Not in the stuff I reported in the report. The report
4 was all about married and unmarried.
5 Q. But you never did any analysis of cohabiting versus
6 married couples?
7 A. I didn't do that analysis.
8 Q. So the point remains that you have no empirical basis
9 as you sit here today to say that moving cohabiting
10 couples to marriage would cause their household income
11 to increase, fair?
12 A. I wouldn't be able to make a statement based upon ACS
13 data that I used.
14 Q. Do you cite other data in your report that you believe
15 support the proposition that moving cohabiting couples
16 to marry would cause their household income to
17 increase?
18 A. I imagine there's studies that exist but I haven't
19 cited any of those in my report. My report focused
20 primarily on married versus unmarried.
21 Q. Aside from what might be out in the literature I'm
22 focused on what you said in your report and what you
23 reviewed in the process of forming your opinions. As
24 you sit here you don't have an empirical basis to say
25
Page 248
1 that moving cohabiting couples to marriage would
2 increase their household income, fair?
3 A. What do you mean by empirical basis?
4 Q. Data or publishing study or any other empirical basis.
5 A. None that I've cited in my report.
6 Q. And you can't identify one as you sit here, can you?
7 A. I can't identify one as I sit here.
8 Q. You cannot?
9 A. Not right in this moment.
10 Q. Same question with regard to your analysis in
11 paragraph 22. You don't compare tax revenue from
12 cohabiting couples to potential tax revenue from
13 married couples, correct?
15 Q. So you don't have an empirical basis to say that
16 cohabiting couples to married would cause an increase
17 in tax revenue for the State of Michigan; is that
18 fair?
19 A. That's fair.
20 MR. WEIDENHAMMER: Why don't we take a
21 short break.
22 (Recess taken at 1:3 p.m.)
23 (Back on the record at 1:35 p.m.)
25
Page 249

B a s s e t t v . S n y d e r
J . P r i c e E x h l b j t 0 0 1
I . A s s i g n m e n t
1 . T h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s r e p o r t i s t o a s s e s s t h e e c o n o m i c i m p a c t o f r e s t r i c t i n g p u b l i c
e m p l o y e e h e a l t h b e n e f i t s t o c o u p l e s w h o a r e m a r r i e d . I w i l l f i r s t d i s c u s s w a y s i n
w h i c h m a r r i a g e r e d u c e s e x p e n d i t u r e s a n d i n c r e a s e s r e v e n u e s f o r t h e s t a t e
g o v e r n m e n t o f M i c h i g a n . T h e n I w i l l d i s c u s s h o w c h a n g e s i n t h e e c o n o m i c
i n c e n t i v e s f o r m a r r i a g e ( s u c h a s r e s t r i c t i n g c e r t a i n b e n e f i t s t o m a r r i e d c o u p l e s )
a f f e c t w h e t h e r p e o p l e m a r r y .
I I . Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s
I a m a n A s s o c i a t e P r o f e s s o r o f E c o n o m i c s a t B r i g h a m Y o u n g U n i v e r s i t y , w h e r e I
h a v e w o r k e d s i n c e 2 0 0 7 . I r e c e i v e d b y P h . D . i n e c o n o m i c s f r o m C o r n e l l
U n i v e r s i t y i n 2 0 0 7 a n d m y e m p h a s i s o f s t u d y w a s l a b o r e c o n o m i c s , h e a l t h
e c o n o m i c s , a n d t h e e c o n o m i c s o f t h e f a m i l y .
I h a v e p u b l i s h e d 2 3 a r t i c l e s i n p e e r - r e v i e w e d j o u r n a l s w i t h a n o t h e r 7 t h a t a r e
a c c e p t e d a n d w i l l b e p u b l i s h e d i n t h e n e x t y e a r o r s o . M y p u b l i c a t i o n s i n c l u d e
a r t i c l e s i n s o m e o f t h e t o p a c a d e m i c j o u r n a l s , i n c l u d i n g t h e Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l o f
E c o n o m i c s , D e m o g r a p h y a n d M a n a g e m e n t S c i e n c e . M y r e s e a r c h h a s a l s o
r e c e i v e d c o n s i d e r a b l e m e d i a a t t e n t i o n i n c l u d i n g c o v e r a g e i n t h e N e w Y o r k T i m e s ,
W a s h i n g t o n P o s t , T o d a y S h o w , a n d m a n y o t h e r n e w s o u t l e t s . I a m r e g u l a r l y
i n v i t e d t o p r e s e n t m y r e s e a r c h a t d i f f e r e n t a c a d e m i c d e p a r t m e n t s a n d a t v a r i o u s
a c a d e m i c c o n f e r e n c e s .
I a m a n e m p i r i c a l e c o n o m i s t t h a t h a s c o n d u c t e d r e s e a r c h o n t h e i m p a c t o f
m a r r i a g e o n i n f a n t h e a l t h o u t c o m e s , f a c t o r s t h a t i n f l u e n c e t h e d e c i s i o n t o m a r r y ,
p a r e n t a l i n v e s t m e n t s i n c h i l d r e n , a n d t h e o u t c o m e s o f c h i l d r e n r a i s e d b y s a m e -
s e x c o u p l e s . A l t h o u g h t h e s p e c i f i c t o p i c s t h a t I h a v e s t u d i e d v a r y , t h e c o m m o n
t h e m e i n m y r e s e a r c h h a s b e e n t h e u s e o f l a r g e d a t a s e t s , r i g o r o u s e m p i r i c a l
m e t h o d s , a n d c o m p l e t e t r a n s p a r e n c y i n a l l o f m y e m p i r i c a l m e t h o d s . I m a k e m y
d a t a a n d a n a l y s i s c o d e a v a i l a b l e t o o t h e r s c h o l a r s a n d o f t e n p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l
a n a l y s i s b a s e d o n i n q u i r i e s f r o m t h e m e d i a .
O v e r t h e l a s t s e v e r a l y e a r s , I h a v e a l s o b e e n a s k e d t o r e v i e w t h e a c a d e m i c w o r k
o f o t h e r s c h o l a r s b y o v e r 4 0 d i f f e r e n t s c h o l a r l y j o u r n a l s . T h i s e x p e r i e n c e o f
e v a l u a t i n g t h e w o r k o f o t h e r s i n a v a r i e t y o f f i e l d s g i v e s m e a s t r o n g b a c k g r o u n d
i n d i s c e r n i n g b e t w e e n r e s e a r c h t h a t i s l i k e l y t o r e s u l t i n c o r r e c t i n f e r e n c e a n d
r e s e a r c h w h e r e t h e r e i s l i k e l y t o b e s o m e s o u r c e o f e s t i m a t i o n b i a s t h a t w i l l
a f f e c t t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e r e s u l t s . T h i s r e q u e s t b y e d i t o r s t o h a v e m e a s s i s t
i n e v a l u a t i n g t h e r e s e a r c h o f o t h e r s c h o l a r s i s a l s o a s i g n a l o f t h e t r u s t t h a t
o t h e r s c h o l a r s p l a c e i n m y a s s e s s m e n t o f g o o d r e s e a r c h .
I h a v e r e c e i v e d s e v e r a l a c a d e m i c a w a r d s , g r a n t s , a n d h o n o r s . T h e s e i n c l u d e t h e
W e l l s a n d M y r l e C l o w a r d T e a c h i n g a n d L e a r n i n g F a c u l t y F e l l o w s h i p , t h e
E m m a l i n e B . W e l l s S c h o l a r l y a n d C r e a t i v e W o r k G r a n t , a n d a n E d u c a t i o n a n d
S o c i a l O p p o r t u n i t y G r a n t f r o m t h e S p e n c e r F o u n d a t i o n . M y C V i s a t t a c h e d a s
E x h i b i t A .
7 . M y o p i n i o n s i n t h i s r e p o r t a r e b a s e d o n t h e s o u r c e s c i t e d i n t h e f o o t n o t e s a s w e l l
a s m y o w n c a l c u l a t i o n s u s i n g g o v e r n m e n t c o l l e c t e d d a t a t h a t i s p u b l i c l y
a v a i l a b l e . I r e s e r v e t h e r i g h t t o s u p p l e m e n t o r m o d i f y t h i s r e p o r t b a s e d o n a n y
d o c u m e n t s o r o t h e r d i s c o v e r y t h a t b e c o m e s a v a i l a b l e d u r i n g t h e c a s e o r a n y
w i t n e s s t e s t i m o n y t h a t h a s n o t y e t b e e n g i v e n .
8 . I a m b e i n g c o m p e n s a t e d $ 3 0 0 p e r h o u r f o r m y t i m e t o p r e p a r e t h i s e x p e r t
w i t n e s s r e p o r t .
I I I . S u m m a r y o f f i n d i n g s
9 . M a r r i a g e p r o v i d e s e c o n o m i c b e n e f i t s t o t h e s t a t e o f M i c h i g a n b y r e d u c i n g
w e l f a r e p a y m e n t s , i n c r e a s i n g t a x r e v e n u e , a n d r e d u c i n g c o s t s i n c u r r e d b y t h e
s t a t e r e l a t e d t o c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e a n d h e a l t h c a r e . A c o u p l e ' s d e c i s i o n t o m a r r y i s
a f f e c t e d b y c h a n g e s i n t h e c o s t s o r b e n e f i t s o f m a r r i a g e . R e s t r i c t i n g p a r t n e r
h e a l t h b e n e f i t s t o m a r r i e d c o u p l e s c r e a t e s a n a d d i t i o n a l i n c e n t i v e f o r c o u p l e s t o
m a r r y a n d t h i s d e c i s i o n t o m a r r y p r o d u c e s e c o n o m i c b e n e f i t s f o r t h e s t a t e o f
M i c h i g a n . A l l o w i n g p a r t n e r h e a l t h b e n e f i t s t o e x t e n d t o c o h a b i t i n g c o u p l e s
i n c r e a s e s t h e r e l a t i v e i n c e n t i v e t o c o h a b i t i n s t e a d o f m a r r y . T h i s s h i f t a w a y f r o m
m a r r i a g e a m o n g h e t e r o s e x u a l c o u p l e s w i l l r e s u l t i n h i g h e r c o s t s b o r n e b y t h e
s t a t e o f M i c h i g a n ( s i n c e 9 9 . 3 % o f c o u p l e s i n M i c h i g a n a r e o p p o s i t e - s e x c o u p l e s ) .
I V . E c o n o m i c b e n e f i t s o f m a r r i a g e
1 0 . T h e r e a r e a t l e a s t t h r e e w a y s t h a t m a r r i a g e p r o v i d e s e c o n o m i c b e n e f i t s t o t h e
s t a t e o f M i c h i g a n . F i r s t , i t d r a m a t i c a l l y r e d u c e s t h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t a h o u s e h o l d
w i l l r e c e i v e p u b l i c a s s i s t a n c e . S e c o n d , i t i n c r e a s e s t h e e a r n i n g s o f i n d i v i d u a l s
a n d h o u s e h o l d s , t h u s d i r e c t l y i n c r e a s i n g t a x r e v e n u e s . T h i r d , i t p r o m o t e s
p o s i t i v e b e h a v i o r s i n i n d i v i d u a l s t h a t r e d u c e s t h e c o s t s i n c u r r e d b y t h e s t a t e i n
p r o v i d i n g c o r r e c t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s , h e a l t h s e r v i c e s , a n d e d u c a t i o n a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s .
O n e o f t h e m o s t c h a l l e n g i n g i s s u e s i n t h i s a r e a o f r e s e a r c h i s t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h
a s s o c i a t i o n s b e t w e e n m a r r i a g e a n d p o s i t i v e o u t c o m e s r e p r e s e n t a c a u s a l e f f e c t o r
m e r e l y a c o r r e l a t i o n . T h e r e s e a r c h t h a t I d i s c u s s i n t h i s r e p o r t r e p r e s e n t a r t i c l e s
p u b l i s h e d i n w e l l - r e s p e c t e d a c a d e m i c j o u r n a l s a n d r i g o r o u s e f f o r t s t o e s t i m a t e
t h e e f f e c t o f m a r r i a g e o n t h e s e d i f f e r e n t o u t c o m e s .
M o s t o f t h e s t u d i e s t h a t I d e s c r i b e w i l l b e b a s e d o n n a t i o n a l l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
d a t a a n d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y a b o u t M i c h i g a n . T o p r o v i d e a m o r e s p e c i f i c v i e w o f t h e
e c o n o m i c b e n e f i t s o f m a r r i a g e t o t h e s t a t e o f M i c h i g a n , I u s e d a t a f r o m t h e
A m e r i c a n C o m m u n i t y S u r v e y ( A C S ) f r o m 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 1 1 f o r a l l a d u l t s ( a g e s 2 5 - 6 5 )
l i v i n g i n M i c h i g a n . T h e A C S d a t a p r o v i d e s d i r e c t m e a s u r e s o f m o s t o f t h e
o u t c o m e s d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n . I n e a c h c a s e , I p r o v i d e t h e r a w d i f f e r e n c e
b e t w e e n m a r r i e d a n d u n m a r r i e d a d u l t s i n M i c h i g a n a s w e l l a s a r e g r e s s i o n
a d j u s t e d d i f f e r e n c e t h a t c o n t r o l s f o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s a g e , r a c e / e t h n i c i t y ,
e d u c a t i o n , a n d c i t i z e n s h i p s t a t u s . I e x c l u d e f r o m t h i s a n a l y s i s a n y o n e l i v i n g i n a
g r o u p q u a r t e r s , w h i c h i n c l u d e s c o r r e c t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s , r e s i d e n t i a l t r e a t m e n t
c e n t e r s , m i l i t a r y b a r r a c k s , o r c o l l e g e r e s i d e n c e h a l l s ( t h o u g h t o g e t h e r t h e s e o n l y
c o n s t i t u t e 1 . 5 % o f t h e o r i g i n a l s a m p l e ) . A l s o , s o m e o f t h e m e a s u r e s t h a t I d i s c u s s

1

W h i l e t h e S N A P / F o o d S t a m p p r o g r a m i s f e d e r a l l y f u n d e d ( w i t h t h e s t a t e
c o v e r i n g h a l f o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o s t s ) , i t p r o v i d e s a w e l l - d e f i n e d m e a s u r e o f
p u b l i c a s s i s t a n c e t h a t c a n b e e a s i l y c o m p a r e d a c r o s s m a r r i e d a n d u n m a r r i e d
c o u p l e s . A s s u c h , i t s e r v e s a s a u s e f u l p r o x y f o r o t h e r t y p e s o f p u b l i c a s s i s t a n c e
t h a t a r e p a i d d i r e c t l y b y t h e s t a t e o f M i c h i g a n . D a t a f r o m 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 1 1 A C S
i n t h c a t e t h a t o n l y 5 . 8 % o f m a r r i e d a d u l t s r e c e i v e f o o d s t a m p s c o m p a r e d t o 2 0 . 3 %
o f t h e n o n - m a r r i e d a d u l t s . T h e g a p f o r w o m e n i s l a r g e r ( 5 . 7 % v s . 2 3 . 7 % ) a n d
i n c l u d i n g d e m o g r a p h i c c o n t r o l s r e d u c e s t h e o v e r a l l g a p b y a b o u t a t h i r d ( w i t h a n
a d j u s t e d d i f f e r e n c e o f 1 0 . 7 p e r c e n t a g e p o i n t s ) . E v e n i n c l u d i n g t h e s e a d d i t i o n a l
c o n t r o l s , t h e s e r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t n o n - m a r r i e d a d u l t s a r e a b o u t t h r e e t i m e s
m o r e l i k e l y t o r e c e i v e f o o d s t a m p s . T h e r e a r e t h r e e y e a r s ( 2 0 0 5 - 2 0 0 7 ) f o r w h i c h
t h e t o t a l a m o u n t o f f o o d s t a m p s r e c e i v e d d u r i n g t h e y e a r w a s i n c l u d e d o n t h e
s u r v e y . I f I a v e r a g e t h e t o t a l f o o d s t a m p p a y m e n t s a c r o s s a l l a d u l t s ( e v e n t h o s e
n o t g e t t i n g f o o d s t a m p s ) t h e n t h e a v e r a g e a m o u n t s p e n t p e r m a r r i e d a d u l t w o u l d
b e $ 8 8 c o m p a r e d t o $ 2 8 1 f o r e a c h u n m a r r i e d a d u l t ( t h e r e g r e s s i o n a d j u s t e d
d i f f e r e n c e i s $ 1 2 0 ) .
A n o t h e r l a r g e f o r m o f p u b l i c a s s i s t a n c e i n M i c h i g a n i s M e d i c a i d . I n f o r m a t i o n o n
w h e t h e r t h e i n d i v i d u a l i s r e c e i v i n g M e d i c a i d i s a v a i l a b l e d u r i n g t h e 2 0 0 8 - 2 0 1 1
w a v e s o f t h e A C S . D u r i n g t h e s e y e a r s , I f i n d t h a t 5 . 9 % o f m a r r i e d a d u l t s
r e c e i v e d h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e b e n e f i t s t h r o u g h t h e M e d i c a i d p r o g r a m c o m p a r e d t o
1 9 . 2 % o f u n m a r r i e d a d u l t s ( t h e r e g r e s s i o n a d j u s t e d d i f f e r e n c e i s 9 . 8 p e r c e n t a g e
p o i n t s ) . B a s e d o n e s t i m a t e s b y t h e K a i s e r F a m i l y F o u n d a t i o n , t h e a v e r a g e

2


( $ 5 6 , 3 0 0 v s . $ 3 3 , 0 0 0 ) a n d u n e m p l o y m e n t ( 6 . 4 % v s . 1 5 . 1 % ) w h i l e t h e m a r r i a g e
g a p i s s l i g h t l y n e g a t i v e f o r w o m e n i n t e r m s o f i n c o m e ( $ 2 5 , 4 0 0 v s . $ 2 8 , 2 0 0 ) b u t
s t i l l p o s i t i v e i n t e r m s o f u n e m p l o y m e n t ( 6 . 1 % v s . 1 0 . 2 % ) . W h i l e t h e p e r s o n a l
i n c o m e o f m a r r i e d w o m e n i s l o w e r t h a n n o n - m a r r i e d w o m e n t h e f a m i l y i n c o m e i s
m u c h l a r g e r ( $ 8 4 , 3 0 0 v s . $ 3 9 , 6 0 0 ) a n d t h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e i f I j u s t r e s t r i c t t h e
s a m p l e t o w o m e n w h o a r e p a r t o f a c o u p l e ( $ 8 5 , 5 0 0 v s . $ 2 7 , 4 0 0 ) . A d j u s t i n g t h e s e
d i f f e r e n c e s b y d e m o g r a p h i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e d u c e s b o t h t h e i n c o m e a n d
u n e m p l o y m e n t g a p i n h a l f .
2 2 . T o t r a n s l a t e t h e s e i n c o m e n u m b e r s i n t o s t a t e i n c o m e t a x r e v e n u e s I u s e d t h e
T a x s i m p r o g r a m d e v e l o p e d b y t h e N a t i o n a l B u r e a u o f E c o n o m i c R e s e a r c h . T h i s
p r o g r a m t a k e s i n t o a c c o u n t t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l w a y i n w h i c h t h e t a x c o d e t r e a t s
p e r s o n s f i l i n g a n i n d i v i d u a l o r j o i n t t a x r e t u r n . I f i n d t h a t t h e t a x r e v e n u e f o r t h e
a v e r a g e i n c o m e o f a s i n g l e m a l e i n t h e s t a t e o f M i c h i g a n w o u l d b e $ 1 , 2 6 5 a n d t h e
t a x r e v e n u e a v e r a g e i n c o m e o f a s i n g l e f e m a l e w o u l d b e $ 1 , 0 4 9 . I n c o n t r a s t , a
m a r r i e d c o u p l e m a k i n g t h e a v e r a g e i n c o m e f o r t h i s g r o u p w o u l d j o i n t l y b e
p a y i n g a s t a t e i n c o m e t a x o f $ 3 , 3 3 1 .
M a r r i a g e a n d p u b l i c e x p e n d i t u r e s o n c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e a n d h e a l t h c a r e
2 3 . M a r r i a g e c h a n g e s t h e b e h a v i o r o f a d u l t s t h a t c a n p r o d u c e c o s t s s a v i n g s t o t h e
s t a t e o f M i c h i g a n b y r e d u c i n g t h e e x p e n d i t u r e s o f v a r i o u s g o v e r n m e n t p r o g r a m s .
T h e m o s t d i r e c t i m p a c t o f m a r r i a g e i s o n t h e c o s t s i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e c r i m i n a l
j u s t i c e s y s t e m . P r o b a b l y o n e o f t h e m o s t e x t e n s i v e a n d r i g o r o u s s t u d i e s o n t h e
e f f e c t s o f m a r r i a g e o n c r i m i n a l b e h a v i o r w a s c o n d u c t e d b y S a m p s o n , L a u b , a n d





1 0

1 0

1 1



i n c e n t i v e s e m b e d d e d i n t h e t a x c o d e o r t h e d i r e c t c o s t s o f g e t t i n g m a r r i e d
p r o v i d e s u p p o r t i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t e c o n o m i c i n c e n t i v e s h a v e r e a l i m p a c t s o n t h e
d e c i s i o n t o m a r r y .
T h e e x a c t s i z e o f t h e e c o n o m i c i n c e n t i v e c r e a t e d b y t h i s p o l i c y w i l l v a r y a c r o s s
c o u p l e s b a s e d o n t h e o t h e r o p p o r t u n i t i e s t h a t a r e a v a i l a b l e t o t h e p a r t n e r o f t h e
p u b l i c e m p l o y e e . H o w e v e r , f o r m a n y c o u p l e s t h e e c o n o m i c i n c e n t i v e s o f r e c e i v i n g
h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e b e n e f i t s t h r o u g h a s p o u s e w i l l b e r a t h e r l a r g e a n d a t l e a s t a s
l a r g e a s t h e e c o n o m i c i n c e n t i v e s d i s c u s s e d i n t h e p r i o r r e s e a r c h o n t h i s i s s u e .
T h e p l a i n t i f f s n o t e t h a t t h e " c o s t s o f d o m e s t i c - p a r t n e r b e n e f i t s t o p u b l i c
e m p l o y e r s a r e l i m i t e d b e c a u s e , a m o n g o t h e r r e a s o n s , t h e p o o l o f l e s b i a n a n d
g a y
e m p l o y e e s u s u a l l y i s v e r y s m a l l , a n d n o t a l l e m p l o y e e s i n s a m e - s e x r e l a t i o n s h i p s
e n r o l l i n s u c h c o v e r a g e . " T h i s e x p l a n a t i o n i s f a u l t y f o r t w o r e a s o n s . F i r s t , i t
i g n o r e s t h a t f a c t t h a t t h e l a w c h a n g e a p p l i e s t o u n m a r r i e d o p p o s i t e - s e x c o u p l e s
a s w e l l a n d t h e r e a r e 1 1 t i m e s a s m a n y u n m a r r i e d o p p o s i t e - s e x c o u p l e s a s t h e r e
a r e s a m e - s e x c o u p l e s i n t h e s t a t e o f M i c h i g a n . S e c o n d , i t i g n o r e s t h e u n i n t e n d e d
c o n s e q u e n c e s o f u n d e r m i n i n g m a r r i a g e a n d i n c r e a s i n g t h e r e l a t i v e i n c e n t i v e o f
o p p o s i t e - s e x c o u p l e s t o c o h a b i t i n s t e a d o f m a r r y . T h e s o c i a l a n d e c o n o m i c c o s t s o f
u n d e r m i n i n g m a r r i a g e a m o n g o p p o s i t e - s e x c o u p l e s c o n s t i t u t e a m u c h l a r g e r
e c o n o m i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n c e t h e r e a r e 1 5 0 t i m e s a s m a n y o p p o s i t e - s e x c o u p l e s
i n t h e s t a t e o f M i c h i g a n a s t h e r e a r e s a m e - s e x c o u p l e s . T h u s w h i l e t h e
a r g u m e n t s p r o v i d e d b y t h e P l a i n t i f f s f o c u s o n t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e P u b l i c E m p l o y e e
D o m e s t i c P a r t n e r B e n e f i t R e s t r i c t i o n A c t h a s o n s a m e - s e x c o u p l e s . T h e y i g n o r e
t h e b e n e f i c i a l s o c i a l a n d e c o n o m i c e f f e c t s t h e l a w h a s f o r t h e s t a t e o f M i c h i g a n .
V I . C o n c l u s i o n s
R e s t r i c t i n g p u b l i c e m p l o y e r p r o v i d e d h e a l t h c a r e b e n e f i t s t o m a r r i e d c o u p l e s h a s
t h e e f f e c t o f f o s t e r i n g m a r r i a g e a s d e f i n e d b y M i c h i g a n ' s C o n s t i t u t i o n , t h a t i s
b e t w e e n o n e m a n a n d o n e w o m a n . M a r r i a g e p r o v i d e s e c o n o m i c b e n e f i t s t o t h e
s t a t e o f M i c h i g a n b y r e d u c i n g w e l f a r e p a y m e n t s , i n c r e a s i n g t a x r e v e n u e , a n d
r e d u c i n g c o s t s i n c u r r e d b y t h e s t a t e r e l a t e d t o c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e a n d h e a l t h c a r e .
A c o u p l e ' s d e c i s i o n t o m a r r y i s a f f e c t e d b y c h a n g e s i n t h e b e n e f i t s o f m a r r i a g e
a n d t h e b e n e f i t s a f f o r d e d t o a l t e r n a t i v e a r r a n g e m e n t s , s u c h a s c o h a b i t a t i o n .
R e s t r i c t i n g p a r t n e r h e a l t h b e n e f i t s t o m a r r i e d c o u p l e s c r e a t e s a n a d d i t i o n a l
i n c e n t i v e f o r c o u p l e s t o m a r r y a n d t h i s d e c i s i o n t o m a r r y p r o d u c e s e c o n o m i c
b e n e f i t s f o r t h e s t a t e o f M i c h i g a n . E x t e n d i n g t h e s e b e n e f i t s t o c o h a b i t i n g c o u p l e s
i n c r e a s e s t h e d i r e c t c o s t s t o p u b l i c e m p l o y e r s t o c o v e r t h e s e b e n e f i t s a n d
i n c r e a s e s t h e r e l a t i v e i n c e n t i v e t o c o h a b i t i n s t e a d o f m a r r y . W h i l e t h e p l a n t i f f s
a r g u m e n t s f o c u s o n t h e d i r e c t e f f e c t s o n s a m e - s e x c o u p l e s , t h e y i g n o r e t h e e f f e c t s
o v e r t u r n i n g t h e l a w w o u l d h a v e o n t h e 9 2 % o f u n m a r r i e d c o u p l e s i n M i c h i g a n
t h a t a r e o p p o s i t e - s e x a n d a n y s o c i a l a n d e c o n o m i c b e n e f i t s t o t h e s t a t e i t s e l f .
D a t e d : D e c e m b e r 1 6 , 2 0 1 3
B y :
J o s e p h P r i c e ,
P h D






Exhibit 15
Page 1
1
2
SOUTHERN DIVISION
3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4
)
5
6
7
)
8
Plaintiffs, )
)
9
-vs- )File No.
)2:12-cv-10038
10
11
)
12
Defendant. )
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
13
14
D E P O S I T I O N
15
of JEROME POST, a witness called by Defendant, taken
16
17
and Notary Public, at 241 West South Street, Kalamazoo,
18
Michigan, on Thursday, February 6, 2014, noticed for the
19
hour of 10:00 a.m.
20
21
22
P.O. Box 27603
23
(517) 349-0847
24
Fax: (517) 244-0805
25
Page 2
1
APPEARANCES:
2
300 North LaSalle
3
By
4
DEBRA LEFLER, J.D.
5
6
7
2nd Floor
8
By
9
ROCK WOOD, J.D.
10
11
CITY OF KALAMAZOO
241 West South Street
12
Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
By
13
CLYDE J. ROBINSON, J.D.
14
On behalf of City of Kalamazoo.
15
Also present: Tom Skrobola
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 4
1
Kalamazoo, Michigan
2
Thursday, February 6, 2014
3
10:10 a.m.
4
R E C O R D
5
JEROME POST,
6
MR. WOOD: Let the record reflect that this
7
is the time and place for the deposition, the rule
8
30(b)(6) deposition of the City of Kalamazoo pursuant to
9
deposition notice and subpoena served upon the City and
10
the various parties. We have actually two witnesses
11
here today from the City who are each apparently, I'm
12
informed, knowledgeable about certain areas so we'll ask
13
each of them about the areas for which they have
14
knowledge.
15
EXAMINATION
16
BY MR. WOOD:
17
Q. Sir, could you state your name for the record,
18
please?
19
A. That is Jerome Post.
20
Q. And what is your position with the City?
21
A. I am the human resources and labor relations
22
director.
23
Q. And have you ever had your deposition taken
24
before?
25
A. Yes, I have.
Page 6
1
A. No.
2
Q. What have been the positions you've held with the
3
City?
4
A. I was hired in as the labor relations specialist.
5
I was promoted in 2006, I believe, to assistant
6
director. And in September of 2007 I was made interim
7
human resources director and placed in the permanent
8
position, regular position, in January of 2008.
9
Q. And you've held the position since then?
10
A. Correct.
11
Q. And what do your duties include in that position?
12
A. I oversee a staff of currently six people
13
covering benefits and compensation, labor relations,
14
training and development, and quite a range of other HR
15
duties.
16
Q. Now, we sent out a deposition subpoena and notice
17
to the City and I'm going to show you a copy of that,
18
we're going to mark it as an exhibit. Would you mark
19
that please?
20
21
22
BY MR. WOOD:
23
Q. We've marked the deposition notice and 30(b)(6)
24
deposition notice and subpoena as Exhibit 1. Have you
25
seen that before today?
Page 7
1
A. Yes, I have.
2
Q. And that asks that the City be able to produce
3
someone who could answer certain questions and to
4
produce certain information including the City of
5
Kalamazoo's current OQA adult benefit criteria, do you
6
see that?
7
A. Yes.
8
Q. And where would we find that criteria? I think I
9
believe I asked you if you brought that with you and you
10
said you had not, correct?
11
A. That is correct.
12
Q. Are you able to readily obtain that?
13
A. I believe so.
14
Q. And where would you go to obtain that?
15
A. That would be in the second floor of city hall
16
here in the human resources office.
17
Q. So if we wanted to get a current copy of that
18
could you have someone go down and get a copy for us?
19
A. I believe so.
20
MR. WOOD: Let me mark this exhibit as
21
Exhibit 2 and I'll tell you what this is.
22
23
24
BY MR. WOOD:
25
Q. This document states that it's called City of
Page 8
1
Kalamazoo program criteria: Other qualified adult, and
2
this was attached to some of the plaintiff's pleadings
3
in this case back in 2012. I don't know if it reflects
4
what is currently the City's other qualified adult
5
benefit criteria, but by looking at that are you able to
6
tell if that's the current policy or not?
7
A. I believe it is.
8
Q. And the second page would be the current form of
9
affidavit that the City uses?
10
A. Correct.
11
Q. So it hasn't changed since 2012, then, correct?
12
A. Correct.
13
Q. In order to prepare for your deposition today
14
what, if anything, did you do other than talking to the
15
City's attorney?
16
A. I reviewed the affidavit that was filed by the
17
former city manager, Ken Collard, and refreshed my
18
memory on some of the details that were presented to the
19
court. And the way I did that was by looking through
20
files that we have in the human resources office on the
21
development of the original domestic partner benefits
22
that evolved into the other qualified adult benefit.
23
Q. And are those files here in this building?
24
A. Yes, they are.
25
Q. And what specifically are the files that led to
Page 10
1
A. Sure.
2
Q. Now, on the other qualified adult benefit program
3
or policy that was passed or implemented by the City of
4
Kalamazoo, did you have any role in that?
5
A. I did.
6
Q. And what role did you have?
7
A. It was to inform and advise the city manager as
8
to the development of legislative action and decisions
9
from the city attorney -- excuse me, state attorney
10
general's office regarding the implementation of
11
domestic partner benefits.
12
Q. And when you say your role was to inform, was
13
that done in writing?
14
A. Generally it was verbal. There may be some old
15
emails along the way about dates.
16
Q. And those would be emails between you and the
17
city manager?
18
A. Correct.
19
Q. And would you still have those in your or the
20
City's file?
21
A. That I don't know.
22
Q. And what year would you have been informing or
23
advising the city manager regarding the City's OQA
24
policy?
25
A. Regarding the OQA policy specifically would have
Page 11
1
been in 2007.
2
Q. Is that the year that the City implemented the
3
OQA policy?
4
A. Yes, it is.
5
Q. And were you involved in the actual meetings
6
where the City voted upon and passed the policy, the OQA
7
policy?
8
A. To answer that question I would have to clarify
9
that there were no votes taken to pass a policy, it was
10
an administrative action by the city manager.
11
Q. So under the City's rules and guidelines the OQA
12
policy did not require a vote of the city council or the
13
city commission?
14
A. Correct.
15
Q. And was the city manager at the time Mr. Collard?
16
A. Yes.
17
Q. Do you know what, if any, information Mr. Collard
18
was provided with or considered prior to implementing
19
the OQA policy?
20
A. In particular Mr. Collard was informed of an
21
opinion by then state attorney general, who opined that
22
although the constitutional amendment that was passed
23
barring recognition of any same sex marriages for any
24
reason, he also opined that if the City's policy were to
25
include non -- or heterosexual couples or any single
Page 12
1
person or adult in the household that the policy would
2
not be in violation of the constitutional amendment.
3
Q. Prior to 2007 what, if any, policy did the City
4
have relative to domestic partners or other qualified
5
adults?
6
A. The City had a domestic partner benefits policy
7
that provided health and dental insurance to same sex
8
partners of city employees.
9
Q. And as the policy was implemented in 2007 how did
10
it change from the prior policy?
11
A. It expanded the policy to first allow for any
12
adult living in the household of a city employee under a
13
particular criteria that has been identified in Exhibit
14
2 as being eligible for coverage under the City's health
15
insurance plan.
16
Q. And if we take a moment to look at Exhibit 2,
17
which is the OQA criteria that you just referenced, I'd
18
like to ask a few questions about that.
19
A. Okay.
20
Q. On page one of Exhibit 2, item number one, among
21
the criteria or the eligibility requirements it says
22
that number one is the applicant must produce evidence
23
that the employee and other qualified adults share a
24
common principal residence having done so for at least
25
twelve consecutive months; do you see that?
Page 14
1
Q. As the HR and labor director, would it be within
2
your role or scope of responsibilities to oversee or
3
implement the OQA policy for the City?
4
A. Yes.
5
Q. What would you understand requirement number two
6
in the program criteria here in Exhibit 2 to reference?
7
A. My understanding would be that the persons not be
8
legally married under state law, nor would they be
9
directly -- let me see if I can say the right word,
10
direct children or direct dependents that would be
11
recognized as inheritors if there were no spouse
12
currently alive or eligible.
13
Q. In implementing the OQA policy, have you ever had
14
an instance where you were called upon to interpret
15
point number two?
16
A. No.
17
Q. What is your understanding of requirement number
18
five of the City's OQA policy?
19
A. My understanding of point number five is that
20
neither employee nor the qualified adult are considered
21
dependents as defined by the Internal Revenue Service.
22
Q. So in order to be eligible under the City of
23
Kalamazoo other qualified adult benefit coverage, the
24
two parties, meaning the employee and the other
25
qualified adult, would not be financially
Page 20
1
Sessions.
2
Q. And when you say vice-president of the
3
organization, you mean of Mercer?
4
A. Of Mercer, yes.
5
Q. And do you know how to spell her last name?
6
A. S-e-s-s-i-o-n-s.
7
Q. And is that the only audit of individuals who
8
have applied for benefits under the OQA policy that
9
you're aware of?
10
A. Yes.
11
Q. Is there any collective bargaining agreement or
12
other contract that would preclude, to your
13
understanding, the City of Kalamazoo from terminating
14
the OQA policy now that it's been implemented?
15
A. Yes.
16
Q. And what would that be?
17
A. There are five bargaining units in the City and
18
each of them have language in their contracts providing
19
the other qualified language.
20
Q. So, for example, when or if there were a legal
21
ruling that OQA benefits were not permissible under the
22
law, would the City then be able to terminate that
23
policy?
24
MR. ROBINSON: Objection, calls for a legal
25
conclusion.
Page 21
1
BY MR. WOOD:
2
Q. To the best of your understanding?
3
A. To the best of my understanding the contracts
4
that are in place must run their course and expire, at
5
which point we would no longer be able to offer the
6
benefits. I will clarify, however, that in recent
7
negotiations we have included language in at least one
8
of the contracts that I'm aware of that states that, as
9
soon as the benefits are deemed to be illegal, that they
10
end immediately as opposed to at the end of the
11
contract.
12
Q. And which of the five CPAs does that language
13
appear in?
14
A. That would appear in the KMEA or Kalamazoo
15
Municipal Employees Association.
16
Q. And what are the other four collective bargaining
17
agreements or groups?
18
A. The other four include the ATU or Amalgamated
19
Transit Union; AFSCME, American Federation of State,
20
County, and Municipal Employers; the KPSOA, which is the
21
Kalamazoo Public Safety Officers Association; and the
22
KPSA, the Kalamazoo Police Supervisors Association.
23
Q. The third paragraph of the affidavit states that
24
extending benefits may have tax consequences; do you see
25
that language?
Page 22
1
A. Yes, sir.
2
Q. In your experience has the City of Kalamazoo
3
reported any tax consequences to either the employee or
4
the other qualified adult as a result of any benefits
5
obtained by those individuals under the City's OQA
6
policy?
7
A. Yes.
8
Q. And what has the City reported in that regard?
9
A. The City has reported or communicated to the
10
beneficiaries or the employees who received the benefit
11
that the tax -- their income is taxed based on the
12
monetary value of the benefit, both for state and
13
federal purposes.
14
Q. And do you know what the benefit -- strike that,
15
I'm sorry. Do you know what the value of that benefit
16
is on an individual's tax reporting; is it standard per
17
employee?
18
A. I don't have that information.
19
Q. And do you know who would have that information?
20
A. Either our management services director, Tom
21
Skrobola, or the benefits specialist, John Buchtrup.
22
Q. Do you know the form in which that is reported?
23
A. I know that it is verbal. When employees sign up
24
for the benefits John Buchtrup notifies people what the
25
tax implications are. I don't know if it's written or
Page 24
1
benefits.
2
Q. Anything else that you can remember?
3
A. Not that I recall.
4
Q. Do you know if any of those communications were
5
written?
6
A. Only in email form.
7
Q. Would you still have any of those emails?
8
A. No, it was so long ago.
9
Q. Do you know approximately what year or years it
10
was?
11
A. It had to be shortly after the referendum in
12
2004, so it would have been late 2004 into 2005. And
13
then again around 2006 or 7 when the legislation was
14
introduced to bar the benefits altogether.
15
Q. Did Mr. Kaplan initiate the communications or did
16
your office?
17
A. No, Mr. Kaplan did.
18
Q. And did he say why he was initiating those
19
communications?
20
A. He was looking for support in particular in
21
testimony in a house subcommittee meeting when the
22
legislation was being considered to bar the benefits.
23
Q. And did anybody on behalf of the City provide any
24
support or testimony?
25
A. Yes, I did.
Page 25
1
Q. And what is it that you provided?
2
A. I testified to the house subcommittee on behalf
3
of the city manager that the City of Kalamazoo felt it
4
was better for us to be able to provide those benefits
5
and the reasons for them.
6
Q. And what was the particular subcommittee that you
7
were in front of?
8
A. I really don't remember the name of it.
9
Q. You don't know what year that was?
10
A. I believe that would have been fall of -- I don't
11
remember the year. It would have been the fall prior to
12
Governor Snyder signing the bill into law, which was
13
December, I believe, two years ago.
14
Q. Did anyone go to the subcommittee meeting with
15
you?
16
A. No.
17
Q. Did you have to have any approval by your
18
employer to go?
19
A. Define approval.
20
Q. Well, did you have to go -- did you have to ask
21
anybody or let anybody know that you were going?
22
A. I let the city manager know I was going, yes.
23
Q. And did he approve that or agree with it?
24
A. Yes, he did.
25
Q. Are you aware of what the rationale was on behalf
Page 26
1
of the City for implementing the OQA benefits?
2
A. Yes.
3
Q. And what was the City's rationale?
4
A. The City was working to be able to recruit and
5
retain talented individuals, particularly into key
6
positions that we have in the past recruited either
7
regionally or nationally.
8
Q. And what would those positions be?
9
A. It would include positions such as city manager,
10
deputy and assistant city managers, department
11
directors.
12
Q. Have any of those particular individuals obtained
13
any OQA benefits?
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. How many?
16
A. We currently have a total of six employees who
17
receive the benefits. Not all of them are in that level
18
of the position -- of the organization, however.
19
Q. Do you know how many are in that level?
20
A. I do.
21
Q. And how many?
22
A. There's one department director. There are two
23
key employees who, although are not department
24
directors, hold the position of special interest within
25
the City.
Page 27
1
Q. And why is that of special interest when you say
2
of special interest?
3
A. Well, one in particular is a person in the
4
informational technology arena or department that has
5
special talents and has worked with the City for some
6
time. A second one is in the finance area of the City
7
that holds a key position relative to revenue with the
8
City.
9
Q. When the City hired those employees in the IT
10
area and the finance area or these six positions, did
11
the City have more than one application submitted for
12
filling those positions?
13
A. Yes.
14
Q. Did the City go through a competitive interview
15
process?
16
A. Yes.
17
Q. Did the City have multiple applicants from which
18
to choose?
19
A. Yes.
20
Q. For example, for the City finance position, were
21
you involved in the hiring for that position?
22
A. No.
23
Q. Do you know approximately how many applicants
24
there were for that position?
25
A. I do not.
Page 28
1
Q. For the IT position, do you know how many
2
applicants there were?
3
A. No.
4
Q. Has the City undertaken any study or data to be
5
able to determine whether it could not fill positions in
6
the absence of the OQA policy?
7
A. No study was done, no.
8
Q. Is there any study or data or evidence at the
9
City to be able to prove that the City would not be able
10
to retain employees to fill these positions without the
11
OQA policy?
12
A. No official study was done, no.
13
Q. Have you undertaken any unofficial study?
14
A. No.
15
Q. Do you have any evidence by which to prove or
16
show that the City, in the absence of the OQA policy,
17
would not have those six positions filled where the
18
employees have obtained OQA benefits?
19
A. Yes.
20
Q. And what evidence do you have?
21
A. My own personal evidence.
22
Q. And what is that personal evidence?
23
A. I am one of the six people who are receiving the
24
benefits.
25
Q. Okay.
Page 29
1
A. When I hired in in 2001 I was being recruited
2
also by two private sector firms who were actually much
3
closer to my own house when I lived by the lakeshore at
4
that time, by Lake Michigan lakeshore. I had a choice
5
of pursuing either one of those two private sector
6
employments or the one with the City of Kalamazoo, who
7
offered the benefits at the time. Because of those
8
benefits I chose to pursue the City.
9
Q. Did the two private employers offer the benefits?
10
A. No, they did not.
11
Q. Other than your personal experience do you have
12
any other evidence to support that -- to support the
13
position that the City would not be able to hire or
14
retain any employees to fill any of those six positions?
15
A. No.
16
Q. Do you have any evidence to say that the City
17
could not have filled your position with another
18
individual were it not to have the OQA policy?
19
A. No.
20
Q. When you were hired, was it a competitive
21
interview process on behalf of the City?
22
A. Yes, it was.
23
Q. Were there multiple applicants?
24
A. Yes, there were.
25
Q. Do you know of or have any evidence where the
Page 30
1
City has quantified numerically the value of the OQA
2
policy, if any?
3
A. I believe it has.
4
Q. And what would that evidence be?
5
A. Just a simple analysis as to what the benefit has
6
cost the City.
7
Q. Let me approach it slightly different. I think
8
I'm asking something a little different. Has the City
9
ever undertaken to identify any specific value to the
10
City, quantifiable, by virtue of having the OQA policy?
11
A. I can't say that there's ever been any formal
12
study to that effect, no.
13
Q. Is there any evidence or numerical data of any
14
sort that you're aware of?
15
A. I am aware of the work that has been done by the
16
six employees who are covered by the benefit, and in
17
particular my own case where I can identify monies that
18
the City has saved and even cost avoidance in the health
19
care systems by the work that I have done.
20
Q. Would it be part of the job duties of your
21
position and the other five employees to provide value
22
to the City and to pursue cost savings and risk
23
avoidance and cost avoidance for the City?
24
A. Yes.
25
Q. And would that be true of whoever filled that
Page 31
1
position regardless of whether there was an OQA policy
2
with the City?
3
A. I believe so, yes.
4
Q. Other than stating that those six employees
5
provide work and benefit to the City as part of their
6
normal job duties of those positions, are you aware of
7
any evidence quantifiable in terms of numbers or dollars
8
where the City has actually identified any value to the
9
City of the OQA policy?
10
A. No.
11
Q. In your experience, is one of the fastest growing
12
areas of costs in terms of benefit to the City health
13
care costs?
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. Have you ever spoken with an individual by the
16
name of Badgett or Doctor Badgett?
17
A. No.
18
Q. Of the six individuals who have applied for and
19
obtained OQA benefits, do you know how many are or have
20
obtained benefits for an OQA that was same sex as
21
compared to an OQA who was opposite sex?
22
A. I believe I have that knowledge and it was
23
presented to me by John Buchtrup, so if I may refer to a
24
document that he had given me.
25
Q. Okay.
Page 32
1
A. Of the six individuals there are four that are
2
opposite sex and two that are -- excuse me, one, two,
3
three, four, yup, four that are opposite sex.
4
Q. And two would have same sex OQAs?
5
A. Correct.
6
Q. Now, are there any dependent or dependents as
7
OQAs, in other words, does any employee have an OQA
8
partner who has a dependent such that of those six any
9
would be dependents or minors?
10
A. As I understand our policy the children or
11
dependents of the OQA are not eligible for coverage, but
12
the children of the employee are, but they would be
13
under the general policy anyway.
14
Q. So they would be covered or potentially covered
15
even if there was no OQA policy, the children of the
16
employee?
17
A. Correct, right.
18
Q. And the children of the OQA are not eligible
19
under the OQA policy even though it exists?
20
A. I believe that's correct, yes.
21
Q. So as far as the City of Kalamazoo, the
22
dependents or children of the OQA really don't fall into
23
the equation of the cost or benefit of the OQA policy,
24
correct?
25
A. That's my understanding.
Page 37
1
A. Yes.
2
Q. I take it the information in paragraph four would
3
still be accurate because that's historical information,
4
correct?
5
A. Correct.
6
Q. It looks to be that the information in paragraph
7
five would still be accurate because it appears that the
8
current criteria for the City are the same, right?
9
A. I believe so, yes.
10
Q. Let's just step back to Exhibit 3 for a moment so
11
that I have identified what this chart is for the
12
record. And, excuse me, I can't recall if I asked you
13
who created this because there was a little break in the
14
action there while it was being copied, but who created
15
this document?
16
A. It was created by our benefits specialist, John
17
Buchtrup.
18
Q. And what was the purpose of this document?
19
A. I had asked him to update me or provide some
20
information that was requested in the original notice of
21
deposition.
22
Q. And that's been marked as Exhibit Number 1,
23
correct?
24
A. Correct.
25
Q. And what information requested in Exhibit Number
Page 39
1
$2400 to cover himself and also $2400 to cover the OQA
2
if he had one; in other words, is the cost to cover
3
yourself and the cost to cover an OQA the same amount
4
per individual?
5
A. It is inclusive of the OQA and the employee.
6
Q. Okay.
7
A. It's a total cost.
8
Q. Okay. So, for example, in number one, if we had
9
an individual in the NBU group in 2008 who wanted to get
10
insurance for himself and his OQA, the total cost for
11
the two of them would be $2400?
12
A. Correct.
13
Q. How would we be able to determine what the cost,
14
the additional cost, to add the OQA was?
15
A. In the second section you will see what the
16
normal cost of the -- I should say the normal
17
contribution out of paycheck from the employee on a
18
monthly basis. You'd have to annualize that to compare
19
the two.
20
Q. Now, that says in the second column, for example,
21
it says two party/per month, and then in the next column
22
it says family/per month. Am I correct in understanding
23
this, if there was two individuals, for example, an
24
employee and an OQA, in 19- -- I'm sorry, in 2008 the
25
cost would be $91 for those two individuals per month?
Page 40
1
A. Correct.
2
Q. What would it be for one individual per month?
3
A. I don't recall what it was back then.
4
Q. Would there be a way that we could identify what
5
the additional cost per month to add one person such as
6
an OQA would be, what the incremental addition would be?
7
Does that question make sense to you?
8
A. Maybe not.
9
Q. I'm trying to figure out if you just had the
10
individual employee as compared to the individual
11
employee plus an OQA, what's the difference in those two
12
costs? Because there must be something additional to
13
add the OQA.
14
A. Right, and I don't know that I can answer that
15
myself. That might be a better question for John
16
Buchtrup.
17
Q. And then in the third section of Exhibit 3 what
18
is it that we see?
19
A. The third section shows the number of other
20
qualified adults that are in the plan and the level of
21
coverage that they have.
22
Q. Okay. So, for example, if -- let me see now, in
23
January of 2014 we know that there are a total of six
24
employees who have obtained OQA benefits because that's
25
at the bottom of the second column, correct?
Page 41
1
A. Correct.
2
Q. And so there would be one from the ATU group, one
3
from the KME group, from one -- I'm sorry, two from the
4
NBU group, and two from the AFSCME group, correct?
5
A. Correct.
6
Q. And we would know from the asterisk to the far
7
left column whether it's one asterisk it would be
8
opposite sex OQA and if it's two asterisks it would be
9
legally married same sex, correct?
10
A. Correct.
11
Q. And then the --
12
MR. ROBINSON: Can I have a break for a
13
moment, I'd like to confer with Mr. Post?
14
MR. WOOD: Sure, okay.
15
(Off the record.)
16
MR. WOOD: Back on the record.
17
BY MR. WOOD:
18
Q. I don't think we left off with a question, we
19
didn't have a question dangling, did we? Was there
20
anything we needed to clarify or add to?
21
MR. ROBINSON: I think the reporter probably
22
can tell us best.
23
MR. WOOD: Okay, I didn't know if you had
24
taken a break because you wanted to have him correct
25
something. That's why I wasn't sure, I was just giving
Page 45
1
Q. And then in item number two it asks for the
2
number of other qualified adults provided medical
3
insurance benefits by the City, including the number
4
that are opposite sex partners and the number that are
5
same sex partners and the number of OQA dependents also
6
covered. And between Exhibit 3 and your testimony we've
7
addressed that, correct?
8
A. Correct.
9
Q. The City -- number three is the City's costs to
10
provide coverage for OQA employees and employee OQA-
11
OQAs, which are dependents, each fiscal year beginning
12
in 2008 and you indicated that if we wanted that
13
information we could either perhaps ask the next witness
14
or we could ask the city attorney for the Mercer report,
15
correct?
16
A. Correct.
17
Q. And would the Mercer report only include one year
18
of information?
19
A. Yes, it would.
20
Q. If we wanted to know the cost of the City to
21
provide coverage for employees or their OQA for each
22
year beginning 2008, is there another document that
23
would have that cost?
24
A. Yes, there would be a report for each of those
25
years.
Page 54
1
original domestic partner benefits plan you would not
2
have been employed by the City, true?
3
A. That is true.
4
Q. It looks like it was done roughly a year or so
5
prior to you first starting, correct?
6
A. Correct.
7
Q. In paragraph 20, the seventh line, there's a
8
statement that says -- well, let me just read the
9
sentence, this philosophy has had a return on investment
10
in the form of quality of employees participating in the
11
domestic partner and other qualified adult insurance
12
plans who have saved the City literally millions of
13
dollars through the work they have done since the
14
implementation of domestic partner benefits; do you see
15
that sentence?
16
A. Yes, sir.
17
Q. Do you know specifically what millions of dollars
18
are being referred to there?
19
A. Yes, I do.
20
Q. What are the millions of dollars?
21
A. That would be the millions of dollars saved in
22
retiree health care costs through bargaining with
23
bargaining units to change the retiree health care plans
24
that I believe Mr. Skrobola will be able to support in
25
terms of the amount of money that the City has saved in
Page 55
1
cost avoidance with the increased cost of health care
2
that is projected over years.
3
Q. In other words, one or more of the OQA related
4
employees had a role in those negotiations?
5
A. Correct.
6
Q. And that would have been something that who was
7
ever -- whoever was in that employment position, whether
8
they had an OQA or not, would have had those job duties,
9
correct?
10
A. They would have been expected to reduce health
11
care costs, yes.
12
Q. As part of their normal job duties?
13
A. Correct.
14
Q. So when you're referring to the millions of
15
dollars, those are the typical duties of those job
16
positions where an employee has applied for or involving
17
an employee who has applied for OQA benefits, correct?
18
A. I wouldn't necessarily call them typical duties.
19
Q. They would be duties that would be expected of an
20
employee in those positions?
21
A. Yes.
22
Q. Other than yourself in paragraph 21 do you know
23
of any specific employee who has been particularly
24
recruited because of an OQA policy, any number?
25
A. Not to my knowledge.
Page 56
1
Q. Do you know of any specific number of employees
2
who has been retained because of the OQA policy other
3
than yourself?
4
A. That would be my opinion and I don't know that
5
you want my opinion on that as opposed to specific
6
knowledge.
7
Q. Okay. Other than your opinion, do you have any
8
data or affirmative statement or evidence that we could
9
look at that would say that any specific number of
10
employees other than yourself have been retained by the
11
City of Kalamazoo by virtue of the OQA policy?
12
A. No.
13
Q. And would paragraphs 21 and 22 and 23 also be
14
paragraphs that you had helped Mr. Collard put together
15
for this statement?
16
A. Yes, sir.
17
Q. At the bottom of paragraph 23 it talks about the
18
costs of losing and having to rehire employees; do you
19
see that?
20
A. Yes, sir.
21
Q. Would that be true for all employees whether or
22
not they have an OQA?
23
A. Yes.
24
Q. In today's market is it more or less expensive to
25
retain -- I'm sorry, to hire a new employee than it was,
Page 57
1
say, in 2008?
2
A. My experience has been that the cost of replacing
3
employees increases each year. I would suspect that
4
that would be a true statement.
5
Q. Do you know -- strike that. In your position you
6
have been involved in the hiring of employees by the
7
City of Kalamazoo over the past six years or more,
8
correct?
9
A. Correct.
10
Q. Would it be fair to say that there has in this
11
economy been a high number of applicants for open
12
positions with the City of Kalamazoo?
13
A. Again, that would be my opinion, and if you want
14
my opinion, I'll state that.
15
Q. Well, let me ask it this way, when the City of
16
Kalamazoo has posted job openings, have there been
17
multiple applicants who have submitted resumes or
18
applications?
19
A. Yes.
20
Q. What would be a typical number of applicants that
21
would submit applications when you post an opening at
22
23
A. It depends on the position.
24
Q. For example, say a management position?
25
A. For a management position, typical number of
Page 58
1
applicants, my experience has been in the vicinity of 25
2
or so.
3
Q. Is there a range; is 25 the high, 25 the low, 25
4
the average?
5
A. I would say it's mid range, average, yeah.
6
Q. Do you know if surrounding municipalities such as
7
Allegan or Coldwater or Battle Creek or Jackson have
8
similar OQA benefit policies?
9
A. I honestly don't know.
10
Q. Where is Mr. Collard now?
11
A. He is retired.
12
Q. Does he live in the Kalamazoo area?
13
A. Yes, he does.
14
Q. I just have one little section I want to check
15
here. I think I've covered most of it but just to make
16
sure I cover what I'm supposed to cover here. Let me
17
just look at my notes. Has anyone asked you to prepare
18
any updated declaration or statements similar to
19
Mr. Collard's?
20
A. No.
21
Q. Do you have any plans to --
22
A. Oh, wait a minute, I take that back, I was asked
23
to provide an update to which we have not done.
24
Q. Do you plan to do that?
25
A. No.
Page 59
1
Q. And is there any particular reason you don't plan
2
to do it?
3
A. I can't say there's any one particular reason,
4
other than I don't think there's a need for it.
5
Q. And why is that?
6
A. I think the affidavit filed by Mr. Collard
7
describes the City's position quite well. The only
8
thing that could be updated really are the financial
9
figures and that can be done via this testimony as
10
opposed to filing another affidavit. I will say as well
11
that with the retirement of Ken Collard we do have a new
12
city manager who has no knowledge whatsoever of any of
13
this subject matter and I feel it would be inappropriate
14
and unfair to him to ask him to jump in the fray at this
15
point, if you will.
16
Q. I know I have his name here somewhere. What's
17
the new city manager's name?
18
A. It's Jim Ritsema.
19
Q. And he didn't have any involvement in
20
implementing or working on implementing the OQA policy
21
for the City of Kalamazoo; is that true?
22
A. That's true.
23
Q. Are there any drafts or red line versions of
24
Mr. Collard's declaration that exist?
25
A. Not to my knowledge.
Page 63
1
2007 was a city manager administrative action that
2
didn't require a vote; is that correct?
3
A. That's correct.
4
Q. Are you aware of whether the previous policy
5
which was implemented I believe in 2000 was also an
6
administrative action?
7
A. That is correct.
8
Q. So it did not require a vote?
9
A. Correct.
10
Q. And just one more -- a couple more questions
11
about the declaration of Mr. Collard. You testified
12
that you prepared -- you helped prepare the history and
13
benefits section; is that right?
14
A. Correct.
15
Q. And that would include paragraphs 18 through 26
16
of Mr. Collard's declaration?
17
A. Yes.
18
Q. Do these paragraphs accurately reflect the
19
information you gave Mr. Collard at the time?
20
A. I hope so, yes. Do they accurately reflect the
21
information that I gave Mr. Collard at the time? I
22
believe it does.
23
Q. Is there any reason to believe that the
24
information is not accurate?
25
A. No.
Page 64
1
Q. So if we can just look at paragraph 19, the last
2
sentence, which reads, by allowing employees to obtain
3
benefits for their OQAs, including their same sex
4
partners, the City of Kalamazoo is furthering city
5
voters' expressed preference for work place fairness to
6
gay and lesbian employees. Does that remain true today?
7
A. Yes, it does.
8
Q. And let's look at paragraph 22, the last sentence
9
there. Is it still true today that in order for the
10
City to recruit and hire the most qualified employees
11
for each position it must be able to hire from and
12
consider as broad a group of qualified individuals as
13
possible?
14
A. As I responded to questions from the other
15
attorney, I would have to say that that is my opinion
16
and as a human resources professional it is, yes.
17
Q. Okay. If we can look at also paragraph 24, which
18
reads, the signaling effect of providing these benefits
19
can have significant benefits for the local economy.
20
Does the City of Kalamazoo still believe that to be
21
true?
22
A. I can't speak for the entire City of Kalamazoo in
23
this particular case. You have to understand that as
24
described elsewhere in this document the City of
25
Kalamazoo tends to be liberal leaning and benefiting
Page 65
1
from that liberal position in some instances. So I
2
would have to say that in that context that statement is
3
still true.
4
Q. So you're saying that providing other qualified
5
adult benefits reflects preferences on City of
6
Kalamazoo's voter population?
7
A. Yes.
8
MR. WOOD: Object to the form of the
9
question.
10
MS. LEFLER: Okay, that's all I have.
11
THE WITNESS: Okay.
12
RE-EXAMINATION
13
BY MR. WOOD:
14
Q. I just have one quick follow up question. Are
15
you aware of any study, analysis, or data to support a
16
statement that there is any particular or quantifiable
17
economic benefit to the City of Kalamazoo by virtue of
18
having the OQA policy?
19
A. I can't say there is.
20
MR. WOOD: Thank you. That's all I have.
21
Are we all done?
22
MS. LEFLER: That's it.
23
(Whereupon Deposition concluded at 11:45 a.m.)
24
25
Exhibit 16
Page 1
1
2
SOUTHERN DIVISION
3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
)
4
5
6
7
)
Plaintiffs, )
8
)
-vs- )File No.
9
)2:12-cv-10038
10
11
)
Defendant. )
12
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
13
D E P O S I T I O N
14
of THOMAS SKROBOLA, a witness called by Defendant, taken
15
16
and Notary Public, at 241 South Street, Kalamazoo,
17
Michigan, on Thursday, February 6, 2014, noticed for the
18
hour of 10:00 a.m.
19
20
21
P.O. Box 27603
22
(517) 349-0847
23
Fax: (517) 244-0805
24
25
Page 2
1
APPEARANCES:
2
300 North LaSalle
3
By
4
DEBRA LEFLER, J.D.
5
6
7
2nd Floor
8
By
9
ROCK WOOD, J.D.
10
11
CITY OF KALAMAZOO
241 West South Street
12
Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
By
13
CLYDE J. ROBINSON, J.D.
14
On behalf of City of Kalamazoo.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 5
1
say yes or no, try not to talk over each other. If
2
attorneys have objections let them state those on the
3
record and then you can respond unless directed
4
otherwise by your counsel. If you don't understand a
5
question let me know, and if you answer it I'll assume
6
you understood and go from there, fair enough?
7
A. Sure.
8
Q. What is your position with the City of Kalamazoo?
9
A. I'm a director of management services/chief
10
financial officer.
11
Q. So you would be able to address financial issues
12
on behalf of the City, correct?
13
A. Yes.
14
Q. And what would fall within the scope of your
15
duties generally?
16
A. Well, generically all things financial.
17
Specifically I manage the departments -- the divisions,
18
rather, of budget and accounting: Fiscal services,
19
which is basically everything we do to pay people,
20
including paychecks, pension checks, vendor checks, et
21
cetera; treasury, which is the handling of money
22
generically, investments, pension administrator, since
23
we have our own pension system here; purchasing, which
24
manages procurement; and also assessing, which deals
25
with the valuation of property.
Page 8
1
you can just call me Tom, that's fine.
2
MR. WOOD: Okay, that's a tough one.
3
THE WITNESS: I try to challenge people to
4
guess what the C means, they never get it.
5
MR. WOOD: I'm sorry I failed the test.
6
7
8
BY MR. WOOD:
9
Q. All right, Tom, could you tell us what this
10
Exhibit Number 1 is?
11
A. Sure. It's a summary of employees covered under
12
our health care program from 2008 to 2012, all actual
13
data. Then the health benefit cost per -- for these
14
active employees, and then that includes medical
15
scripts, admin and stop loss, access coverage. So it's,
16
from our standpoint, an all inclusive number cost wise.
17
And then we have a number, a ratio, of 2.2
18
that we use that Mercer uses, our health benefits
19
consultant, Mercer uses a translation factor of 2.2 to
20
get from a per active employee number to a per head
21
count number inclusive of beneficiaries and whatnot.
22
And that was important because the taxable value for the
23
OQA benefit that Mercer gives us is the only indication
24
that we have of the per head count cost for the OQA
25
benefit. And so in order to compare apples to apples I
Page 9
1
needed that translation factor of 2.2 so you can see the
2
numbers on a per head count basis per year.
3
And then you can see we've multiplied the
4
number of OQA folks by the total amount of health and
5
dental costs to get a total amount -- the total cost for
6
all the OQA insured per year, which is that 31,168,
7
23,052, and et cetera all the way from the right to the
8
left -- or left to the right, rather. And then the
9
admin cost, which was a separate question in the
10
subpoena.
11
Q. And let's just walk through the subpoena just to
12
make sure I know which ones -- which of the items that,
13
you know, you're able to cover.
14
A. Sure.
15
Q. And this is Exhibit 1 to Mr. Post's deposition.
16
And so number one on the deposition notice was the
17
rationale and/or purpose for the City's OQA policy, and
18
you indicated that you didn't have any role or knowledge
19
on that, correct?
20
A. Correct, yes.
21
Q. And number two is the number of OQA adults
22
provided medical insurance benefits by the City, and you
23
do have that in your chart by year, correct?
24
A. Uh-huh, yup.
25
Q. And so that's near the bottom so, for example,
Page 10
1
for every year other than 2011 on the chart it's been
2
five and in 2011 there were eight, correct?
3
A. That is correct.
4
Q. All right. Number three is the City's cost to
5
provide this coverage for an employee OQA and employee
6
OQA-OQA dependents for each year. As to the second part
7
of that item three, Mr. Post indicated that there was no
8
OQA dependent coverage under the OQA policy, correct?
9
A. That's right.
10
Q. So that would answer the second part of that
11
question. And the first part of the question, the
12
City's cost to provide health care coverage for each
13
OQA, that is set forth in what would be the line called
14
total for all -- no, I'm sorry, that would be the line
15
called health benefit costs --
16
A. Yeah, it would be the total health and dental
17
line. So to answer question three the total health and
18
dental line. Sorry, I should have put those numbers on
19
there.
20
Q. That's okay, I got it. So, for example, for 2008
21
the answer to the subpoena question number three would
22
be 7,792, correct?
23
A. Correct.
24
Q. So it actually has gone down a little bit since
25
2008, correct?
Page 11
1
A. Correct.
2
Q. Has there been a reduction in the type or amount
3
of benefits that's allowed the City to reduce its cost?
4
A. I don't believe so per these folks. I don't -- I
5
don't -- I'm not aware of a general reduction in
6
benefit. However, we have, you know, increased -- we
7
have increased the amount of copays and deductibles and
8
contributions, which is a net off against our total
9
cost. I don't think it would account for that big a
10
difference, I'm not sure. That number in 2008 seems
11
rather high to me, frankly.
12
Q. Has there been some type of an effort at the City
13
to reduce benefit costs --
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. -- over the last five years?
16
A. Yes, actually since 2005 when -- before I arrived
17
here the City began a process of shifting costs and
18
containing costs. Basically we had a generic 95 percent
19
employer, five percent employee type split in costs and
20
we wanted to get to more like 80 percent employee,
21
20 percent -- I'm sorry, 80 percent employer, 20 percent
22
employee and we've accomplished that. We believe we've
23
accomplished that with the contracts we put in place in
24
2014 and with the plan design that we've implemented in
25
2014. We believe that we've accomplished that with the
Page 12
1
new plan design and cost sharing measures we put in
2
place effective for 2014, we'll see. But over the years
3
we've seen dramatic reductions in net costs to the City
4
thanks to those efforts.
5
Q. So for number four, the question in the subpoena
6
was the total costs to the City to provide medical
7
insurance benefits for employees for each fiscal year
8
beginning 2008 and the relationship of these costs to
9
other expense categories - that is, how they increase or
10
decrease the medical costs related to the increase or
11
decrease to other cost categories. Would that be
12
encompassed in the chart?
13
A. That would really be the health benefit cost for
14
active employees, which is --
15
Q. The sixth line?
16
A. Which is the sixth line, if you just multiply
17
that by the -- well, probably the easiest way to do it
18
really would be to take the health benefit cost for
19
active employees, then multiply that by the number of
20
employees covered, which is the first line.
21
Q. And in terms of how medical costs have increased
22
or decreased in comparison to other benefits provided by
23
the City, are you able to offer any information in that
24
regard?
25
A. Yes. Since -- I can't speak since 2008 but I can
Page 14
1
If you pulled the health care out it would be lower,
2
obviously; I'm not sure how much lower.
3
Q. If we compared health care costs and how those
4
have gone up or down compared to other benefits that are
5
provided to employees, are you able to compare those
6
two?
7
A. It's about the same. Our fringe factor, which
8
covers all the other benefits, life insurance, and
9
whatnot, that's generically about three percent
10
inflation.
11
Q. For number five in the subpoena, the employee's
12
cost for employee OQA coverage and employee OQA-OQA
13
dependent coverage. So the second part of number five
14
would be zero because there is no OQA-OQA dependent
15
coverage?
16
A. That's right.
17
Q. And the first part of number five, the employees'
18
cost for employee OQA coverage would be where on the
19
chart?
20
A. Well, I believe that that was provided by
21
Mr. Post. He gave you a schedule of contributions.
22
Q. Yes. Now, I think if I understand his chart,
23
which is Post Exhibit Number 3, do you have that in
24
front of you?
25
A. Well, I have a couple of scratched up versions.
Page 17
1
so they cover, you know, what are sometimes called
2
catastrophic claims for a premium, but we cover
3
everything up to that stop loss amount.
4
Q. And that stop loss is included --
5
A. Yes.
6
Q. -- as part of the second line of numbers on
7
Exhibit 1 starting with the numbers 9,621, correct?
8
A. That's correct, the numbers you see on this
9
exhibit are inclusive of our stop loss premiums.
10
Q. And do you know if those are broken out by
11
employee anywhere, the cost per employee of the stop
12
loss premiums?
13
A. Not on our books. I'm sure we can, if you wanted
14
us to look for it we may be able to find that. Mercer
15
may be able to punch that up. I wouldn't be surprised
16
if they could.
17
Q. Okay. And then the administrative costs per
18
employee for benefits, where would I find that on the
19
chart or would I find that on the chart?
20
A. Yeah, we didn't break each component out per
21
employee.
22
Q. But the last line has the total administrative
23
cost per employee per month, correct?
24
A. Oh, I'm sorry, pardon me, yes, excuse me, the
25
administrative cost per employee, that's the last line,
Page 18
1
the 37.03 for 2008 and the 40.26, those are monthly
2
amounts, just so you understand. Sorry, I was thinking
3
annual costs.
4
Q. That's all right, I'm trying to work through this
5
myself here as we go. Now, on number seven it asks for
6
the source of funding used to pay employee medical
7
benefits including any OQA benefits. Do you know what
8
the source of funding that the City uses to pay for its
9
portion of the employee medical benefits is?
10
A. Right, the City pays for medical benefits through
11
what's called an insurance fund. That is what's also
12
referred to as internal service fund, that pays all the
13
bills for health care benefits and whatnot. And that
14
insurance fund is then funded by cost allocations,
15
generic, you know, cost allocations from all the
16
different funds based on active and total active
17
employee head count, if we're talking about active
18
health care.
19
Q. Right. And would that include funds from the
20
State?
21
A. Yes. I mean, yes, there are funds from the State
22
that flow through different funds, which then flow those
23
funds to the insurance fund, yes.
24
Q. And do you know what types of state programs or
25
grants or funds are used to help the City pay for health
Page 19
1
care costs for employees and OQAs?
2
A. Well, there's the Act 51 money that flows into
3
our street funds, local and major street funds. Also
4
Act 51 money that flows into our metro transit fund for
5
our bus line. There are some -- there's some state --
6
it's a little tricky for me, there's federal and state
7
monies that get kind of -- that flow through some grant
8
funds that we have that help to pay for -- well, that
9
pay for programs which are then administered by City
10
employees, and the City employees' costs for
11
administering the program are then covered by the State
12
and federal grants and so then that would include
13
allocation of reasonable costs for the employee such as
14
benefits and things of that nature.
15
Q. Including, for example, health care?
16
A. Correct.
17
Q. Now, number eight, it says any adjustments to the
18
employee copays for medical benefits for each year
19
beginning with 2008 for each exclusively represented
20
bargaining group for non-exclusively represented
21
employees and all other employees, would we be able to
22
identify that from either Exhibit 1 or Exhibit 3 or else
23
something else?
24
A. Yeah, that was not a question that I prepared an
25
answer for. I think we thought that was going to be
Page 20
1
covered by this exhibit.
2
Q. Post Exhibit 3. So that would probably be the
3
second portion of Post Exhibit 3 where it starts with
4
$91 down to 135?
5
A. Yeah, but it's not broken out by employee group,
6
though, so if you want it broken up by employee -- well,
7
I believe that it's generic, but if you want -- you
8
should probably add that to your list of questions for
9
Mr. Buchtrup.
10
Q. And what would be the document that would show
11
that if you wanted to have a document?
12
A. It would be this same thing but just instead of a
13
generic number for two parties and families, if there
14
were differences between, you know, the various employee
15
groups then you'd have to have a version of that for
16
each employee group. Again, we've tried to keep those
17
the same but there's, you know, sometimes some
18
contractual overlap and that sort of thing.
19
Q. When you say you've tried to keep them the same,
20
you mean for each bargaining group?
21
A. Right, we tried to maintain internal equity
22
between the different groups, but it's not always the
23
same, you know.
24
Q. And just so I -- in this Exhibit 1, in the middle
25
there's a line that says total for all OQA insured?
Page 21
1
A. Uh-huh.
2
Q. Is that the total cost to the City, or maybe I'm
3
misunderstanding that?
4
A. Yes, yes.
5
Q. Okay.
6
A. That to the best of my knowledge would be the
7
City's total exposure to the OQA program.
8
Q. So, in other words, you have five employees
9
covered in 2012 -- or, I'm sorry, five OQAs covered in
10
2012 and the total cost is $24,678. So a touch under
11
$5,000 per OQA is the cost to the City; is that how I
12
was to read this?
13
A. A touch under 5,000 or a touch under -- sorry,
14
could you repeat that?
15
Q. Yeah, I'm getting a little mixed up and I
16
apologize because there's a little distinction here.
17
One -- the $6105 or the $6,105 figure is the total
18
taxable value per OQA, correct?
19
A. Yes.
20
Q. But it would not seem to be the total cost to the
21
City per OQA the way I'm reading this, and I must be
22
reading something incorrectly?
23
A. Right, the total cost would be the line below it,
24
the 24,678.
25
Q. Okay.
Page 26
1
in whatever way that the municipal -- you know, the
2
local unit of government might need; has any of that
3
occurred?
4
A. No, we haven't experienced a financial emergency
5
or anything of that nature. We just consider ourselves
6
to be the same as every other municipality in the State
7
that's trying to make ends meet and struggling to try to
8
continue to deliver, you know, sufficient quality
9
services for the public. So, you know, so I don't think
10
we've gotten anywhere close to needing the State's
11
incidental help, we just need them to not hurt us big
12
time through budget cuts and whatnot.
13
Q. Now, just covering a few of the financial or
14
numerical items of information in Mr. Collard's
15
declaration, I take it you didn't have any role in
16
assisting in preparing this, did you?
17
A. Correct, I did not have any role in that.
18
Q. Just let me -- I think some of these numbers
19
might be addressed by your chart, but the total number
20
of employees who participate in group insurance is
21
covered by your chart in line number one, true?
22
A. Uh-huh, yes.
23
Q. Okay. Do we know what the total number of
24
individuals currently insured through group plans would
25
be as he references in paragraph number three, it's
Page 27
1
about, oh, three times the number of employees, which
2
I'm assuming is dependents, do we know how that
3
correlates today?
4
A. The last number I heard about for dependents as
5
of the end of '13 for active employees, I'm not talking
6
about retirees, just active, was a little over 1,000.
7
Q. Okay. So --
8
A. In addition to.
9
Q. So if it's a little over 1,000 you're right
10
around, with employees, 1575 basically?
11
A. Right, something in that range.
12
Q. That would be the total number of people covered
13
through group insurance plans?
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. Do you know, as he references in paragraph number
16
six, the number of current Kalamazoo city employees who
17
are potentially able to extend OQA coverage to a
18
qualified adult?
19
A. I do not know that information.
20
Q. And if we go to page three, paragraphs nine and
21
ten talk about administrative costs of OQA benefits;
22
that's addressed in the last line of your Exhibit 1,
23
correct?
24
A. Yes.
25
Q. If OQA benefits were to discontinue, for whatever
Page 29
1
isn't, but I'm not aware of anything.
2
Q. Do you know what the form or document is by which
3
the City of Kalamazoo reports the value of health
4
insurance coverage provided to an employee's OQA?
5
A. Well, I obtained that information from Mercer,
6
and since that is a taxable value figure I believe that
7
is what we also are now required under federal law to
8
put on an employee's W-2 form.
9
Q. Mr. Post indicated that he had spoken with
10
someone from the ACLU. Have you ever spoken with
11
anybody from the ACLU?
12
A. I have not.
13
Q. Do you have any evidence, data, or knowledge to
14
state that the OQA policy has any specific benefit to
15
the City in the recruitment or retention of employees?
16
A. Well, I have the knowledge of the people that I
17
know who receive the benefit and their sensibility is
18
they've told me about it and Mr. Post in particular is,
19
you know, a very key person on our team so, you know,
20
beyond that it would be a little more speculative on my
21
part, but I know that Mr. Post is a vital benefit and
22
he's a vital person.
23
Q. Would that be true for you as well as your other
24
management personnel, that you're each vital people?
25
A. Yes, yes. Yeah, I mean we're a team. I mean
Page 35
1
Q. And in regard to revenue sharing and EVIP, the
2
State legislature has cut those amounts since 2008 from
3
2012?
4
A. Yes.
5
Q. And in receipt of the State revenue sharing/EVIP
6
money, that money is fungible in terms of how it's
7
treated by the City for its budget?
8
A. That is correct.
9
Q. So there is no separate assessment for OQA
10
benefits against receipt of state money?
11
A. That is absolutely correct, yes.
12
Q. All right. As a matter of fact, from 2008 to
13
2012 the City has had a balanced budget?
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. Has the City received any notifications from the
16
Michigan Department of Treasury that it has a problem
17
with its budgets?
18
A. Never.
19
Q. And so the City's not facing any possibility of
20
having an emergency manager or legislation step in?
21
A. Not at all, no.
22
Q. And we've not been subject to the process for a
23
committee to investigate whether an emergency manager
24
should be appointed?
25
A. No, there's no indication of that whatsoever.
Exhibit 17
2012 HATE/BIAS
CRIME IN MICHIGAN

DEFINITION - A Hate Crime is dened as a criminal oense
commied against a person or property which is movated in
whole or in part, by the oender's bias against a race,
ethnic/naonal origin, religion, sexal!orientaon,
mental/physical disability or ethnicity"
#ichigan's $thnic %nmidaon Act, Act &'( o) *+&* as amended,
,econ -./"*0-b, was wrien to allow )or stricter penales )or
hate crimes" $thnic inmidaon is a )elony pnishable by
imprisonment )or not more than ' years, or by a ne o) not
more than 1.,///, or both"
Hate crime incidents are idened by the movaon o) the
oender2s3" 4aw en)orcement investigations determine the
ob5ective )acts which leads to a reasonable conclsion that the
o))ender6s actions were motivated by bias against a racial,
religios, ethnic/naonal origin, mental/physical disability, or
sexal!orientaon grop" Accrate data collecon o) hate
crimes depends heavily on proper training o) law en)orcement
to recogni7e sch incidents and the cooperaon and desire o)
commnies/vicms to report these incidents to law
en)orcement"
Totals Bias Movaon Vi!s
Raial 8 90
An!Am" %ndian/Alas:an ;ave '
An!Asian/<acic %slander *.
An!=lac: *+(
An!#l!>acial ?rop *'
An!@hite .+
R"li#io$s 8 *'
An!Antheism/Agnosc *
An!Catholic **
An!%slamic *(
An!Aewish *(
An!#l!>eligios ?rop *
An!Bther >eligion .
Et%niit&/Naonal O'i#in 8 */
An!Hispanic '*
An!Bther $thnicity/;aonal Brigin '0
Disa(ili"s 8 '
An!#ental Cisability (
S")$al O'i"ntaon 8 *'
An!=isexal '
An!Demale Homosexal -
An!Heterosexal *
An!Homosexal '/
An!#ale Homosexal '&
G"n*"' 8 *
An!Demale &
An!#ale *
G'an* Total+ 0./
Totals Vi! T&,"
=siness */
?overnment *'
%ndividal &(/
Bther &
<olice BEcer *
>eligios Brgani7aon .
,ociety/<blic &+
G'an* Total+ -.0
ANA/0SIS
Vol$!"
Fhe total nmber o) reported hate crime incidents in '/*' was &-."
Fhis is a - percent decrease when compared to '/**" Fhese
incidents involved 0./ vicms, 0.& oenders, and reslted in 090
oenses" A vicm o) mlple hate crime oenses is conted )or
each oense"
Bias Movaon
%n '/*', the largest percentage o) hate crimes reported was racial in
natre" Fhe second most reported was sexal orientaon and
religion"
>acial
908
>eligios
*'8
$thnicity/
;ational Brigin
*/8
Cisabilities
'8
,exal
Brientation
*'8
?ender
*8
Hat" C'i!" 2012 2011 1 C%an#"
%nci dents &-. 0/& !-8
Gi cti ms 0./ 0(- !(8
B))enders 0.& 0** */8
B))enses 090 ./' !(8
;oteH <ercentages are ronded to the nearest tenth"
2012 HATE/BIAS
CRIME IN MICHIGAN

AGE GRO23 00-04
Totals Bias Movaon
An!=lac: .
An!Demale *
An!Heterosexal *
An!Hispanic *
An!Bther $thnicity/;aonal Brigin *
An!@hite *
G'an* Totals+ 10
AGE GRO23 10-14
Totals Bias Movaon
An!Antheism/Agnosc *
An!Asian/<acic %slander *
An!=isexal *
An!=lac: 0-
An!Catholic *
An!Demale Homosexal 24esbian3 '
An!Hispanic -
An!Homosexal 2?ay And
4esbian3
&
An!%slamic 2#oslem3 .
An!Aewish '
An!#ale *
An!#ale Homosexal 2?ay3 0
An!#ental Cisability *
An!#l!>acial ?rop '
An!@hite -
G'an* Totals+ 5.
AGE GRO23 20-24
Totals Bias Movaon
An!Asian/<acic %slander *'
An!=lac: &*
An!Catholic 0
An!Demale Homosexal 24esbian3 *
An!Hispanic *
An!Homosexal 2?ay And 4esbian3 .
An!%slamic 2#oslem3 &
An!Aewish *
An!#ale Homosexal 2?ay3 */
An!#l!>acial ?rop *
An!Bther $thnicity/;aonal Brigin -
An!Bther >eligion 2=ddhism, Hindism,
,hintoism, etc"3
*
An!@hite 9
G'an* Totals+ 5-
AGE GRO23 60-64
Totals Bias Movaon
An!=isexal *
An!=lac: &&
An!Catholic &
An!Demale *
An!Demale Homosexal 24esbian3 *
An!Hispanic '
An!Homosexal 2?ay And 4esbian3 *
An!%slamic 2#oslem3 &
An!Aewish *
An!#ale Homosexal 2?ay3 &
An!#l!>acial ?rop *
An!Bther >eligion 2=ddhism,
Hindism, ,hintoism, etc"3
'
An!@hite **
G'an* Totals+ 7.
AGE GRO23 -0--4
Totals Bias Movaon
An!=lac: &/
An!Catholic *
An!Hispanic &
An!Homosexal 2?ay And 4esbian3 0
An!%slamic 2#oslem3 *
An!#ale Homosexal 2?ay3 '
An!#ental Cisability 0
An!Bther $thnicity/;aonal Brigin 9
An!Bther >eligion 2=ddhism,
Hindism, ,hintoism, etc"3
*
An!@hite *&
G'an* Totals+ 77
AGE GRO23 .0-.4
Totals Bias Movaon
An!=lac: *+
An!Catholic '
An!Demale *
An!Demale Homosexal 24esbian3 '
An!Hispanic *
An!Homosexal 2?ay And 4esbian3 &
An!%slamic 2#oslem3 '
An!Aewish .
An!#ale Homosexal 2?ay3 '
An!#l!>acial ?rop *
An!Bther $thnicity/;aonal Brigin '
An!Bther >eligion 2=ddhism, Hindism,
,hintoism, etc"3
*
An!@hite +
G'an* Totals+ .1
AGE GRO23 70-74
Totals Bias Movaon
An!=lac: &
An!Hispanic &
An!Homosexal 2?ay And 4esbian3 *
An!%slamic 2#oslem3 '
An!Aewish '
An!@hite 0
G'an* Totals+ 17
AGE GRO23 80-84
Totals Bias Movaon
An!=lac: *
An!%slamic *
An!@hite *
G'an* Totals+ 6
AGE GRO23 50 an* A(ov"
Totals Bias Movaon
An!Hispanic *
G'an* Totals+ 1
VICTIMS B0 AGE
2012 HATE/BIAS
CRIME IN MICHIGAN

Totals 9"a,on 2s"*
=lnt Bb5ect **
Dire/%ncendiary Cevice *
Direarm *
Handgn 9
Ini)e/CJng %nstrment 9
#otor Gehicle 0
;one **
Bther 9
<ersonal @eapons -&
<oison *
>iKe *
Ln:nown '
G'an* Total+ 126
Totals O:"ns"
Aggravated/ Delonios Assalt 0-
Arson 0
=rglary! $ntry @ithot Dorce 2%ntent to Commit3 '
=rglary! Dorced $ntry '
Civil >ights 0
Camage to <roperty --
Cisorderly Condct '0
$xtoron *
%nmidaon/ ,tal:ing *9/
Avenile >naway *
4arceny! Bther '
4arceny! FheM )rom =ilding '
4arceny! FheM )rom #otor Gehicle *
4arceny! FheM o) #otor Gehicle <arts/ Accessories *
#iscellaneos Criminal Bense *
#otor Gehicle FheM *
;on!Aggravated Assalt */.
Bbstrcng Asce *
Bbstrcng <olice '
Bperang Lnder the %nKence o) 4iNor or Crgs *
<blic <eace! Bther ''
>etail Drad! FheM *
>obbery *
Giolaon o) Controlled ,bstance Act *
G'an* Total+ -7-
Totals /oaon o; Ini*"nts
Air/=s/Frain Ferminal '
=ar/;ight Clb 9
Camp/Campgrond *
Chrch/,ynagoge/Femple */
Commercial/BEce =ildings (
Constrcon ,ite *
Convenience ,tore *'
Cepartment/Ciscont ,tore '
Crg ,tore/CoctorOs BEce/Hospital (
Dield/@oods *
?ambling Dacility/Casino/>ace Frac: *
?overnment/<blic =ilding &
?rocery/,permar:et *
Highway/>oad/Alley ..
Hotel/#otel/etc" '
Aail/<rison 0
Bther */
<ar:/<laygrond 0
<ar:ing 4ot/?arage &/
>esidence/Home *&.
>est Area/>oadside <ar: 9
>estarant 9
,chool!College/Lniversity */
,chool!$lementary/,econdary 0-
,ervice/?as ,taon 9
,pecialty ,tore 0
G'an* Totals+ 68.
R"si*"n"/Ho!" /oaon-VOR
AcNaintance '*
Child *
Dormer Cang =D/?D '
Driend &
Homosexal >elaonship *
%n!law '
;eighbor &9
Bender 0
Bther Damily #ember *
Btherwise Inown *-
>esident =D/?D '
,tranger *+
Ln:nown (
G'an* Totals+
118
O:"n*"'s
@hites acconted )or 9& percent o) the oenders" Hate crime
incidents can be perpetrated by mlple oenders o) the same race"
/oaon
Fhe locaon o) >esidence/Home acconted )or &9 percent o) the
incidents" Fhe second most common locaon was a
Highway/>oad/Alley at *. percent"
P;oteH %n #ichigan, the #ichigan $thnic %nmidaon Act, Act &'( o)
*+&* as amended, ,econ -./"*0-b reNires that all oenses be
reported within the incident" %ncidents where sspected bias
movaon is Ln:nown or Bther =ias are not pblished within this
report"
Ra" Vol$!" 1
Ameri can %ndi an/Al as:an ;ati ve * /"'8
Asi an/<aci )i c %sl ander ' /"08
=l ac: +' '/"&8
Ln:nown *'0 '-"08
@hi te '&0 .*"-8
G'an* Total -.6 100<01
Hat" C'i!" O;;"n*"'s (& Ra"
Exhibit 18.A
1
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Defendant.
____________________________________
Case No. 2:12-cv-10038
DECLARATION OF THERESA BASSETT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I, Theresa Bassett, hereby declare and state as follows:
1. I make this declaration of my own personal knowledge, and if called as a witness,
I can and will testify competently to the matters stated herein.
2. I am a middle school teacher at Slauson Middle School in Ann Arbor, where I
have taught for thirty years, have earned tenure, and currently teach math to sixth- and eighth-
graders. My job duties and responsibilities are very similar to the duties and responsibilities of
the heterosexual teachers at Slauson Middle School.
3. I am fifty-two years old, and I reside in Ann Arbor, Michigan. I was born in Ann
Arbor, grew up here, and attended college at the University of Michigan. I have a Masters in
Educational Leadership and am currently working on a Masters in Social Work.
2
4. My life partner is Carol Kennedy, who is fifty-five years old. In November 2014,
Carol and I will celebrate our twenty-eighth anniversary as a loving, committed couple. We had
a commitment ceremony in Michigan in 1990 and were legally married in California in 2008. In
addition, Carol and I registered as domestic partners in Ann Arbor in 1991. My relationship with
Carol is founded on mutual pledges of emotional and financial support.
5. Carol and I are financially interdependent. We are the primary beneficiaries of
each others life insurance policies and wills. I have given her a durable power of attorney to
make decisions for me in case I become ill. We own our home jointly, and all of our primary
bank accounts are shared.
6. Carol and I are raising eight children together: Maya, Olivia, Ben, Charlie, Sam,
Finnian (Finn), Alexi, and Nina Bassett-Kennedy, ranging in age from three to twenty-two.
Our two oldest daughters, Maya and Olivia, now attend Western Michigan University. The other
children attend school in the Ann Arbor School District.
7. Carol is self-employed, so she does not have access to an employer-provided
health care plan. Until 2000, Ann Arbor Public Schools did not offer domestic partner benefits.
Carol and I advocated for the school district to offer these benefits, and it finally did. I was able
to cover Carol and the children through the districts family plan. Now Carol is covered as an
Other Eligible Adult.
8. If P.A. 297 remains in effect, Carol will lose her health care coverage when my
union contract with the district ends.
9. Carols family has a history of breast cancer, which means that independent
health care coverage will be very expensive. We have researched the alternatives by looking
online and talking with friends who have purchased individual insurance policies. To keep
Exhibit 18.B
1
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Defendant.
____________________________________
Case No. 2:12-cv-10038
DECLARATION OF CAROL KENNEDY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION
I, Carol Kennedy, hereby declare and state as follows:
2. I am fifty-five years old, and I reside in Ann Arbor, Michigan. I am a lifelong
Michigan resident, having grown up in Royal Oak and attended college at Northern Michigan
University before moving to Ann Arbor.
3. My life partner is Theresa Bassett, who is fifty-two years old. In November 2014
we will celebrate our twenty-eighth anniversary. We had a commitment ceremony in Michigan
in 1990 and were legally married in California in 2008. In addition, Theresa and I registered as
domestic partners in Ann Arbor in 1991. My relationship with Theresa is founded on mutual
pledges of emotional and financial support.
2
4. Theresa and I are financially interdependent. We have named each other as
beneficiary for our wills and life insurance policies. I have given her a durable power of
attorney, so she can make legal decisions for me if I get sick and cannot make them myself. We
also own our home jointly, and share all of our primary bank accounts.
5. Theresa and I are raising eight children together: Maya, Olivia, Ben, Charlie,
Sam, Finnian (Finn), Alexi, and Nina Bassett-Kennedy, ranging in age from three to twenty-
two. Our two oldest daughters, Maya and Olivia, now attend Western Michigan University. The
other children attend schools in the Ann Arbor School District.
6. I have run a day care from our home since 1993. The business is well-established
now, and I have a steady clientele. I am self-employed, so I do not have access to an employer-
provided health care plan.
7. Theresas health insurance currently covers me as an Other Eligible Adult.
8. If P.A. 297 remains in effect, I will lose my health care coverage when Theresas
union contract with Ann Arbor Schools ends.
9. My family has a history of breast cancer, which means that independent health
care coverage will be very expensive. I checked online and consulted with friends who had
obtained individual insurance policies to find out how much it would cost to get benefits as
comprehensive as those Theresas job provides. To keep my premium down to $250 per month,
I will have a deductible of $2,500 and will have to pay a number of medical expenses out of
pocket. I could also pay a premium of about $800 a month for more comprehensive coverage.
10. P.A. 297 has caused our family a great deal of anxiety. A few years ago, we
campaigned to convince Ann Arbor Schools to provide benefits to domestic partners. Having
Exhibit 18.C
1
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Defendant.
_______________________________
Case No. 2:12-cv-10038
DECLARATION OF PETER WAYS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I, Peter Ways, hereby declare and state as follows:
1. I make this declaration based on my own personal knowledge, and if called as a
witness, I can and will testify competently to the matters stated herein.
2. I am fifty-two years old, and I reside in Ann Arbor, Michigan. I was born in
Washington State but moved to Michigan as a boy when my father took a job at Michigan State
University. I grew up in Michigan and attended the University of Michigan.
3. My life partner is Joe Breakey, who is forty-nine years old. We met when we
were both teaching at Pioneer and Huron High Schools in Ann Arbor. In March 2014, we will
celebrate our twenty-third anniversary. In 1998, we celebrated our commitment to one another
in a ceremony that was attended by more than 100 friends and family members. We would
2
marry each other if Michigan law allowed it. My relationship with Joe is founded on mutual
4. I started working for Ann Arbor Schools in 1988 as a teacher. Joe and I moved to
Seattle, Washington in 1991 where I worked for Seattle Schools as an administrator. We
returned to Michigan in 2002. Our daughter, Aliza BreakeyWays, is now eleven; she has lived
in Michigan since she was one week old. After we moved back to Michigan, we started a farm,
and in 2004 I went back to work for the Ann Arbor school district, first as a consultant, then as
an administrator, and then as the dean of Community High School (an alternative high school
program). In 2009 I returned to teaching English and Social Studies to seventh and eighth
graders at Ann Arbor Open School. I have worked for the district for a total of thirteen years.
My job duties and responsibilities are very similar to the duties and responsibilities of the
heterosexual teachers at Ann Arbor Open School.
5. Joe and I are financially interdependent. I have made Joe the primary beneficiary
of my will and life insurance policy. He also has durable powers of attorney for my financial
decisions and medical care in case I am unable to make those decisions myself. We jointly own
our home and all of our main bank accounts.
6. Joe is a licensed social worker with his own private practice. Because he is self-
employed, he has the flexibility to do more child care for Aliza, such as taking her to school in
the morning, which is very important to us.
7. Being self-employed means that Joe does not have his own employer-provided
health care. He has been covered for medical, dental, and vision insurance under my Ann Arbor
Schools benefits plan for six years. At the moment he is covered as an Other Eligible Adult.
Exhibit 18.D
1
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Defendant.
____________________________________
Case No. 2:12-cv-10038
DECLARATION OF JOE BREAKEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I, Barry Joel (Joe) Breakey, hereby declare and state as follows:
2. I am a licensed social worker with a private practice. I am forty-nine years old,
and I reside in Ann Arbor, Michigan. I was born in Michigan and have spent most of my life
here. I attended Ann Arbor public schools and college at University of Michigan, University of
Washington (for graduate studies), and Middlebury College in Vermont.
3. My life partner is Peter Ways, who is fifty-two years old. We met when we were
both teaching high school in Ann Arbor. In March 2014, we will celebrate our twenty-third
anniversary. In 1998, we celebrated our commitment to each other in a ceremony that was
2
attended by more than 100 friends and family members. My relationship with Peter is founded
on mutual pledges of emotional and financial support.
4. Peter and I are financially interdependent. Peter is the primary beneficiary of my
will and life insurance policy, and he has durable powers of attorney for my financial and
medical decisions. We own our home jointly, and all of our primary bank accounts are shared.
5. Peter and I together are raising our eleven-year-old daughter, Aliza Breakey-
Ways, who has lived in Michigan since she was one week old.
6. Because I am self-employed, I do not have access to employer-provided health
care. But being self-employed gives me the flexibility to be available to Aliza during the day,
including taking her to school in the mornings, which is very important to usas it is to many
families.
7. I have been covered under Peters benefits plan for six years. My coverage costs
$8,545 in premiums for which Peter pays $940 in taxes per year, and it includes medical, dental,
and vision insurance.
8. If P.A. 297 remains in effect, I will lose my health care coverage when Peters
contract with the district is up.
9. Finding a comparable health care plan for me would be very expensive. I
researched insurance companies online and spoke with other families in our same situation and
discovered that a comparable plan for me would cost us between $8,000 and $10,000 a year.
10. P.A. 297 has caused anxiety and worry for the whole family. I have been without
health insurance before, when we first moved back to Michigan. I was working part-time and
had to rely on state Medicaid for my health care until Peter was able to cover me through Ann
Arbor Public Schools.
Exhibit 18.E
1
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOHNSON,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
capacity as Governor of the state of
Michigan,
Defendant.
_______________________________
Case No. 2:12-cv-10038
DECLARATION OF JOLINDA JACH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS
I, JoLinda Jach, hereby declare and state as follows:
1. I make this declaration of my own personal knowledge, and if called
as a witness, I can and will testify competently to the matters stated herein.
2. I am a senior systems analyst for software applications and project
management with the City of Kalamazoo. I have a Bachelors Degree in Computer
Science from Western Michigan University. I started working for the City twenty-
2
six years ago as a systems analyst, and since then I have held several positions in
information technology. My job duties and responsibilities are very similar to the
duties and responsibilities of the heterosexual senior systems analysts who work
for the City.
3. I am fifty years old, and I live in Kalamazoo, Michigan. I am a
Michigan native, having grown up in Paw Paw, Michigan, which is west of
Kalamazoo.
4. My life partner is Barbara Ramber, who is fifty-five years old. We
have been together for nineteen years. In 1997, we held a commitment ceremony
in Santa Monica, California, attended by Barbaras father and sister, and two of our
close friends. My relationship with Barbara is founded on mutual pledges of
emotional and financial support.
5. Barbara and I are financially interdependent. I have named Barbara as
the executor and primary beneficiary of my will. We have also given each other
durable powers of attorney to make medical decisions in case one of us becomes
incapacitated. We own our home together and share our finances.
6. Barbara and I together are raising two children: our son Dylan
Ramber-Jach is 12 and our daughter Jordan Ramber-Jach is 10.
3
7. Barbara works part-time in the food service division of Kalamazoo
Public Schools. As a part-time position, Barbaras job does not include health
insurance benefits.
8. Barbara has been covered under my City benefits plan for
approximately twelve years. She was eligible for health insurance as a domestic
partner on June 1, 2000 and signed up for coverage immediately. When Barbara
became eligible for benefits coverage as an Other Qualified Adult, she signed up
immediately. Barbaras coverage was terminated on December 31, 2012 due to
P.A. 297 and we had to purchase coverage for her through Blue Cross (Flex Blue
Plan) from January 1, 2013 through July 31, 2013, paying $1,798 in premiums.
Barbara became eligible for benefits coverage as an Other Qualified Adult in
August 2013, after the Court issued a preliminary injunction against P.A. 297 and
she signed up for coverage immediately.
9. I pay $262.32 per month for a family plan that includes Barbara. In
addition, I pay $6.00 a month for dental. I am also taxed by the State on the value
of Barbaras coverage for health and dental insurance, which the City values to be
$5,993.76 a year. The State tax we pay on the value of Barbaras coverage is
approximately $52 a month.
10. In 2010 Barbara was hit in the left eye with a baseball. This injury
has caused permanent damage to her eyesight and she has developed glaucoma as a
4
result. She has to take medication for this condition daily to prevent blindness.
She underwent cataract surgery in September 2011 and her condition must be
monitored every four months to ensure that her lens does not become dislodged.
This injury has also affected her peripheral vision. She also has been diagnosed
with rheumatoid arthritis, which limits the mobility and dexterity of her hands and
wrists. She recently was diagnosed with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD),
which affects her ability to swallow and digest food, and she may have to undergo
a series of endoscopy procedures. She takes Pantoprazole for this condition.
11. Because of P.A. 297, Barbara lost her health care coverage on
December 31, 2012. We obtained a personal Blue Cross Blue Shield policy for her
for January 1, 2013 through July 31, 2013, which cost us $1,798 in premiums. Her
coverage through the Flex Blue plan was less comprehensive than what she was
receiving from the Citys coverage. Under Flex Blue, she had no dental coverage.
Her deductible for in network medical care was $5,000 as compared to $200 in the
City Plan. Her prescription coverage only paid 50% of the cost of my medications,
as opposed to the City Plan, which covered everything but $5 on generic
medications, $25 on branded formulary medications, and $50 on branded non-
formulary medications. Flex Blue required her to pay 20% of all office visits,
whereas the City plan required only a $25 office co-pay. Her health care coverage
Exhibit 18.F
1
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOHNSON,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Michigan,
Defendant.
_______________________________
_____
Case No. 2:12-cv-10038
DECLARATION OF BARBARA RAMBER IN SUPPORT OF
I, Barbara Ramber, hereby declare and state as follows:
1. I make this declaration of my own personal knowledge, and if called
as a witness, I can and will testify competently to the matters stated herein.
2. I work part-time in the food-service division of Kalamazoo Public
Schools. I am fifty-five years old, and I reside in Kalamazoo, Michigan. I was
2
born in Santa Monica, California and have lived in Michigan for the past twenty-
nine years.
3. My life partner is JoLinda Jach, who is fifty years old. We have been
together for nineteen years. In 1997, we had a formal commitment ceremony in
California, attended by my father and sister and two close friends. My relationship
with JoLinda is founded on mutual pledges of emotional and financial support.
4. JoLinda and I are financially interdependent. I have given JoLinda
powers of attorney to make medical decisions for me in case I become ill. We also
own our home jointly and share all of our finances, and we are raising two children
together, our twelve-year-old son Dylan Ramber-Jach and our ten-year-old
daughter Jordan Ramber-Jach.
5. Because I work part time, my employer does not cover my health
care.
6. I have been covered under JoLindas City benefits plan for fourteen
years with the exception of the period from December 31, 2012 until August 2013
when my coverage was ended because of Act 297. I am covered as an Other
Eligible Adult through the Family Plan Jolinda signed up for with the City. We
pay $262 per month in premiums for the family coverage and $6.00 a month for
my dental coverage, and JoLinda is taxed by the State on the Citys estimate of the
value of my coverage
3
7. In 2010, I was hit in my left eye with a baseball. My eyesight has
been permanently damaged, and I now have glaucoma in that eye as a result of the
injury. I have to take medication daily to prevent blindness. The eye pressure is
checked every four months to monitor the glaucoma and to assure the medication
dosage is correct. I underwent surgery in September 2011 for a cataract that
progressed rapidly from the eye trauma. There is structural damage to the portion
of the eye that holds the lens. I have my eyes checked every four months to make
sure the lens is intact and has not dislodged. My peripheral vision is limited and I
have to be very careful in terms of physical activity, including playing with my
kids. In addition, my doctor recently diagnosed me with rheumatoid arthritis,
which affects my wrist and tendons. My hands have become deformed, and this
has affected my dexterity and ability to lift things. My job responsibilities include
lifting large pans of hot food out of the convection ovens and placing them in
steam tables. I have had to rely on the assistance of my co-workers to perform this
task. I also have been diagnosed with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), a
condition which affects my ability to swallow and digest food, and I may have to
undergo endoscopy procedures to determine the extent of damage. I currently am
prescribed Pantoprazole for this condition.
8. Because of P.A. 297, I lost my health care coverage on December 31,
2012. Jolinda and I obtained a personal Blue Cross Blue Shield policy for me from
Exhibit 18.G
1
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Defendant.
____________________________________
Case No. 2:12-cv-10038
DECLARATION OF DOAK BLOSS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I, Doak Bloss, hereby declare and state as follows:
2. I have worked for Ingham County for more than fifteen years. I was originally
hired as an Access to Health Care Coordinator, and I am now a Health Equity and Social Justice
Coordinator. In addition to ensuring that uninsured people in Ingham County have access to
health care, I participate in a national initiative, funded by the Kellogg Foundation, that seeks to
transform public health programs within a social justice framework. My job duties and
responsibilities are very similar to the duties and responsibilities of my heterosexual colleague,
who serves as Environmental Justice Coordinator for the County.
2
3. I am sixty years old, and I live in Lansing, Michigan. I have been a Lansing
resident since 1975. I have lived in Michigan all of my life, have my family here, and attended
college at Michigan State University.
4. My life partner is Gerardo Ascheri, who is fifty-six years old. We met when we
were both working on a musical production for a community theaterI was the director and
Gerardo was the audition accompanist. We have been together for twenty years. We would
marry each other if Michigan law allowed it. My relationship with Gerardo is founded on
mutual pledges of emotional and financial support.
5. Gerardo and I are financially interdependent. I have given Gerardo durable
powers of attorney to make medical and financial decisions for me in case I become
incapacitated and cannot make those decisions for myself. We also share all of our finances and
own a home together.
6. Gerardo taught piano part-time through Michigan State Universitys community
outreach program for nineteen years. Now he runs an at-home piano studio where he teaches
students. Because he is self-employed, Gerardo does not have employer-provided health care
coverage.
7. Gerardo has been covered under my County benefits plan for medical, dental and
vision coverage since July 27, 2004, first as a domestic partner and then as an Other Qualified
Adult on August 1, 2009. Gerardos benefits were terminated on December 31, 2012 as a result
of P.A. 297. His benefits as an Other Eligible Adult were reinstated on November 1, 2013, as a
result of the preliminary injunction issued by this Court.
Exhibit 18.H
1
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Defendant.
____________________________________
Case No. 2:12-cv-10038
DECLARATION OF GERARDO ASCHERI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION
I, Gerardo Ascheri, hereby declare and state as follows:
2. I live in Lansing, Michigan. I have lived in Michigan for twenty-five years. I
grew up in Argentina, and I became an American citizen on June 15, 2010.
3. I met my life partner, Doak Bloss, when we were working in a community theater
production of the musical Godspell at Lansing Community College in Lansing. Doak was
directing the show, and I was the audition accompanist. We have been in a committed, loving
relationship for twenty years and would marry each other if Michigan law allowed it. My
relationship with Doak is founded on mutual pledges of emotional and financial support.
4. For seventeen years, I taught piano part-time through Michigan State Universitys
2
community outreach program. Now I am self-employed as a piano teacher. I run a studio from
our home.
5. Doak and I are financially interdependent. We share all of our finances and own a
home together. I have given him power of attorney to make medical and financial decisions in
case I am not able to make them myself. He has done the same for me.
6. Because I am self-employed, I do not have access to employer-provided health
care coverage. I have been covered under Doaks County plan since around 2004. These
benefits cost us $183.00 per month, and Doak is taxed on the roughly $6,000 the County
contributes to my benefits.
7. I have high blood pressure and cholesterol issues. I have to take regular medicine
for these conditions. Without the Countys insurance coverage, this medication would cost us
more than $130 per month.
8. Because of P.A. 297, I lost my health care coverage on December 31, 2012 when
Doaks former contract expired. I obtained insurance from Blue Cross Network of Michigan
from January 1, 2013 through October 31, 2013. The insurance cost us a total of $4,595 in
premiums. In addition we paid $605.71 in deductibles, $315.00 out of pocket for dental care,
and $72.82 for medication. My health insurance benefits through Doaks employer were
restored on November 1, 2013, as a result of the preliminary injunction granted by this Court.
However, if P.A. 297 goes back into effect, I will lose my coverage on December 31, 2014 when
Doaks contract expires.
9. This law came as a shock to us and has caused a great deal of worry and anxiety.
I left Argentina to come to the United States because I wanted to live in a country that treated
people fairly and with dignity. This law goes against all the principals and ideals that this
Exhibit 18.I
1
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOHNSON,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Michigan,
Defendant.
_______________________________
Case No. 2:12-cv-10038
DECLARATION OF DENISE MILLER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS
I, Denise Miller, hereby declare and state as follows:
1. I make this declaration based on my own personal knowledge, and if
called as a witness, I can and will testify competently to the matters stated herein.
2. I am an English teacher at Kalamazoo Valley Community College,
where I have taught for seventeen years. I received tenure there in 1997. My job
duties and responsibilities are very similar to the duties and responsibilities of the
2
heterosexual teachers at Kalamazoo Valley Community College. I have a B.F.A.
in creative writing and an M.A. in English literature.
3. I live in Kalamazoo, Michigan. I received my M.A. from Central
Michigan University and taught there for a few years. As well, I taught at Mid
Michigan Community College and Southwest Michigan College before coming to
KVCC. My partner and I founded a non-profits arts and social justice organization
called Fire 6 years ago. I am also in the process of opening a small business.
4. My life partner is Michelle Johnson; we have been together for ten
years. Although mutual friends had been trying to introduce us for years, we
finally met when I presented a paper on the ability for poetry and expression to
change the lives of elementary, middle and high school kids at an Imagining
Michigan conference. We held a commitment ceremony on December 31, 2004.
More than 100 people cameincluding my boss, the President of Kalamazoo
Valley Community College. My relationship with Michelle is founded on mutual
5. Michelle and I are financially interdependent. Michelle is the primary
beneficiary of my life insurance policy. A few years ago, I had to have surgery, so
I gave her a durable power of attorney to make medical decisions for me if
something happened and I could not make them myself. We share all expenses,
including rent, groceries, car payments, and auto insurance.
3
6. Kalamazoo Valley Community College began offering Other
Eligible Adult coverage in May 2011, so I added Michelle to my plan for medical,
dental, and vision coverage because she did not have coverage at the time.
However, when P.A. 297 passed, the College cut off Michelles benefits. Now she
has no health insurance. She works for a nonprofit that does not offer coverage.
7. During the short time that Michelle was covered under my plan, the
premiums cost us $17.34 per month and I was taxed on the Colleges contribution.
8. Michelle has non-malignant fibroid tumors in her uterus and on her
breasts, a medical condition that requires continued monitoring. If her tumors
grow, she will need surgery.
9. We have researched the cost of health insurance for Michelle by
searching online, calling insurers, etc. The best option we were able to locate
would cost us $288 per month in premiums. Unlike the Colleges plan, this
coverage would not include dental, vision, or prescription costs.
10. Independent coverage for Michelle would cost more than we can
afford to pay. If P.A. 297 is not reversed, Michelle will probably have to go
without health insurance. Michelles grandfather died of an aneurysm and her
mother also has had one that burst and is currently living with another. As such,
Michelle has been told that she will need to monitor her own health as this is a
hereditary condition.
Exhibit 18.J
1
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOHNSON,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Michigan,
Defendant.
_______________________________
Case No. 2:12-cv-10038
DECLARATION OF MICHELLE S. JOHNSON IN SUPPORT OF
I, Michelle Johnson, hereby declare and state as follows:
1. I make this declaration based on my own personal knowledge, and if
called as a witness, I can and will testify competently to the matters stated herein.
2. I am the Executive Director of the nonprofit Fire Historical and
Cultural Arts Collaborative, a Kalamazoo-based organization dedicated to
combining social justice initiatives with art and culture. Before I worked for the
2
Collaborative, I was an historian for the state of Michigan. I have a Ph.D. in
American Culture from the University of Michigan. I come from a long legacy of
black and white women and men who have made their homes in Michigan since
the late 1800s on one side and since the early 1920s on another. I was born into a
varied family history of lumber, education, domestic work, construction and
service in 1962 and integrated my elementary school in Saginaw as the only black
child for 4 years. These sometimes painful experiences and my families response
to them shored in me a deep commitment to social justice and equality and a
loyalty to Michigan. I received my BA from Michigan State University and, after
living in New Mexico, chose to return to Michigan for graduate school over
several schools.
3. My partner is Denise Miller, with whom I have been in a committed
relationship for ten years. We met when I saw Denise present a paper at a
conference on Imagining Michigan and Public Scholarship. We had a commitment
ceremony on December 31, 2004more than 100 people celebrated with us. My
relationship with Denise is founded on mutual pledges of emotional and financial
support.
4. Denise and I are financially interdependent. Denise is the primary
beneficiary of my life insurance policy, and I have power of attorney for her
3
medical decisions. We share all of our expensesrent, groceries, car payments,
and auto insurance.
5. When Kalamazoo Valley Community College began offering Other
Eligible Adult coverage in August 2011, Denise put me on her health insurance
plan. However, after P.A. 297 passed, I lost my benefits. Now I have no health
insurance. My employer does not offer health insurance benefits.
6. During the short time that I was covered under the Colleges plan, the
premiums cost us $17.34 per month. Denise is expected to pay a percentage of the
monthly premium of providing Cobra coverage in taxes for my benefits.
7. I have non-malignant uterine fibroid tumors, and if they grow I will
need surgery. I also have fibrous breast tissue that requires yearly monitoring.
Additionally, my grandfather died of an aneurysm and my mother has one that
burst when I was a child and another requires constant monitoring. This is
hereditary. Therefore, I will be required to have regular scans to ensure I have not
inherited this condition.
8. After looking online and calling insurers, I have found that
independent health insurance would cost $288 per month and, unlike under
Denises plan, my dental, vision, and prescription costs would not be included.
9. Denise and I cannot afford to pay for individual coverage for me, so if
P.A. 297 remains in effect, I will not have health insurance coverage.
Exhibit 19

2:12-cv-10038 #88

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

2:12-cv-10038 #88

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

S-ar putea să vă placă și