Although universities might have escaped a new law that bans public employers from offering domestic partner benefits, colleges such as MSU aren’t necessarily out of the woods yet, legal experts say.
As MSU faculty and staff return for the semester, breadwinners in domestic partnerships — most notably same-sex couples — could see benefits such as health care yanked if the decision on whether or not universities are included in the new law, which was signed on Dec. 22, 2011, ends up resting with Michigan courts.
House Republicans have argued the law includes universities in its definition of a public employer, but MSU officials have cited Gov. Rick Snyder’s interpretation that errs on the side of separation between college and state.
“The governor made clear his position that universities are not subject to the law … Michigan State anticipates no change to our benefit programs,” MSU President Lou Anna K. Simon said in a statement last month.
Simon also joined with the presidents of the University of Michigan and Wayne State University to write a letter to Snyder to state their case against the ban.
Although no case has been filed yet regarding the university issue, the final decision could end up in the hands of the attorney general or Michigan Supreme Court, said Gina Torielli, a professor at Cooley Law School.
“The language is somewhat broad in terms of who a public employee is,” she said. “It still doesn’t carve out university employees.”
During similar disputes between lawmakers and the governor, the attorney general often is asked to give an opinion on the matter, Torielli said. That interpretation would be enforced unless a court case is filed, in which case the final authority would rest with Michigan’s supreme court.
And there’s reason to believe it might go that far, considering the law has proved controversial in several ways.
On Thursday, The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in federal court against the state of Michigan and Snyder, claiming the new law violates the U.S. Constitution by unfairly targeting same-sex couples.
One plaintiff is a same-sex couple from East Lansing who will lose benefits from Ingham County.
Rep. Dave Agema, R-Grandville, who sponsored the bill, holds the view of many Republicans that the law will save taxpayer money.
“You’ve got people in civil service and colleges who think they’re above the law,” Agema said in an earlier interview, pointing to the 2004 ballot vote result defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Some students have said the law will drive away qualified gay employees from Michigan businesses.
“This, with a few other pieces of legislation that have been going through, have created a very hostile environment for the retention of LBGT individuals in our state,” said Mark Doebler, chair of the Alliance of Queer and Ally Students .
Support student media!
Please consider donating to The State News and help fund the future of journalism.
Discussion
Share and discuss “Benefits ban for same-sex couples might stand at MSU” on social media.
