The California Supreme Court recently interpreted the Domestic Partnership Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 (DPRRA) as defining a clear public policy that registered domestic partners must be treated as equal to married couples. Under this reasoning, the Court expanded the Unruh Act to include registered domestic partners in its definition of "spouse." In Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club (Aug. 1, 2005 Cal.) 2005 WL 1797982, the Court held policies in places of public accommodation that discriminate between spouses and registered domestic partners constitute unlawful marital status discrimination. Furthermore, the court held, there is no legitimate business interest justifying such discrimination under California law.
What this means for employers
The Unruh Act applies to places of public accommodation and mandates equal treatment of all patrons based on various protected characteristics. Although the Unruh Act does not regulate businesses as employers, DPRRA, as interpreted by the court, is extremely broad and prohibits discrimination between registered domestic partners and married couples in any context.
California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) has long protected sexual orientation and marital status in the employment context, which effectively prohibits employers from discriminating between domestic partners and married couples. However, under FEHA, in some instances an employer may justify such differential treatment based on a legitimate business necessity. This decision could limit that defense. Under the Court's ruling in Koebke, there is no legitimate basis for distinguishing between registered domestic partners and spouses with respect to public accommodation. This logic may very well extend to the employment arena, particularly given the broad language of DPRRA.
Employers should reevaluate their own policies to ensure registered domestic partners are eligible for all the same benefits and services as spouses.
Overview of the decision
In Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club, plaintiffs B. Birgit Koebke and Kendall E. French, a female same-sex couple, brought claims against Bernardo Heights Country Club, a San Diego golf club, including discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, and marital status in violation of the Unruh Act. Koebke joined the country club in 1987. Koebke and French began their relationship in 1993 and filed for domestic partnership status in 2000. At various times between 1995 and 2001 the couple requested the club afford French the family benefits extended to member's "legal spouses and unmarried sons and daughters under the age of 22" by club bylaws. The club's Board denied each request. The club's Board justified its refusal to extend family benefits to non-spouses based on the need to prevent over-use of the facility, to encourage new membership rather than "free riding," and to encourage a "family-oriented" environment. During this time period the club extended family benefits to various unmarried opposite sex couples and to minors who were not children of host members.
"Spouse" under the Unruh Act includes registered domestic partners
As a starting point, the Court held that DPRRA demonstrates a clear public policy mandating equal treatment of registered domestic partners and married couples, and does so in an attempt to protect families and reduce gender and sexual orientation discrimination. From the premise registered domestic partners and spouses are equivalent, the Court then followed an established three-part framework to determine marital status is protected under the Unruh Act (even though it is not an enumerated protected category). The Court held registered domestic partnership is a personal characteristic based on the decision to assume a formalized, public, and verifiable legal status. This legal status has the same rights and responsibilities of a marriage, meaning there is no legitimate business interest in discriminating between registered domestic partners and spouses.
The Court acknowledged prior to January 1, 2005, when DPRRA took effect, a policy requiring differential treatment of domestic partners and spouses was not per se discriminatory because legitimate business interests existed to support the policy, such as a lack of public, verifiable documentation of the partnership. However, the Court held the couple could maintain a claim for discriminatory application of the club's family benefits policy during this period by showing the policy was applied to them differently than to other members because of the couple's sexual orientation.
The Koebke court's analysis of how DPPPA's policy compelling equal treatment of married couples and registered domestic partners will likely apply with equal force under other anti-discrimination statues, including in the employment area. Employers should expect to see claims if their policies and benefits regarding spouses of employees are not equivalent to those in favor of employees' registered domestic partners.
For more information about this new development, please contact your Bullivant employment attorney.