****************************************************
Justice Alexander's Anti Family Decision Regarding Definition of Dependents
Judicial Forum Case Reviews
Heinsma v Vancouver :: 144 Wn2d 556
Category: Family Law and Marriage
This case questions the legality of using Taxpayers' money to extend
benefits to city employees for their partners who are not their legal spouse
or children.
In 1998 the City of Vancouver began offering benefits to its city employees’
domestic partners and domestic partners' children. Under this program they
could receive health insurance benefits and use their sick leave to care for
their domestic partners or for their domestic partners children.
Full Report at: http://www.judicialforum.org/reviews.php?review=read&case_id=33
CONCLUSION: We conclude that the City of Vancouver's benefit program does not violate article XI, section 11 of the state constitution. Heinsma has failed to show that the legislature intended to preempt the city from defining "dependents" as including domestic partners. Similarly, Heinsma has failed to show that the city's inclusion of domestic partners conflicts with the requirements of RCW 41.04.180. Because the regulation of employee benefits is a matter of local concern, we recognize that cities should have great latitude in implementing their employee benefits programs, especially when they have received specific delegated authority from the legislature. Finally, we conclude that the city's recognition of domestic partnership is limited and that the program does not unconstitutionally interfere with the legislature's ability to regulate familial relationships on a statewide level
We affirm the decision of the trial court. ALEXANDER, C.J., SMITH, JOHNSON, MADSEN, IRELAND, BRIDGE, and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.
SANDERS, J., dissenting.
Full State Supreme Court decision at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2001_sc/70895-9&invol=3
*****************************************************************