ACLU may join battle on city-worker benefits

They were on different sides of the Main Street Plaza lawsuit, but Salt Lake City and the ACLU of Utah may be teaming up in the courtroom soon.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah has been contacted by city officials and others asking it to examine the legal war surrounding Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson's executive order extending health benefits to unmarried domestic partners of city employees.

The ACLU of Utah is calling for all gay and lesbian employees in the city to put their stories on its Web page at www.aclu.org/couples. Depending on what information those stories yield and what further information the civil liberties group can dig up, it might get involved in Salt Lake City's legal battle over the benefits.

"Right now we are doing some investigation," ACLU of Utah staff attorney Margaret Plane said. "We're doing some fact-finding. There are a lot of avenues we could take but it really depends on what we learn."

On its Web site the ACLU seeks information stating "we are interested in using your story for litigation or media purposes. We are taking information from all lesbian and gay couples, but would especially like to hear from lesbian and gay Salt Lake City employees who are in need of domestic-partner health insurance for their partners and children."

And while the ACLU investigates, Salt Lake City attorneys are defending the mayor's move in court.

City attorneys say the move doesn't violate state law because it does not define a domestic partnership as a "marriage" or even a "marriage equivalent."

Salt Lake City responded in 3rd District Court Wednesday to a petition filed by the Public Employees Health Program (PEHP), which has asked the court to determine whether the proposed benefit change is legal before administering it.

Anderson's executive order, signed last month, would offer benefits to the domestic partners of city employees, stating the measure is important in the interest of fairness.

"It (the executive order) does not say that a domestic partnership is a 'marriage' or even a marriage equivalent," according to the city's response in court. "It does not define a 'domestic partner' as a 'spouse.' It simply identifies additional potential participants in the city's benefit plan."

The city wants a decision from the court by November, when city employees are eligible to add dependants to their health programs.