Missouri Supreme Court Rejects Same-Sex Survivor Benefits

Author: David B. Weisenfeld, XpertHR Legal Editor

November 4, 2013

The Missouri Supreme Court has ruled the state's Department of Transportation did not engage in sexual orientation discrimination when it denied survivor benefits to the same-sex partner of a state trooper killed in the line of duty. Glossip v. Missouri Department of Transportation, 2013 Mo. LEXIS 294 (Mo. October 29, 2013).

The 5-2 ruling is one of the first on the issue of same-sex benefits since the US Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in US v. Windsor on June 26, 2013.

Missouri bans same-sex marriage, which is now recognized in 14 states and the District of Columbia. In the Glossip case, the surviving same-sex (and unmarried) partner challenged the state's failure to provide him with survivor benefits as unlawful, claiming that he was entitled to receive the same benefits as someone involved in a heterosexual relationship.

The Missouri Supreme Court rejected the claim, reasoning that because the state denies benefits to all unmarried couples regardless of sexual orientation, any unmarried survivor is ineligible for benefits. As a result, the court explained, the surviving partner would have been denied benefits even if his partner had been a member of the opposite sex.

The court acknowledged that, had the partners been married in another state or country, the surviving partner could "have challenged the statute that prohibits recognizing same-sex marriages for purposes of Missouri benefits" under Windsor. But since the partners had not been married, the survivor could not successfully challenge the statute.

A pointed dissenting opinion claimed the ruling helps ensure that "unyielding discrimination" against gay men and lesbians will continue because "survivor benefits are a legal impossibility for all same-sex couples in Missouri" as long as the state recognizes only those marriages between a man and a woman. The dissent noted there was no dispute the men had been in a committed and financially interdependent relationship for 15 years.

However, the majority said it did not consider the case to involve a challenge to Missouri's ban on same-sex marriage, calling that "an issue for another day."