Employee Benefits Issues in California Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Same-Sex Marriage Decisions
Polsinelli Podcast - Defense of Marriage Act
Supreme Court’s Rulings On Same-Sex Marriage Spark Many Questions On Employee Benefits
Viewer's Guide to Gay Marriage Oral Arguments
Across the country each June, communities come together to celebrate Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) Pride Month. This month of events honors the 1969 Stonewall Uprising in Manhattan while also...more
In law school, I wrote papers on the tax consequences of death and divorce for same-sex married couples. The conclusions I drew in those academic exercises included advising same-sex married couples to plan for tragedy well...more
Here’s the next chapter in the saga known as Edith Schlain Windsor v. The United States of America. (For a quick recap, please read Tax & Estate Planning – Small Win for Same Sex Couples?). Two representatives of the state...more
A 2013 change in the City of Houston’s employee benefits policy to extend benefits to the same-sex spouses of City employees, intended to align the City’s policy with what its legal counsel determined was a federal...more
Action Item: This is the fourth installment of our Annual Estate Planning Newsletter, and focuses on matters of interest to married couples. We urge you to review this installment to ensure that your 2016 estate and tax...more
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently issued Notice 2015-86, which provides some additional clarification, in the form of questions and answers, on the treatment of same-sex spouses under tax-qualified retirement plans...more
Following the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in U.S. v. Windsor (in which the Court held that Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) was unconstitutional), one of the questions facing sponsors of...more
On October 21, 2015, the IRS issued proposed regulations to clarify the treatment of same-sex spouses for federal tax purposes. By way of background, in 2013, the United States Supreme Court held in United States v. Windsor...more
The Impact of National Same-Sex Marriage for Employers - Why it matters: How will employers feel the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges? The landmark ruling that the Fourteenth...more
The United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) on June 26, 2015. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage...more
In Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires all 50 states to license marriages between same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages performed out-of-state....more
Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you probably are well aware that on June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same sex couples have a constitutional right to marry and have their marriages recognized across the...more
In a 5-4 decision announced last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Obergefell v. Hodges that all states are required to recognize same-sex marriages. This ruling follows the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in U.S. v....more
We asked attorneys writing on JD Supra to share with us their initial thoughts on the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision in favor of same-sex marriage equaliy, especially with the regard to the...more
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a historic decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses require states to allow same-sex marriage and to...more
The SEC has provided guidance on the definition of “spouse” and “marriage” in the wake of United States v Windsor. That case held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. As a result the SEC will...more
In the case of Searcy v. Strange, 2015 WL 328825 (S.D. Ala Jan. 25, 2015), the federal Court for the Southern District of Alabama held that Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Alabama news headlines have...more
On Friday, March 27, 2015, the Department of Labor (“DOL”)’s new regulation revising the definition of “spouse” to include those in same-sex marriages went into effect expanding the definition of spouse under the Family and...more
Effective March 27, 2015, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is revised to define a "spouse" to include married, same-sex partners regardless of the state in which they reside. This change gives same-sex couples the...more
On Thursday, March 26, a federal district court in the Northern District of Texas granted an injunction blocking the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) from enacting a new rule under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) that...more
The new rule defining “spouse” for purposes of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act was set to take effect today. But a federal judge in Texas yesterday temporarily blocked the rule from going into effect after...more
Effective March 27, 2015, the U.S. Department of Labor’s regulations interpreting the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) expands coverage to legally married same-sex spouses, even if the employee lives in a state that does...more
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has revised the definition of “spouse” under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to include marriages legally entered into by same-sex couples. This revision expands the FMLA’s reach...more
For employers that operate in states that do not recognize same-sex marriage and for those that operate in multiple states, the Family Medical Leave Act's (FMLA) application to same-sex partners of employees has been a...more
Effective March 27, 2015, the U.S. Department of Labor’s regulations interpreting the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) expand coverage to legally married same-sex spouses, even if the employee lives in a state that does...more