Surviving Lesbian Spouse to Get Death Benefits of Law Firm Partner

Most law firms avoid posting jobs on Indeed or LinkedIn due to high costs. Instead, they publish them on their own websites, bar association pages, and niche legal boards. LawCrossing finds these hidden jobs, giving you access to exclusive opportunities. Sign up now!

published July 31, 2013

By Author - LawCrossing

On Monday, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in favor of the lesbian spouse of a deceased law firm partner in deciding who has claims to the partner's death benefits. The decision took into account the recent opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor in which Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was declared unconstitutional.

The federal court also held that for the purposes of distribution of benefits pursuant to the ERISA federal statute, a valid Canadian same-sex marriage was to be recognized, and though same-sex marriage was yet not recognized in Pennsylvania, the fact that the domicile state of the deceased law firm partner and her spouse, Illinois, recognized the same-sex marriage is sufficient for the Pennsylvanian law firm to release spousal death benefits.

In the instant case, Sarah Ellyn Farley was a partner at the Cozen O'Connor law firm law firm. She began working for the firm in 2004 and subsequently became eligible for the Firm's Profit Sharing Plan. Farley legally married Jean Tobits in Toronto, Canada, in 2006. The couple chose Illinois as their state of residence. Shortly after the wedding, Farley was diagnosed with cancer and died in 2010.

Following Farley's death, both Farley's parents and Jean Tobits requested payment of the qualified Pre-Retirement Survivor Annuity in accordance with ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code. In response to the competing claims, the Cozen law firm filed an interpleader action in the federal court naming the Farleys and Ms. Tobits as defendants.

United States
Cozen law firm filed the lawsuit in 2011, when the Windsor case was still pending, and given the constitutional issues in the matter, both the federal government and the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives intervened in the matter. The matter was then placed on the Suspense Docket pending the outcome of the DOMA related cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Following the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor in June, the BLAG withdrew from the matter.

On Monday, the decision went in favor of Tobits.
Gain an advantage in your legal job search. LawCrossing uncovers hidden positions that firms post on their own websites and industry-specific job boards—jobs that never appear on Indeed or LinkedIn. Don't miss out. Sign up now!

( 3 votes, average: 4 out of 5)

What do you think about this article? Rate it using the stars above and let us know what you think in the comments below.

Related