You asked for a summary of the Connecticut Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) decision dismissing an unmarried straight couple's complaint alleging that the comptroller's exclusion of heterosexual domestic partners from state employee pension and welfare plans discriminates on the basis of marital status and sexual orientation.

On November 17, 2003, Human Rights Referee Gordon T. Allen ruled that the CHRO lacked jurisdiction to pursue a state employee's claim that the exclusion of opposite-sex domestic partners from the state pension and welfare plans constituted sexual orientation and marital status discrimination (CHRO ex rel. Friedman v. State of CT (CHRO No. 0110195)). The basis for the referee's conclusion was that:

1. the domestic partner benefit was established through binding arbitration in which the arbitrator adopted the union's proposal to restrict eligibility to couples "who are unable to marry in Connecticut because Connecticut's marriage provisions distinguish between same-sex and opposite-sex couples";

2. the possible extension of domestic partnership benefits to non-married heterosexuals was actively bargained for but withdrawn; and

3. by law, when there is a conflict between a state employee arbitration award on matters appropriate to collective bargaining and a general statute, the terms of the award prevail (CGS § 5-278(e)).

The referee also noted that the arbitrator's award terminates same-sex partners' eligibility for domestic partner benefits as of the date these couples become eligible to marry in Connecticut (Ruling, p. 2).

SP-L: ts