In recent months, courts have extended important elder rights to same-sex married couples.
Last summer’s landmark ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor struck down a provision of federal law that excluded same-sex couples from the definitions of “marriage” and “spouse.”
Edith Windsor sued to obtain a refund of federal estate tax she had paid after the death of her spouse, Thea Spyer. Edith and Thea married in Canada in 2007, and their marriage was recognized by the state of New York, where they resided. Edith claimed she was entitled to a refund because of the exemption from federal estate tax available to surviving spouses, but the IRS denied the refund.
The Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional for the law to exclude same-sex couples from the definition of “marriage.” “The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” the Court held. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”
As a result, Edith was entitled to an estate tax refund of $363,053.
Following the Windsor ruling, a federal court in Pennsylvania ruled in favor of another same-sex surviving spouse who sought of the death benefits from her deceased wife’s pension plan.
Under the terms of pension plan, death benefits were payable to the surviving spouse unless she had signed a written waiver. Jean Tobits, who was considered the spouse of Sarah Farley under Illinois law where they lived, applied to receive Sarah’s pension plan death benefits after Sarah died from cancer in 2010.
The Pennsylvania-based law firm for whom Sarah worked also received a claim for death benefits from Sarah’s parents. The firm asked the court to resolve the competing claims.
Following the Windsor decision, the court held that Jean met the definition of a “spouse” under applicable federal law, since her marriage to Sarah was recognized as valid by the state where they lived. Since Jean had never signed a waiver, she was entitled by law to receive the death benefits of Sarah’s pension plan. (Cozen O’Connor, P.C. v. Tobits, et al.)
Currently, Pennsylvania neither permits same-sex marriages nor recognizes such marriages entered into in other states, territories, or countries. A lawsuit in federal court has challenged the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s laws on this issue. The presiding judge has said the case may go to trial in June of 2014, according to Reuters. (Whitewood, et al. v. Wolf, et al.)