1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
P
LAINTIFF
’
S
M
OTION FOR
S
UMMARY
J
UDGMENT
C
ASE
N
O
.
3:10
-
CV
-0257-
JSW
sf
-
3008079
JAMES R. MCGUIRE (CA SBN 189275)
JMcGuire@mofo.com
GREGORY P. DRESSER (CA SBN 136532)
GDresser@mofo.com
RITA F. LIN (CA SBN 236220)
RLin@mofo.com
AARON D JONES (CA SBN 248246)
AJones@mofo.com
MORRISON & FOERSTER
LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, Califor
nia 94105
-
2482
Telephone: 415.268.7000
Facsimile: 415.268.7522
JON W. DAVIDSON (CA SBN 89301)
JDavidson@lambdalegal.org
SUSAN L. SOMMER (pro hac vice)
Ssommer@lambdalegal.orgTARA L. BORELLI (CA SBN 216961)
TBorelli@lambdalegal.org
LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC.
3325 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300
Los Angeles, California 90010
-1729Telephone: 213.382.7600
Facsimile: 213.351.6050
Attorneys for Plaintiff
KAREN GOLINSKI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANC
ISCO DIVISION
KAREN GOLINSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT, and JOHN BERRY, Directorof the United States Office of Personnel
Management, in his official capacity,
Defendant.
Case No.
3:10
-
cv
-
0257
-
JSW
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION
AND MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDMGENT
; MEMORANDUM OFPOINTS AND AUTHORITI
ES
Date:
September 16, 2011
Time:
9:00 a.m.
Dept..:
Courtroom 11
Judge:
Hon. Jeffrey S. White
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document142 Filed07/01/11 Page1 of 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
P
LAINTIFF
’
S
M
OTION FOR
S
UMMARY
J
UDGMENT
C
ASE
N
O
.
3:10
-
CV
-0257-
JSW
i
sf
-
3008079
NOTICE OF MOTION
AND MOTION
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD
:
PLEASE TAKE
NOTICE THAT, at
9
:00 a.m. on
September 16,
2011, or as soon
thereafter as may be heard, in the courtroom of the Honorable Jeffrey S. White
, located at450
Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, plaintiff Karen Golinski, by and through hercounsel,
w
ill
and hereby does move
for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the FederalRules of Civil Procedure
and Civil Local Rule 56
-1.
This motion is brought on the grounds that
there is no genuine question as to any materialfact and judgment should be entered in
Ms.
Golinski’s favor as a matter of law because
Section
3
of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C.
§
7, is unconstitutional as applied to her
,
and
because
d
efendants’ interfer
ence with the enrollment of her spouse in her employee health insurance plan
violates
the prohibition on exclusion from coverage based on sex under the
Federal EmployeeHeal
th Benefits Act, 5 U.S.C.
§
8902(f). Ms.
Golinski’s motion is based on this notice of motionand motion, the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, the declaration of
KarenGolinski
(filed herewith),
the declaration of
Rita F. Lin
(filed herewith),
the declarations of GarySegura, Michael Lamb, Nancy Cott, Letitia Anne Peplau, and George Chauncey filed on June 24,
2011 (Dkt. 134
-
38), the pleadin
gs and
papers on file herein, and such other written and oral
argument as may be presented to the Court.
Dated:
July 1, 2011
MORRISON
& FOERSTER
LLP
LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE ANDEDUCATION FUND, INC.
By:
/s/ Rita F. Lin
RITA F. LIN
Attorneys for Plaintiff
KAREN GOLINSKI
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document142 Filed07/01/11 Page2 of 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
P
LAINTIFF
’
S
M
OTION FOR
S
UMMARY
J
UDGMENT
C
ASE
N
O
.
3:10
-
CV
-0257-
JSW
ii
sf
-
3008079
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION........................................................................................
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................
iv
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.....................................................................................................
1
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS..................................................................................
2
A.
The Passage of DOMA in 1996............................................................................
2
B.
Ms.
Golinski’s Attempt to Enroll Her Spouse in Her Health Plan........................
3
LEGAL STANDARD...................................................................................................................
5
AR
GUMENT................................................................................................................................
5
I.
DOMA CANNOT PASS CONSTITUTIONAL SCRUTINY..........................................
5
A.
Undisputed Facts Demonstrate That DOMA is Subject toHeightened Scrutiny..............................................................................................
51.
The Courts Should Carefully
Scrutinize DiscriminationBased on Sexual Orientation Classifications.............................................5
a.
Settled Law and Undisputed Evidence Demonstrate
a History of Discrimination Against Lesbians and
Gay Men........................................................................................
6b.
Sexual Or
ientation Is Unrelated to the Ability to
Contribute to Society.....................................................................
6
c.
Sexual Orientation Is a Defining and Immutable
Characteristic.................................................................................
7d.
Lesbians and Gay Men Remain a PoliticallyVulnerable Minority......................................................................
82.
DOMA’s Discrimination Based on Ms.
Golinski’s Sex
Requires Heightened Scrutiny.................................................................103.
DOMA Impermissibly Burdens Ms.
Golinski’sFundamental Liberty to Sustain an Intimate FamilyRelations
hip, Triggering Heightened Scrutiny on that Basisas Well.....................................................................................................10
B.
DOMA Cannot Survive Even Rational Basis Scrutiny, Let Alonethe Heightened Scrutiny Required Under DOMA..............................................11
1.
As a Matter of Law,
DOMA Cannot Be Justified Based on
an Interest in Preserving “Traditional” Heterosexual
Marriage.................................................................................................
.112.
DOMA Does Not Promote “Responsible Procreation.”..........................12
3.
Any Attempt to Justify DOMA Based on “
Traditional
Notions of Morality” or “Preservation of Scarce Resources”Fails as a Matter of Law Under Controlling Supreme Court
Precedent.................................................................................................15
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document142 Filed07/01/11 Page3 of 28
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Golinsky v. OPM MSJ
see: www.ndcalblog.com
670
Reads
0
Readcasts
0
Embed Views
Get Scribd Mobile
To get Scribd mobile enter your number and we'll send you a link to the Scribd app for iPhone & Android.We've sent a link to the Scribd app. If you didn't receive it, try again.
We'll never share your phone number.
More From This User
Notes
Load more
