Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Golinsky v. OPM MSJ

Golinsky v. OPM MSJ

Ratings: (0)|Views: 69 |Likes:
see: www.ndcalblog.com
see: www.ndcalblog.com

More info:

Published by: Northern District of California Blog on Sep 26, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/18/2013

pdf

text

original

 
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

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->