Milagros Irizarry v. Board of Education of City of Chicago

Prior to 1999, the Board of Education of City of Chicago (the board) (defendant) provided health benefits to the spouses of employees. In 1999 the board amended its health-benefits scheme to allow a same-sex domestic partner of an employee access to health benefits. The scheme did not allow an opposite-sex domestic partner of an employee access to health benefits. The board explained that one reason for its decision to restrict health benefits to same-sex domestic partners was because heterosexual couples could, and should, marry. The board explained that a second reason for its decision was to attract homosexual teachers who could provide support and serve as role models for homosexual students. However, the board’s health-benefits scheme did not require employees to disclose proof of their sexual orientation prior to granting their same-sex domestic partners access to health benefits. After the adoption of the new health-benefits scheme, nine employees, out of 45,000, signed up for benefits for their domestic partners. In response to the amended scheme, Milagros Irizarry (plaintiff) filed an action in federal district court against the board on the ground that restricting opposite-sex domestic partners of employees from health benefits but granting same-sex domestic partners access was unconstitutional. Irizarry had a male domestic partner, with whom she had lived for 20 years and had two children, and her partner would gain access to health benefits if the board allowed opposite-sex domestic partners to do so. The district court dismissed Irizarry’s action on the ground that she had failed to state a claim. The matter was appealed. To support Irizarry in her appeal, the homosexual-rights organization Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund (the fund) submitted an amicus brief. The fund argued that heterosexual domestic partners should receive access to health benefits under the scheme.