Tyma v. Montgomery County

Maryland’s state constitution contained a home-amendment rule, which allowed counties that adopted a charter form of government to enact local laws covering general matters as long as the local laws did not conflict with state law. The purpose of this amendment was to transfer power to local counties. Maryland law expressly prohibited same-sex marriages. In November 1999, Montgomery County (the county) (defendant) enacted the Employee Benefits Equity Act of 1999 (the act), which extended healthcare, leave, and survivor benefits to the domestic partners of county employees. The rationale behind the act was to promote equality among county employees and, recognizing that many private companies were doing the same, maintain the county’s ability to recruit a qualified workforce. Some of the benefits covered, such as family and medical leave, were covered by federal laws. Steve Tyma (plaintiff) was one of a handful of county residents and employees who challenged the act. Tyma filed a suit requesting a declaratory judgment that the act was invalid and enjoining its implementation on the ground that it conflicted with state and federal law. Tyma argued that the law affected the whole state of Maryland and required the expenditure of state funds. The circuit court found in favor of the county, concluding that the act did not conflict with Maryland law or federal law. Tyma appealed.