Passaro v. Bayer Corporation Pension Plan

Case #: 3:14-cv-00671-WWE
Date Filed: 12 May 2014
Ruling Date: 8 September 2014

Description:

• A CT man sued for survivor benefits from his deceased spouse's employer, the Bayer Corporation. 
• 8 September 2014, the parties involved reached agreement upon a mutual settlement and a notice of voluntary dismissal was issued.

Cardona v. Shinseki

Case #: 11-3083
Date Filed: 13 October 2011
Ruling Date: 11 March 2014

Description:

• This case was an appeal of the decision by the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA), which confirmed the denial of disability benefits based on its conclusion that Cardona's wife was not a "spouse" for purposes of veterans' benefits even though their marriage was/is valid under Connecticut law.
• Oral argument was originally scheduled for 29 November 2012, but on 8 November 2012 BLAG requested it be postponed for forty-five days, pending the U.S. Supreme Court's disposition of petitions for writs of certiorari in several other cases challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA (Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, Windsor v. United States, and Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management). The court granted the delay over Cardona's objections.
• On 18 December 18 2012, the court ordered the case "stayed pending resolution of Windsor or until further order of the Court."
• 11 March 2014, the Court issued its final decision, dismissing the appeal as moot and setting aside the 2011 decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeal.

Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health

Case #: 17716
Date Filed: 25 August 2004
Ruling Date: 28 October 2008

Description:

• 25 August 2004, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) filed a lawsuit on behalf of seven (later eight) Connecticut same-sex couples in State Superior Court, challenging the state's denial of the right to marry to same-sex couples. All had been denied marriage licenses in Madison and several were raising children. They argued that this violated the equality and liberty provisions of the Connecticut Constitution.
• July 2006, Judge Patty Jenkins Pittman ruled against the plaintiffs, who then appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court
• The Connecticut Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the state statutory prohibition against same-sex marriage denied gay persons equal protection under the Connecticut State Constitution. The court held that sexual orientation is a quasi-suspect classification, such that laws discriminating against gay persons are subject to intermediate scrutiny. Because laws restricting civil marriage to opposite-sex couples do not serve important governmental objectives and because the discriminatory means were not substantially related to the achievement of the government‘s objectives, the State violated the same-sex couples‘ constitutional equal protection rights.