P G ' D - Iso M - S - J - C N - 3:10-cv-0257-JSW sf-3007452

Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document143
Filed07/01/11 Page1 of 5
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
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, California 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.org TARA L. BORELLI (CA SBN 216961) TBorelli@lambdalegal.org LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC. 3325 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300 Los Angeles, California 90010-1729 Telephone: 213.382.7600 Facsimile: 213.351.6050 Attorneys for Plaintiff KAREN GOLINSKI UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
KAREN GOLINSKI, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, and JOHN BERRY, Director of the United States Office of Personnel Management, in his official capacity, Defendants.
Case No.
3:10-cv-0257-JSW
DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF KAREN GOLINSKI IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Date: September 16, 2011 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept..: Courtroom 11 Judge: Hon. Jeffrey S. White
26 27 28
PLAINTIFF GOLINSKIS DECL. ISO MOT. FOR SUM. JUDGMT. CASE NO. 3:10-cv-0257-JSW sf-3007452
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
I, Karen Golinski, hereby declare and state as follows: 1. I am the plaintiff in this matter and submit this declaration in support of my motion
for summary judgment. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and if called upon to do so, could and would testify competently thereto. 2. In November 1990, I joined the Criminal Motions Unit of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and served as supervisor of that unit from January 1993 through December 1995. In March 1997, after briefly working elsewhere, I returned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and served as a Motions Attorney. In July 1999, I became a trainer for the Motions Unit and have continued to work in that capacity to this date. 3. My spouse, Amy Cunninghis, and I have been partners for over twenty-one years.
We became registered domestic partners with the City and County of San Francisco in 1995 and with the State of California in 2003. We were married under the laws of the State of California on August 21, 2008, and remain legally married. Amy and I have an eight-year-old son. 4. I have paid for self and family coverage under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Service Benefit Plan (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) to cover my and my sons health insurance since his birth in March 2003. In 2011, my biweekly premium for my self and family plan with Blue Cross/Blue Shield is $122.53. This year, I will pay $3,185.78 in biweekly premiums to Blue Cross/Blue Shield for coverage under the self and family plan. 5. Amy is a contract employee with a nonprofit organization and is not eligible for
health insurance coverage from her employer. Because I have been unable to cover Amy under my self and family plan, we have had to purchase separate, private individual health insurance for Amy. We purchase this private insurance from Blue Shield of California (Blue Shield). 6. Amys Blue Shield insurance is inferior to my Blue Cross/Blue Shield self and
family coverage. Since July 1, 2009, Amy has been insured with Blue Shields Balance Plan 1700. Amy has a $1,700 deductible. In addition to requiring Amy to pay 30% of all inpatient and outpatient medical expenses, the plan also places an annual cap of $2,500 on brand name prescription medications, after which Amy is responsible for paying any and all brand name medication expenses incurred. A true and current copy of a summary of benefits under the Blue
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
Cross and Blue Shield Service Benefit Plan (my self and family coverage) is attached hereto as Exhibit A and under Blue Shield of Californias Balance Plan 1700 (Amys coverage) is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 7. Less than two weeks after my marriage to Amy, on September 2, 2008, I submitted
a Health Benefits Election Form to the Ninth Circuits Human Resources Department, seeking to add Amy as my spouse under my existing self and family plan. 8. On September 11, 2008, I received an email from Ms. Renee Reynolds, a Human
Resources Generalist with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which included a written exchange between Ms. Reynolds and Ms. Lynda Hamke, Human Resources Assistant with the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO). The email stated that Amy was not eligible for coverage under my self and family plan due to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). A true and correct copy of this email is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 9. On October 21, 2008, I received another email from Ms. Reynolds stating that my
request to add Amy as my spouse under my self and family plan would not be processed by the AO due to the Defense of Marriage Act. A true and correct copy of this email is attached hereto as Exhibit D. As of the date of this declaration, Amy has not been added to my existing self and family plan. 10. Another email from Ms. Reynolds stated that if my spouse were a man, I could add
my spouse to my existing family coverage for no additional charge. I further understand from Ms. Reynoldss email that it would not cost the government additional money to add my spouse to my existing self and family plan. Under the governments current contract with Blue Cross/Blue Shield, the government pays the same amount under the self and family plan regardless of the number of dependent family members. A true and correct copy of Ms. Reynoldss email response is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 11. After participating in counseling and mediation through the Ninth Circuits
Employment Dispute Resolution (EDR) Plan, I filed a complaint under the EDR Plan on October 2, 2008. A true and correct copy of the EDR Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
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
12.
Following a hearing in my EDR proceedings, Chief Judge Kozinski ordered that
Amy be enrolled in my self and family plan and, after OPM continued to block her enrollment, awarded me back pay. Nevertheless, I have been unable to purchase health insurance for Amy comparable to that available under my self and family plan. Instead, Amy continues to have insurance coverage inferior to mine. 13. Amy has investigated individual coverage options with Blue Shield based on her
age and geographic location and found 26 different plans, including a plan with a monthly premium of $1,152. None of these plans provides coverage comparable to the coverage our son and I receive under my Blue Cross/Blue Shield self and family plan because the premiums, deductibles, and out of pocket expenses exceed those of my plan. A true and correct copy of Blue Shield of Californias available plans for a woman of Amys age living in the San Francisco Bay Area is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 14. Amy's health plan requires that she pay 30% of the costs associated with
diagnostic and treatment services. In contrast, under my health plan, I pay a $25 or $35 co-pay for these types of services, depending on whether the procedures are performed by a primary care physician or a specialist. I pay no additional costs for preventative care. Because of the higher costs of care under Amys health plan, she has forgone recommended yearly physical exams and testing for at-risk conditions based on family medical history. 15. Due to Amys underinsured status, we continue to suffer significant anxiety due to
the greater risk that a serious medical condition will go undetected and untreated at an early stage. Moreover, if testing revealed a condition that required treatment, such treatment would be costly because we would have to pay 30% of incurred medical expenses. If Amy should become seriously ill or injured and require extensive prescription medication, medical treatment, or hospitalization, our family would suffer significant financial hardship. We also fear that if such diagnostic tests reveal an underlying condition, Amy will not be able to obtain new insurance covering that pre-existing condition at an affordable rate and will have no choice but to remain on her current inadequate insurance.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
16.
I have two decades of employment with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and
am proud of my public service. But I am reminded daily that the government for which I serve refuses to treat me and my family the same as it treats my married heterosexual colleagues. My gender and sexual orientation do not affect my ability to perform my job-related duties, and the discrimination I experience is degrading and painful. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 30th day of June, 2011. /s/ Karen Golinski Karen Golinski GENERAL ORDER 45 ATTESTATION In accordance with General Order 45, concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the signatories and I shall maintain records to support this concurrence for subsequent production for the court if so ordered or for inspection upon request by a party.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
/s/ Rita F. Lin Rita F. Lin Attorneys for Plaintiff KAREN GOLINSKI .
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document143-1
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT G

P G ' D - Iso M - S - J - C N - 3:10-cv-0257-JSW sf-3007452

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

P G ' D - Iso M - S - J - C N - 3:10-cv-0257-JSW sf-3007452

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document143

Following a hearing in my EDR proceedings, Chief Judge Kozinski ordered that

También podría gustarte