Worker Sues US for Same-Sex Benefits Back Pay

A longtime federal employee is accusing the government of not paying her back for health care costs because she's married to a woman, despite a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court ruling ordering federal recognition of same-sex partnerships.

In her lawsuit, Alameda resident Sarah Hudson, 37, a rehabilitation specialist who's worked with blind people for the Department of Veterans Affairs since 2001, is claiming the Veterans Department, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and those agencies' directors are violating the federal laws concerning equal pay and back pay.

"I would like for there to be a result that supports equality, and if there are others in this situation, they might be able to have a chance at gaining that equality," Hudson said in an interview.

"It's definitely been a long journey in trying to do the right thing for my family," said Hudson, who also remarked that "If I'd been married to a man," there would've been "no problem."

Hudson, who filed her complaint April 3 in the U.S. District Court for Northern California's San Francisco/Oakland Division, is seeking reimbursement of no more than $10,000.

Hudson's health coverage is through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. She and her wife, Eli Hudson, were legally married in October 2008, and they had a son in July 2011.

After the child's birth, Sarah Hudson changed her coverage to a "Self and Family" plan to provide coverage for him. Eli Hudson quit her Gymboree Corporation job in January 2012 to be a stay-at-home mom.

Hudson wasn't allowed to get coverage for her wife through her plan, so that same month, they began paying about $598 a month in additional premiums through the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, commonly known as COBRA. This was on top of the full premiums she was already paying for her employee plan.

The complaint details Hudson's years of work to try to remedy her situation.

She made repeated requests to have Eli Hudson added to her "Self and Family" plan. Those requests were mostly denied. In one case, she didn't get a response.

In her complaint, Hudson says a male colleague has been able to include his wife through the agency's plan.

She wrote in April 2012 to the Government Employees Health Association asking for her wife to be added to her "Self and Family" coverage, saying the "discriminatory policy is hurting my family."

Hudson cited the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' Golinski ruling, which ordered the Office of Personnel Management to allow the same-sex spouse of a federal worker to enroll in her insurance plan. Like Hudson, that employee, Karen Golinski, was also covered by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

However, the government health association responded with a letter denying her request. The organization cited an Office of Personnel Management direction stating "that the ruling in the Golinski case does not apply to anyone other than Ms. Golinski."

Then, in June 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred federal recognition of same-sex marriages, is unconstitutional.

Hudson was able to enroll her wife in her employee plan, but she hasn't been able to get reimbursed for the money she spent on coverage for her wife before that.

"I've always loved my job at the VA," Hudson said in a news release. "Unfortunately, the discrimination I experienced in benefits hurt my family."

The Office of Personnel Management and the Department of Veterans Affairs didn't respond to requests for comment. Neither agency has yet filed a response in court.

Julie Wilensky and Nina Wasow from Lewis, Feinberg, Lee and Jackson, P.C., in Oakland and Judith Galat of the American Federation of Government Employees in Washington, D.C. are representing Hudson in the case, which is Hudson v. Office of Personnel Management et al.