Obama administration to begin processing Social Security payments to same-sex couples

Same sex marriages are now going to be recognized as beneficiaries for Social Security purposes. Today's post is shared from Jurist.org

The Obama administration announced [press release] Monday that the Social Security Administration will begin processing payments to surviving spouses of same-sex married couples
In n a brief statement, Press Officer LaVenia LaVelle said, "I am pleased to announce that, effective today, Social Security is processing some widow's and widower's claims by surviving members of same-sex marriages and paying benefits where they are due. In addition, we are able to pay some one-time lump sum death benefit claims to surviving same-sex spouses.

As I stated shortly after the Supreme Court decision on Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, our goal is to treat all Americans with dignity and respect." Widow's benefits are payable to the surviving spouses who were married at the time of their spouse's death, as well as those who were legally married for at least 10 years, but later divorced. The maximum amount a widow over 60 years old may receive is the amount the deceased spouse was receiving or would have received at the time of death. Because the SSA regulations specifically yield to the definition of "marriage" used by the state in which a couple lives, the SSA has lagged behind other federal departments in providing for same-sex couples.
Other federal agencies have taken similar steps to ensure the inclusion of same-sex couples in administrative processes. Earlier this month the US Department of Education [official website] announced [JURIST report] that for the purposes of applying for and receiving federal student financial aid, the federal government will now recognize all legal same-sex marriages.On the same day as the Department of Education's announcement, the US Customs and Border Protection said [Time report] it will expand the definition of "members of a family residing in a household" to include same-sex couples and other domestic relationships so as to facilitate the declarations process.
While the Windsor decision did not create a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it does entitle couples in lawfully recognized same-sex marriages to certain federal benefits. In September the US Department of Labor [official website] issued guidance explaining [JURIST report] that all legally married same-sex spouses in the US can participate in employee benefit plans overseen by the Employee Benefits Security Administration [official website]. Earlier in September the US Department of Justice [official website] announced [JURIST report] that it will no longer enforce a federal law that denies same-sex spouses veterans benefits. In August the US Treasury Department [official website] announced that it, along with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) [official website], will recognize marriages [JURIST report] of all same-sex couples for federal tax purposes.

Found on

Related articles

• EU high court rules same-sex couples entitled to same benefits as married couples (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)

EU high court rules same-sex couples entitled to same benefits as married couples

The extension of dependency benefits to same sex marriages won a boast from EU Court of Justice.  Today's post is shared from Jurist.org.

The EU Court of Justice [official website] ruled [press release, PDF] Thursday that in countries in which same-sex couples cannot legally marry, same-sex couples in a legal union are entitled to the same legal benefits as married couples. The case stemmed from an employment benefits issue in France that was appealed to the court before the country legalized same-sex  marriage [JURIST report] in May. The court ruled on the issue despite the country's legalization of same-sex marriage. It held that a union in which two partners commit to live together and provide for each other in a way that makes them legally bound to one another is analogous to a marriage agreement and, thus, makes the couple entitled to the same benefits as married couples when marriage is not an option to them. It also held that a collective bargaining agreement granting paid leave and a bonus to employees who marry was illegal because it discriminates against same-sex couples who cannot legally marry. The court also rejected all of the public interest reasons offered in support of the collective bargaining agreement, stating that none of them were sufficient to justify the discriminatory nature of the agreement. Same-sex marriage has been a controversial issue internationally. Earlier this week, Australia's high court struck down legislation [JURIST report] that legalized same-sex marriage because it conflicted with a 1961 law and could not override the...

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Found on

New Jersey Supreme Court rules state must begin allowing same-sex marriages

Statutory dependency in workers' compensation claims will have an expanded meaning on Monday when same-sex marriages are allowed beginning on Monday in New Jersey. Today's post is shared from jurist.org.

The New Jersey Supreme Court [official website] on Friday ruled [text, PDF] that the state must begin recognizing same-sex marriages. The court declined to issue a stay on a lower court's decision [text, PDF] pending appeal. The lower court ruling found that, in light of US v. Windsor [SCOTUSBlog backgrounder; JURIST report], the status of civil unions deprive same-sex couples of federal benefits enjoyed by married couples. That ruling was challenged [JURIST report] by Governor Chris Christie [official website], who has argued recognition should be delayed pending a statewide referendum. Chief Justice Rabner rejected the state's claim that it will suffer irreparable harm if the order is allowed to be enforced, finding that no tangible harm can be found. The unanimous court held:

Because, among other reasons, the State has not shown a reasonable probability of success on the merits, the trial court's order directing State officials to permit same-sex couples, who are otherwise eligible, to enter into civil marriage starting on October 21, 2013 remains in effect. The lower court's ruling was allowed to stand, pending a hearing on the merits in January.

The heated debate regarding same-sex marriage [JURIST backgrounder] is one of the most polarizing [JURIST op-ed] issues currently facing the US legal community....

[Click here to see the rest of this post]



Found on

Related articles

• Judge Orders New Jersey to Allow Gay Marriage (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Hearing set for N.J. SC nominee (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Canada court allows disabled veteran class action to continue (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Federal arbitration board orders FEMA to pay New Orleans Katrina responders (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Supreme Court Rejects Tobacco Companies' Appeal of Florida Case (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• The Impact and Echoes of the Wal-Mart Discrimination Case (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Exxon Mobil subsidiary charged for wastewater spill in Pennsylvania (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)

US Supreme Court Rules Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Covers Work-Related Injuries

Image via Wikipedia

Justice Clarence Thomas

In an historic ruling yesterday the US Supreme Court held that The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act [OCS] governs those who work on oil drilling platforms and other fixed structures beyond state maritime boundaries, and workers are eligible for compensation for "any injury occurring as the result of operations conducted on the [OCS]." 


For complete coverage of this case click here: The Jurist

"Although the Ninth Circuit’s test may not be the easiest to administer, it best reflects the text of §1333(b), which establishes neither a situs-of-injury nor a "but for" test. We are confident that ALJs and courts will be able to determine whether an injured employee has established a significant causal link between the injury he suffered and his employer's on-OCS extractive operations. Although we expect that employees injured while performing tasks on the OCS will regularly satisfy the test, whether an employee injured while performing an off-OCS task qualifies—like Valladolid, who died while tasked with onshore scrap metal consolidation—is a question that will depend on the individual circumstances of each case." Justice Clarence Thomas

Pacific Operators Offshore LLP v. Valladolid 
.....

For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman  1.973.696.7900  jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.

Related articles

• Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act: US Supreme Court Hears Work Comp Arguments (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• US Supreme Court Maybe Asked to Rule on CMS Issue: "The Doctrine of Equitable Allocation" (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• US Supreme Court, Health Care & Workers' Compensation (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)