924 N.W.2d 146
S.D.2019Background
- Debra Anderson and Deborah Cady were long-term committed partners and RCPD officers who began living together in 1988; Cady retired from the South Dakota Retirement System (SDRS) on May 1, 2012 and listed herself as single on her retirement application.
- Anderson and Cady married in Nevada on July 19, 2015, after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015).
- Cady died March 10, 2017; Anderson applied for survivor spouse benefits from SDRS on March 20, 2017 and was denied because she was not married to Cady at the time of Cady’s retirement.
- Anderson appealed the denial to the South Dakota Office of Hearing Examiners, then to the circuit court; both affirmed SDRS’s denial. Anderson appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court.
- Statutory eligibility requires the surviving spouse to have been married to the member at the time of the member’s death and the marriage must have been before the member’s retirement and more than twelve months before death (SDCL 3-12-47(80), 3-12-94).
- The parties and tribunals assumed, without deciding, that Obergefell may apply retroactively; the core dispute was whether retroactive application or other doctrines could recognize a marriage predating Cady’s retirement when no solemnization or common-law marriage occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Obergefell’s rule should be applied retroactively to recognize a marriage before retirement | Anderson: Obergefell should apply retroactively to federal law questions and thus recognize same-sex marriages earlier for rights like survivor benefits | SDRS: Retroactivity is not outcome-determinative here because no marriage was solemnized before retirement | Court: Even assuming Obergefell is retroactive, there was no solemnized or state-recognized marriage before retirement, so retroactivity does not create a marriage here |
| Whether a marriage can be recognized absent solemnization (or by recognizing a putative/common-law marriage) because same-sex marriage was previously prohibited | Anderson: But for South Dakota’s ban, the couple would have married earlier; courts should recognize that marriage for benefits | SDRS: Recognition requires an actual solemnization or state-recognized common-law marriage; South Dakota does not recognize common-law marriage | Court: South Dakota requires formal solemnization and recording; no common-law marriage is recognized and none was solemnized, so no spouse status existed at retirement |
| Whether denial of survivor benefits constituted unlawful discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation | Anderson: Denial discriminates against same-sex couples by withholding marriage-based benefits | SDRS: Benefit denial differentiates by marital status, which is permissible under state law and precedent | Court: Following state precedent (Ewing), differential benefit eligibility by marital status is not unlawful sex discrimination; no discriminatory violation found |
Key Cases Cited
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) (held same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry)
- Harper v. Virginia Dep’t of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86 (1993) (federal-law rules announced by the Supreme Court are applied retroactively to cases on direct review)
- State Div. of Human Rights, ex rel. Ewing v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 273 N.W.2d 111 (S.D. 1978) (distinguishing marital-status distinctions in benefit plans from unlawful sex discrimination)