924 N.W.2d 146
S.D.2019Background
- Deborah Cady retired from the Rapid City Police Department (and SDRS) on May 1, 2012; she and Debra Anderson were long-term committed partners who began cohabiting in 1988 but did not marry before retirement.
- The couple married in Nevada on July 19, 2015, 23 days after Obergefell v. Hodges was decided; Cady died March 10, 2017.
- Anderson applied for survivor-spouse benefits from the South Dakota Retirement System (SDRS) after Cady’s death; SDRS denied the claim because the couple were not married at the time of Cady’s retirement and therefore Anderson did not satisfy the statutory definition of “spouse.”
- Anderson appealed to the Office of Hearing Examiners (OHE), then to Meade County circuit court; both affirmed SDRS’s denial. Anderson appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court.
- Statutory text controlling the claim: SDCL 3-12-94 (survivor benefit entitlement) and SDCL 3-12-47(80) (definition of “spouse” requiring marriage before retirement and more than 12 months before death). South Dakota does not recognize common-law marriages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Obergefell should be applied retroactively to recognize a marriage before Cady’s retirement | Anderson: Obergefell is a federal rule that should be given full retroactive effect, so her relationship should be treated as a marriage before retirement | SDRS: Retroactivity, if any, only applies to marriages already solemnized or recognized under state common-law; no prior solemnization here so retroactivity does not create a marriage | Held: Even assuming Obergefell is retroactive, it cannot create a marriage where none was ever solemnized; Anderson did not marry before retirement so retroactivity does not help her |
| Whether Anderson meets the statutory definition of “spouse” for survivor benefits | Anderson: But for South Dakota’s ban on same-sex marriage, she and Cady would have married before retirement; she should be treated as spouse for SDCL 3-12-47(80) purposes | SDRS: Statutory definition requires an actual marriage prior to retirement; South Dakota does not recognize common-law marriage, and there was no solemnization before retirement | Held: SDCL 3-12-47(80) requires marriage before retirement; Anderson was not married at that time and South Dakota law bars common-law marriage, so she is ineligible for survivor benefits |
| Whether denial amounted to unconstitutional discrimination against same-sex couples | Anderson: Denial discriminates on basis of marriage/sexual orientation | SDRS: The benefit scheme differentiates by marital status, which is permissible; precedent allows employer/pension benefits limited by marital status | Held: Denial was statutory application (marital-status distinction), not impermissible sex or sexual-orientation discrimination under state precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) (same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry under the Fourteenth Amendment)
- Harper v. Virginia Dep’t of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86 (1993) (federal rules of law applied retroactively in civil cases still open 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) (denial of employer-administered benefits based on marital status is not sex discrimination)
- General Elec. Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125 (1976) (employer disability benefits exclusions do not necessarily constitute unlawful sex discrimination)