Glossip v. Missouri Department of Transportation & Highway Patrol Employees' Retirement System
411 S.W.3d 796
Mo.2013Background
- Corporal Dennis Engelhard, a Missouri State Highway Patrol officer, died in the line of duty in 2009; his long-term same-sex partner Kelly Glossip applied for statutory survivor benefits but was not married to Engelhard.
- MPERS denied benefits for lack of a marriage certificate and relied on a statute (§104.012) defining “spouse” to recognize only opposite-sex marriages; Glossip appealed administratively and then sued in state court.
- Glossip challenged the survivor-benefits provision (§104.140.3) and §104.012 under the Missouri Constitution’s equal protection clause and as an unconstitutional special law; he expressly did not challenge Missouri’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
- The trial court dismissed Glossip’s amended petition for failure to state a claim; the Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed de novo.
- The majority held Glossip had standing to challenge §104.140.3 (survivor-benefit statute) but not §104.012; it ruled the survivor-benefit statute discriminates on marital status (not sexual orientation), is subject to rational-basis review, and is constitutional as reasonably related to legitimate state interests (assisting dependents, controlling costs, administrative efficiency).
- A dissenting justice argued the statutes necessarily discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in context (because same-sex couples cannot marry under Missouri law) and urged heightened scrutiny, concluding the statutes fail that test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Glossip) | Defendant's Argument (MPERS/State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether survivor-benefit statute (§104.140.3) and §104.012 violate Missouri equal protection | Statutes deny benefits based on sexual orientation because they effectively preclude same-sex partners from ever qualifying (marriage requirement + ban on same-sex marriage) | The statutes discriminate only on marital status (not sexual orientation); Glossip was denied benefits because he was unmarried | Held: Survivor-benefit statute discriminates by marital status, not sexual orientation; rational-basis review applies and statute is constitutional |
| Standing to challenge §104.140.3 and §104.012 | Glossip: He is within disadvantaged class for §104.140.3 and affected by both statutes | State: Glossip is not a member of the class disadvantaged by §104.012 because he was not married | Held: Glossip has standing to challenge §104.140.3 but lacks standing to challenge §104.012 |
| Appropriate level of scrutiny for the spousal classification | Glossip (dissent): Classification operates to disadvantage gays/lesbians and warrants heightened scrutiny | Majority: Marital-status classifications are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class; apply rational-basis | Held: Rational-basis review applies to §104.140.3; heightened scrutiny not applied |
| Whether §104.140.3 is an unconstitutional special law under Mo. Const. art. III, §40 | Glossip: Statute is effectively closed-class because same-sex couples cannot marry in Missouri | State: Statute creates an open-ended class (spouses) and is not special; classification is reasonable | Held: Not a special law; spousal classification is open-ended and constitutionally reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) (federal case striking federal nonrecognition of same-sex marriages; discussed but distinguished on facts)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (privacy ruling that decriminalized private consensual homosexual conduct; discussed re: context of discrimination)
- Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) (example of invalidating marital-status-based restriction under rational-basis analysis)
- Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (landmark equal protection precedent cited in dissent's discussion of historical discrimination)
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (invalidated bans on interracial marriage; cited in dissent on equal protection evolution)
- In re Marriage of Kohring, 999 S.W.2d 228 (Mo. banc 1999) (Missouri precedent on identifying suspect classes and marital-status classifications)
- State v. Young, 362 S.W.3d 386 (Mo. banc 2012) (Missouri precedent on equal protection analysis under state constitution)
- Pemiscot County v. Mo. Prosecuting Attorneys & Circuit Attorneys Ret. Sys., 256 S.W.3d 98 (Mo. banc 2008) (rational-basis review standard for economic legislation and classifications)