Lilly v. City of Minneapolis, 527 N.W.2d 107

Lilly v. City of Minneapolis

527 N.W.2d 107

Minn. Ct. App.

1995

Check Treatment

*1 DECISION failing trial court did not err

suppress evidence seized search under the

warrants, in declining nor to dismiss probable for lack

complaint cause. The

Minneapolis disorderly conduct ordinance unconstitutional, nor is the collateral-

ly injunction estopped 1982 civil from

enforcing it. The trial court did not abuse its rulings evidentiary or in

discretion

instructing jury.

Affirmed. LILLY, Respondent, A.

James MINNEAPOLIS, Appellant OF

CITY (C8-

(C6-94-1583), Respondent

94-1584/CX-94-1585), Jones, al., intervenors, Respon et

Kellie (C6-94-1583/CX-94-1585), Ap

dents

pellants (C8-94-1584), Anglin, al., intervenors, et

Jane (C6-94-1583/C8-94-

Respondents (CX-94-1585).

1584), Appellants C6-94-1583,

Nos. CX-94-1585. Appeals

Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 1995.

Review Denied March *2 Minnesota, Balos,

Beverly University of Freeman, Atty., Hennepin County Michael 0. Minneapolis, Hennepin for amicus curiae County. Gen., III, Humphrey, Atty. H.

Hubert Gen., Paul, Garry, Atty. Asst. for John St. Atty. curiae amicus Minnesota Gen. Erdall, Minneapolis Richard M. Profes- Ass’n, Employees Minneapolis, sional for amicus curiae MPEA. Prichard, Council, Family

Tom Minnesota Minneapolis, for amicus curiae Minnesota Family Council. Wagner, Family

David M. Coun- Research cil, DC, Washington, for amicus curiae Fami- ly Reseai’ch Council. PETERSON, by and

Considered decided P.J., FOLEY,* and SCHUMACHER and JJ. OPINION FOLEY, Judge. DANIEL F. This case involves a confrontation between city’s power charter a home rule exercise of light Appellants, of a state statute. City Minneapolis city employees, and five challenge judgment permanently en- joins providing from health insurance city employees’ benefits for same sex domes- tic not autho- blood relatives rized to receive such Minn. benefits under Lorence, VA, Springs, Jordan W. Paeonian (1992).1 grounds Stat. We affirm on Shoemaker, Minneapolis, Paul for James A. that, although city, it is a charter home rule Lilly. City Minneapolis not have the does grant employee health care benefits Brady, Moore, A. City Atty., Surell James beyond statute. those defined Atty., Minneapolis, for Asst. Minneapolis. Benson, Dorsey Whitney, Min-

Scott A. & FACTS Jones, neapolis, Kellie al. for et (the Appellant City Minneapolis City) Brosnahan, Lockhart, Nering city. Kristin Jo- a home rule charter current seph, Suggs, Minneapolis, adopted by Lockhart & for charter was election on Novem- Anglin, et al. Jane ber

* judge Appeals, opposing Court of Retired Minnesota brief the district court’s decision. The Const, Council, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Family Minnesota an advoca- Research VI, § 2. art. cy organization Minneapolis, based in and the Council, General, Family advocacy organiza- Research an Hennepin Attorney 1. The Minnesota D.C., Washington, jointly an County Minneapolis tion in filed amicus and the Professional Em- ployees support respondent taxpayer. amicus curiae brief in Association each filed an curiae 1989, appellants Anglin, family coverage employ- In 1988 and and the Jane single er contribution for Bagan (Anglin ap- Hanson insurance cover- Judith and Marie age applicable under the collective Library Board bar- pellants) sued the agreement. gaining failing provide for coverage health care *3 partners city employees. On the domestic expressly The resolution excludes reimburse- 25,1991, January Minneapolis City the Coun- employee’s partner ment for the domestic or Council) (City passed cil the Part- Domestic family member who has access otherwise to Ordinance, nerships chapter Min- 142 of the group coverage other health insurance or to Code). (City neapolis Code of Ordinances Medicare. City partners as Code defines domestic August City .On the Council two adults who: 93R-342, adopted extending resolution (1) by than Are not related blood closer coverage partners “health care for the permitted marriage the under laws of employees partner- in same sex domestic state; ships.” This resolution that directed the support- “limited reimbursement mechanism (2) Are or mar- not married related ing the the diverse families of work riage; eligible force who are not for health cover- (3) contract; competent Are to enter into a addition, age” be continued. the resolu- (4) partner Have no domestic with other City tion that the would directed “seek an shared, with whom the household is or term affirmative inclusion of the ‘domestic person whom the adult has another partners’ legislation in state on health care partner; domestic resolution, benefits.” Pursuant to this jointly responsible Are to other each health then contracted with two mainte- life; for the necessities (HMO’s) organizations to nance include same (6) Are to committed one another to partners January sex domestic effective persons same to extent as married are city employees registered 1994. Six their other, except each for the traditional partners domestic for health insurance bene- marital status and solemnities. fits.

Minneapolis, Title Code Ordinances 20, 1993, respondent On December James (1991). ch. Lilly, taxpayer City A. resident of the a Minneapolis, sought temporary a restrain- 17, 1992, Minneapolis November On enjoin implement- ing City order from to Commission Civil determined ing Following hearing resolution 93R-342. a City’s employee program benefits dis- 30, 1993, district on December court against criminated lesbian granted restraining temporary order. Library upon their Board based “affectional Lilly subsequently complaint his amended preference.” April On enjoin providing from reimburse- 93R-106, passed resolution Council authoriz- ment for health insurance under resolu- costs city employees ing limited reimbursement tion 93R-106. health care insurance costs for sex for same partners qualified for domestic blood The district court determined depen- who are relatives “not considered Minneapolis’ 93R-106 and resolutions plans.” under health dent current were ultra vires under Minn.Stat. 93R-342 City acknowledges that resolution 93R-106 health care providing 471.61 and that’ cov- monthly grant applies to reimbursement of erage sex contra- for same domestic children, “adult costs for adult public policy and violated state vened state grandchildren, parents, grandparents, broth- Lilly’s granted motion for law. The court sister, er, aunt, uncle, nephew niece or who declaratory/summary judgment and for a employee during period with re- resides injunction. appeal permanent followed. This claimed.” The imbursement resolution ISSUE

limits the reimbursement May City Minneapolis, a home rule than an amount not more the difference' city, provide employee health charter care employer contribution between * * * surgi- covering medical and “spouse” not defined as hospitalization insurance cal benefits and general statute concern- “dependents” or depen- employees and or benefits for both to mu- care benefits ing the of health * * * payment is deemed to be dents. nicipal employees? compensation paid to the offi- additional employees. or cers ANALYSIS 1. There should subd. here,' Where, material facts are dispute “munici- no serious terms be dispute, this court need not defer corporation” political subdivi- pal and “other application of the law. the district court’s politic body corporate and sion or other Corp., 442 Data N.W.2d Hubred v. Control cities, include home rule charter this state” (Minn.1989). *4 only issue here City Minneapolis. The stat- such as the of application of interpretation and concerns departments of the state and ute’s exclusion charter, City’s Minnesota statutes and the further clarifies that the statute of the state application and resolutions.2 The ordinances subdivisions, encompasses political all other charter, statute, a ordi and construction of May- including rule charter cities. See home question is a of law. nance or resolution Taxation, 218 tag Co. v. Commissioner of Employment Hibbing Educ. Ass’n v. Public (1944) (the 460, 464, 37, 40 Minn. 17 N.W.2d (Minn. Bd., Relations others). thing includes all exclusion of one 1985). dispute here centers on the effect of City may whether the law- To determine may of those who the statute’s definition for fully provide medical insurance benefits argue Appellants receive benefits. city employ- partners of same sex domestic require permissive, that it does not statute is employees for medical ees and reimburse city provide insurance benefits and that a to relatives who live with insurance costs of legislative intent to limit it does not indicate impression, requiring them a ease of first is city’s power provide or to extend benefits (1992) § analysis 471.61 an of Minn.Stat. premiums insurance reimbursement for subject which with the same matter. deals in persons not listed the statute. To the provides: That statute contrary, permissive in much the statute is town, municipal corporation, county, to, city “may,” required pro as a but is not district, county commit- school extension employees vide medical insurance benefits to tee, political subdivision or other other dependents. and their As the district court state, politic this body corporate however, and concluded, lim 471.61 Minn.Stat. any department or may other than the state persons pro the its the to whom state, body, through governing and the health care benefits. “Where a statute vide acting jointly any things two or more subdivisions the or to be af enumerates bodies, may governing in- through provisions, implied their an fected there is protect Maytag, or its or their officers and Minn. at sure exclusion of others.” any employees, dependents, their or defines and 17 N.W.2d at 40. The statute officers, employees, “dependents” “spouse and minor or classes of or to mean class age years policy policies or unmarried children under the dependents, under a or dependent age the of 25 group or and students under contract or contracts of Minn.R.Civ.App.P. reverse, ("appellate courts Anglin appellants other 103.04 2. The have raised one issue, modify judgment Lilly's arguments or order being con- affirm or whether any appealed as the cerning Act and from or take other action the Minnesota Human Further, may require”). justice interest of and United States Constitutions the Minnesota Lilly's raising Lilly here ruled in favor on because issues district court should be stricken Lilly appellants scope appellants' to strike. is not re- state- issues seek which are outside Minn.R.Civ.App.P. quired these to file a notice of review of issues ments of the case under "adversely Contrary appellants' they affect him.” because do not See We think not. 133.03. claim, procedure Minn.R.Civ.App.P. (prescribes a of the issues contained in an statement judgment respondent appellant's to seek review of a or of the case does not limit statement him”). may adversely appeal. "which affect We reviewability The nature order deny appellant’s of issues on issues discussed appeal the trial court motion strike and the course of Lilly's proceedings scope brief. our of review. See determine

HI years actually dependent upon employ- “narrowly city’s power construe” the to act at ee.” Id. subd. la. Domestic legislature “unless the expressly provid- expansive list of relatives contained in Welsh, ed otherwise.” 355 N.W.2d at 120. resolutions are outside the defini- subdivisions, Political including the dependents provided by tion of Minn.Stat. City of Minneapolis, have operat heretofore § 471.61. ed assumption under that Minn.Stat. claims that it has the governs 471.61 ability their provide in provide health care employees benefits to its surance Significantly, benefits. one of the by virtue of its charter. “matters mu resolutions issue here contains man concern, nicipal home cities rule have all the date to “seek an affirmative inclusion of the legislative power possessed by partners’ term ‘domestic legislation state state, expressly save as such on health care Minneapolis, benefits.” impliedly or withheld.” State ex rel. Lowell 1993). (Aug. Resolution 93R-342 Crookston, When first enacted in added). (emphasis N.W.2d only provided insurance benefits for Here, contends that its action is of a officers political subdivi only local concern and does not conflict with 615, § sions. 1943 Minn.Laws eh. 1. Since disagree. state law. We *5 then, has, legislature the request at the of municipality powers, has no inherent political subdivisions, twice amended the stat only powers but expressly such as are expand ute to the class of to whom a conferred implied statute or are political provide subdivision could insurance necessary powers in aid of those which are * * * benefits. The 1957 amendment added “de expressly conferred. a matter [I]f pendents,” “spouse defined as and minor un presents problem, a implied statewide the * n * actually married dependent children necessary poivers municipality reg- a to of upon employee.” the 1957 Minn.Laws ch. narrowly ulate are constmed unless the 321, § 1. The 1971 amendment added “de legislature expressly provided other- pendent age students years under the of 25 wise. actually dependent upon employee.” the Orono, 117, City Welsh v. of Minn.Laws, 48, § Extra Session ch. 16. (Minn.1984) added). (emphasis In another 1973, Finally, in reduced the involving City Minneapolis, case of this age coverage of for minor children from 19 to court “requires held a Welsh narrow age 725, 68, §§ 18. 1973 ch. Minn.Laws City’s powers regulate construction” of the Accordingly, the district court concluded that problem.” a City Minneapolis “statewide of 471.61, application the statewide of University Comm’n on Civil of legislature’s prior in amendments ac- Minn., 841, (Minn.App.1984). N.W.2d cordance political with the desires of state support To its claim that its resolu subdivisions, provision indicates that the of tions do not conflict with Minn.Stat. coverage political for subdivi- City provided relies on a test in Ameri dependents sions’ and their is a Waseca, City can Electric Co. v. 102 Minn. of statewide, local, matter of not con- (1907). Respondent Lilly 113 N.W. 899 cern. analysis relies on the contained in a more agree. We case, Mangold recent Village Midwest v.Co. Richfield, Further, city’s N.W.2d 813 actions also concern the of (Minn.1966). A key applying factor in problem either statewide of discrimination. This is legislation case whether the local previously involves court has thát held discrimination an of therefore, area statewide concern. Id. at 143 is statewide concern and 821; Co., N.W.2d at American Electric Minneapolis of the of to com- Minn, signifi 113 N.W. at 901. narrowly Most bat discrimination must be con- however, cantly, if legislation the local in City Minneapolis strued. Comm’n on of problem, apply volves a statewide we Rights, must Civil 356 N.W.2d at 843. The supreme court’s preambles most recent directive to to both resolutions at issue here MHRA, grant of orientation to the the senate that the viewed its sexual demonstrate author of the bill stated: partners sex to same insurance benefits a means to combat discrimina- employees as nothing in here about the domes- There is preamble to the first resolu- tion. The partners Nothing that could tic benefits. Minneapolis that the order of the tion states nothing it. is in here about lead to There Anglin Rights in the on Civil fact, Commission marriages. the law of homosexual complaint against appellants’ discrimination clearly very the State of Minnesota states library board was a motivat- and its marriage a man and must be between * * * provide medical ing temporarily factor Many you a woman. have re- for same sex do- insurance reimbursement opposition in I am ceived calls this bill. judicial pending a resolution mestic highly aware that there is motivated Minneapolis, or settlement of that decision. group people in this state who fear what 1993). Minn., (April Resolution 93R-106 point this bill would do. But I would also following The second resolution contained you polls consistently show out preamble: relevant statements oppose that most Americans discrimination They orientation. on the basis of sexual Whereas, Minneapolis style, approve gay life but equity in to the ideal of committed they wrong. think that discrimination is place; work bill, regardless oppo- what the And this Whereas, City Minneapolis wishes say, simply nents about discrimination. work, provide equal equal any style. It is not an endorsement of life regardless of sexual orientation. (March Floor Senate Debate S.F. No. 444 Minneapolis, Resolution 93R-342.3 (statement 1993) Spear). Allen Sen. amici and Although appellants, three history legislative provided Given the opinion propose that the the dissent to this *6 Spear’s require the Senator remarks and employee health care grant of interpretation ments for of the sexual orien concerning com- purely is a local matter provided in tation amendments Minn.Stat. employees, impact pensation municipal of apparent legislature it is legisla- on statewide concerns and state expand did not the list of health intend continuing previous and exercise of its ture’s give in care benefits Minn.Stat. 471.61 to power scope municipal em- to define the employees the same health care benefits to indisputable. ployees’ health care benefits is partners with same sex domestic as are avail The is not of a local con- issue here able to who are married. The cern. legislature again in met 1994 and made no 1993, Legislature In the Minnesota change to allow a of benefits to domes the issue of benefits to same sex considered stands, partners. tic As Minn.Stat. it amended the domestic when without inclusion of to same sex Rights prohibit Human Act to Minnesota partners, domestic it does not violate the discrimination based on sexual orientation. prohibition against MHRA discrimination time, adopted At the same upon based sexual orientation. Hinman Cf. provided: § 363.021 which Admin., Department Personnel 167 Cal. Nothing chapter in shall be construed this (1985) App.3d Cal.Rptr. 410 * * * mean that the state of Minnesota (denial of dental benefits does not constitute bisexuality homosexuality or or condones discrimination, orientation but instead sexual any equivalent lifestyle authorize [or to] merely distinguishes eligibility on the basis recognition right marriage of or the (Cal. marriage), pet. Aug. rev. denied persons between of the same sex. 15, 1985); Phillips v. Wisconsin Personnel Comm’n, 205, 121, (1), (4); 22, § Id. at Minn.Laws ch. 7. 167 Wis.2d 482 N.W.2d (it (App.1992) not approving Prior to the vote the addition of sexual orientation 7, 1993) resolution, apolis, (Minn.App. passing 3. Soon after No. C4-93-1202 Doc. second (order city appeal City withdrew Civil dismissing appeal). Anglin v. Minne- Commission order. See (1906). law discrimination under state to extend em- 107 N.W. Min- ployee coverage only neapolis expand health insurance cannot the statute with re- spouses employees). spect persons may married of state In who receive medical Phillips, paid the court stated: premiums request benefits and at the legislature by when employee clear complains she that she is not mar-

[W]hile subject definition has made the matter one of Tommerup only may ried to because she statewide concern and has defined who woman, legally marry another that is Further, receive such benefits. discrimina- not a claim of sexual orientation discrimi- tion, family as well as the is, definition of rela- in nation it as we have employment; tionships status, dependent earlier, are statewide marriage noted a claim that requires concerns. The Welsh doctrine that laws unfair are because of their failure to narrowly we power construe the aof recognize marriages. same-sex It is a re- legislate on a matter of restriction, statewide concern. sult of that not the Accordingly, by the action taken here eligibility in limitations the statute and the City, ordinance, by whether rule, resolution or Phillips DETF that is unable to ex- vires, beyond ultra the limits of the employee tend her state health insurance granted city, to the home And, rule charter and is Tommerup. benefits to as we said legal without force or effect. See id. at opinion, any the outset of change this in 107 N.W. at Having against ruled policy legislature, is for the not the expressed for the opin- reasons this courts. ion, unnecessary, we it is deem after careful Phillips, 482 127 (emphasis N.W.2d at arguments review of the raised amici and original). present marriage laws of General, Attorney to consider them fur- Minnesota are foreign consistent with these ther. Nelson, cases. Baker v. Cf. (state law Affirmed. prohibits marriage between sex) dismissed, appeal same 409 U.S. SCHUMACHER, Judge (dissenting). (1972). 37, 34 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 65 majority’s decision erodes the consti- conclusion, while the contends that tutionally recognized principle of home rule: recipients extended list of benefit is con- governance local of areas of local concern. statute, requires sistent with the Welsh *7 Const, XII, provides § Minn. art. 4 that a narrowly City’s power grant we view the to government may adopt local unit a home rule where, here, grant as of those by charter when law. A authorized home involves a statewide concern. rule charter Welsh, leg- 355 N.W.2d at 120. Because the specifically islature has “depen- defined may provide for the establishment and ad- dents,” City neither the nor the courts have departments city ministration of all of a power engraft exception grant to an to government, regulation and for the of all benefits to “depen- not listed as functions, municipal fully local as the § in dents” 471.61. Minn.Stat. See State v. legislature might have done before home 158, 161-62, Tennyson, 212 Minn. 2 N.W.2d rule charters for cities were authorized. (court (1942)

833, engraft excep- 835 will not (1992). § 410.07 Minn.Stat. tions onto statute that has broad com- prehensive language). supreme recognized court has that Minnesota’s constitutional and home rule

DECISION provisions municipal powers broad to See, A city exactly adopt home rule charter cities that home rule charters. e.g., that —“home Mangold Village rule” on matters of a Midwest v.Co. Rich 347, 358, 813, city may field, local nature. A home rule 274 Minn. 143 N.W.2d (1966); statutory authority by Cerveny, exceed its mere fiat as 820 Duluth v. 218 511, 516-18, 779, (1944); was done here. Minnesota Canal & Power Minn. 16 N.W.2d 783 Co., 429, 437, Leach, 293, 294, Koochiching Tousley Co. v. 97 Minn. Minn. v. 180 230 114 (1930). 788, Significantly, a no that home There is basis to conclude

N.W. 788 preempt intended to a home rule rule charter city’s power provide compensation charter granted all the force of a charter di- employees in the form of taxable to its legislative act rectly by and in all matters considering the issue healthcare benefits. municipal government pertaining to preemption, Supreme the Minnesota Court rule charter over- provision the home stated: general respect ivith to the same rides laws imperative, give It if faithful we are subject. intent, legisla- legislative effect to (In Ry. City Duluth re Northern Pac. v. preemptive manifest intent ture should Duluth), by Condemnation 153 spared in We can be the clearest terms. of 937, (1922) Minn. 189 N.W. 939 for such in- the sometimes elusive search added), Gadey City (emphasis quoted in v. by express if in tent it is declared terms (Minn. 344, Minneapolis, 517 N.W.2d 348 the statute. And where that is not done in (Minn. App.1994), pet. Aug. rev. denied legislatures, we the enactments of future 1994). 24, increasingly shall be constrained to hold that and ordinances on the same statutes city’s authority to act home rule charter subject are intended to be coexistent. statutory grant dependent specific is not on a 212, 214-15, Dailey, v. 284 Minn. 169 State acting pursuant authority if it is 746, (1969), quoted N.W.2d 748 in State v. Borgelt City Minneapolis, v. 271 charter. Westrum, 187, (Minn.App. 380 N.W.2d 191 249, 253-58, 438, Minn. 441-44 1986). (1965). a home rule charter covers a Where note, matter, appellants As there are numerous subject presumption that there is that, question, statutes unlike the statute in “supersede^] general all laws the charter * n * expressed.” expressly limit the of a home rule subject unless otherwise See, § 481, city. e.g., charter Minn.Stat. Snyder, ner Tur 484, (1992) (1907). (providing “legislature 112 N.W. 870 preempts authority all of a home rule char pursuant it contends that acted city regulate except ter” firearms as ex granted its charter when it statute); pressly provided Minn.Stat. employee compensation/benefits at issue 471.66, (providing § subd. 3 that no agree. replete here. I charter is officials, including elected those of “a home * n * provisions compensation regarding with may monetary rule charter receive See, employees. e.g., Minneapolis, compensation for unused vacation or sick § § § Charter chs. accruals”); leave subd. (1991 1,17 Supp.1994); & see also id. (1992) (defining maximum amount officer (charter §§ provisions authorizing ch. 4 allowances, mileage including receive for pass gov council to “for the resolutions employees and officers of “home rule charter n * * *8 good ernment and order * * * city”). legislature’s The failure to use expedient”); Minneapolis, it shall deem preemptive language § in Minn.Stat. 471.61 (1991 § of 20.10 & Code Ordinances preemptive indicates lack of intent. See Supp.1994) (city prescribe compen council to Minn, 215, Dailey, 284 at 169 N.W.2d at 748. officers). city employees sation for city It is well-settled that a home rule dispute pass legislation “permits that There could be no here cannot that what La] 352, City’s granted by Mangold, resolutions statute 274 Minn. at forbids." added). compensation. (emphasis at 93R-106 and 93R-342 are 143 N.W.2d There § employees language The record will incur is no 471.61 that reflects Minn.Stat. personal liability receipt city a income tax of forbids home rule charter from ex panding employee for blood relatives the list of healthcare bene reimbursements Further, partner city’s and for care a ordinance or resolution domestic health insur- fits. premiums paid by City pursuant ance does not conflict with state law if it is “mere complementary ly these additional and to” a stat- resolutions.

H5 817; 352, Hennepin County aptly argues, authority at also ute. Id. at see Nordstrom, 228, 232, scope employee compensa- Power v. 150 Minn. 184 to of define (where tion, benefits, general including particular statute is of im- N.W. prohibited doing things Sunday portance government certain on to local because of its impact “ability was but silent as indoor exhibition on the to attract and retain pictures, city pass motion could nevertheless needed to function legislation prohibit highest local such exhibition on level.” Christensen v. Minne- Cf. Paul, Bd., Sundays); Markley apolis Employees v. St. Mun. Retirement (retirement (Minn.1983) 357-58, Minn. 172 N.W. 215-16 N.W.2d (1919) (home city city’s ability rule charter could' offer affect to “attract compensation provided good employees”). more than in Work and retain Compensation men’s Act first enacted after legislature’s series of amendments charter). city § Minn.Stat. 471.61 to increase the list of majority compen- persons may concludes that such who be covered under a munici- pality’s grant employee sation is a matter of concern re- statewide health insurance is Orono, § quiring application significance. of Welsh v. of little a Minn.Stat. 471.61is (Minn.1984). general applies 355 N.W.2d 117 is dis- statute that to the Welsh numerous tinguishable. Welsh involved the construc- nonchartered entities listed therein. Had statutory legislature pro- tion of the to a the- intended this statute to (1982). list, city § under Id. limit Minn.Stat. vide limited or to of a “statutory city” city, clearly at 121. was defined as a home rule charter it could have city adopted that had not char- home rule stated so as it has other statutes cited (1982). 412.016, See, § e.g., ter. Minn.Stat. subd. above. Minn.Stat. 471.665. (1992). changed. This definition has not Id. Lilly it contends that is of statewide con City Minneapolis adopted a home taxpayers. Only cern to limit the burden passed rule charter and the resolutions under taxes, however, compensate are used to dispute acting by authority while of that employees. municipal pur “Taxation for Thus, body pertaining charter. of law poses municipal a matter of charac powers of a home rule charter to act City Minneapolis ter.” State ex rel. applies, under its charter not Welsh. Erickson, 195 N.W. (1923). distinguishable Lilly’s remedy Welsh also is because the is at the ballot City’s action here was of local concern. box. municipality granted “[OJnce [a] a charter Finally, the claim that the resolution * * * general

with a welfare clause impermissibly impacts policy state law and/or liberally.” Mangold, clause will be construed concerning discrimination and definition 274 Minn. at 143 N.W.2d at 820. The family marriage is without merit. It subject issue is not whether the matter of the is irrelevant that the state did “purely local” or resolutions is whether there expand dependents intend to the definition of application is some statewide or concern that 471.61, la contained in subd. contends, present, majority be as the it Minnesota Human when amended the subject being regu but whether the matter Rights prohibit Act to discrimination based “solely lated is a matter of state concern” on sexual orientation. The was not regulation and whether the local “would have acting Human under the Minnesota unreasonably upon gener adverse effects Act but instead vol- or Minn.Stat. *9 populace al of the state.” Id. untarily granted challenged benefits/com- pensation provided I would conclude that the of medical under city employees solely local is wheth- is charter and ordinances. issue may voluntanly pertaining management City Minneapolis concern and er municipal government. provide employees.1 As amicus curiae these benefits Commission, Although City's City apparently passed disput- Rights 1. which found response provide insurance for same sex ed resolutions in to the order of its Civil failure to health majority’s reliance on a comment City Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil University v. characterizing (Minn.App.1984), rights civil problem misplaced.

as a statewide

ease, Minneapolis Commission Civil investigate alleged

Rights attempted to civil University

rights violations at the of Minne Here, City’s pertain

sota. actions to the affairs and relate to a internal matter, city govern

local administration of

ment, “solely not an issue statewide Mangold, 274 Minn. at

concern.” See (providing “solely

143 N.W.2d at 820 of state standard).

wide not concern”

purported change prohibiting state laws marriage. policy law

same sex State do prohibit providing

not from partners

tó same sex domestic or to blood employees.

relations who live with injunction.

I permanent would reverse the

JOSTENS, INC., Appellant,

NORTHFIELD INSURANCE

COMPANY, Respondent.

No. C3-94-1394. Appeals of Minnesota.

Court 31, 1995.

Jan. April

Review Denied partners right voluntarily group of its was discrimination offer health insur- orientation, upon based sexual ance benefits to same sex domestic of its arguing required provide now that a law it to employees. *10 disputed position these it benefits. Its is that