NYC Domestic Partner Legislative History

The struggle to achieve equal recognition of couples in domestic partner relationships, initiated as a campaign for equal employment benefits for City workers, has a long history in New York City.

• In 1988, the Lesbian and Gay Teachers Association (LGTA) filed a lawsuit in state court against the Board of Education challenging the Board's refusal to extend health insurance benefits to the domestic partners of unmarried New York City school teachers. That lawsuit brought to light the inherent inequality in workplace policies that provide substantial benefits to married employees to care for their families, but fail to provide compensation to un married employees in committed domestic partnerships.
  
  
• In 1991, New York Supreme Court Justice Carla Moskowitz ruled that the LGTA public employees seeking benefits for their domestic partners had stated a valid claim of discrimination under state and local law. The "equal pay for equal work" campaign for City employees gained momentum in the political realm as well.
  
  
• In 1989, Mayor Koch issued the first Mayoral Executive Order, E.O. 123, addressing domestic partners, which extended bereavement leave benefits to city employees with domestic partners.
  
  
• In early 1993, Mayor Dinkins took the next important step towards recognizing domestic partners when he issued two Executive Orders. The first, E.O. 48, established a domestic partner registry to be administered through the City Clerk's office. The second, E.O. 49, established additional entitlements for those who registered as domestic partners. In addition to bereavement leave, E.O. 49 extended unpaid child care leave, visitation rights in city correctional and junvenile detention facilities, visitation in city health care and hospital facilities, occupancy rights for city housing authority tenants, and succession rights for tenants in housing supervised by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development. By these orders, the city paved the way for official recognition of couples in unmarried domestic partner relationships, and began the process of extending the principle of official recognition beyond those who were city employees.
  
  
• Later in 1993, Mayor Dinkins authorized the City to settle the Lesbian and Gay Teachers Association lawsuit. That stipulated settlement made New York the largest employer in the country to extend health care benefits to its employees. Instead of just benefiting Board of Education employees, the LGTA settlement extended health, dental, vision and hospital benefits to the domestic partners of all City workers.
  
  
• In 1990, within this context, domestic partner legislation was introduced into the New York City Council by then Councilmember Carolyn Maloney.
  
  
• Since 1991, the bill has been sponsored by Councilmember Tom Duane. That bill, currently known as Intro. 163, would codify the registry and benefits already established through these Mayoral executive orders and court decisions and would forbid the City of New York from discriminating against domestic partners in any area in which marriage is used as a factor in conferring a benefit, privilege or protection. Mr. Duane's bill currently has 30 co-sponsors.
  
  
• In 1997, then Councilmember Antonio Pagan introduced a bill that would have codified the existing executive orders. Hearings on that bill were held in 1997. After vehement objections to its limited scope form most in the lesbian and gay community, it was not voted out of committee.
  
  
• In Summer 1997, the Empire State Pride Agenda asked Mayor Giuliani to support and actively advocate for the passage of the Duane domestic partnership bill in the City Council. After a series of meetings between the Pride Agenda and Mayoral staff, the Mayor committed to submit a bill that would address the inequities in City law and practice so that residents and workers who are in domestic partner relationships would be treated fairly and equally by City government. The bill submitted to the City Council this week at the request of the Mayor represents a committment by City government to recognize domestic partner relationships to the extent the City has any jurisdiction over the benefits, access, recognition or responsibilities that spouses or domestic partners receive.