GAY COUPLES SUE CITY OVER LOSS OF BENEFITS

    ACLU also likely to file suit to recover insurance canceled by
			    Proposition 22

			   By Chuck Lindell
		      Austin American-Statesman
			    June 16, 1994

Three gay couple sued the City of Austin on Wednesday to recover
insurance benefits canceled by the passage of Proposition 22.

The American Civil Liberties Union also will likely pursue a similar
lawsuit by a police officer who--like 97 other city workers--lost
domestic-partner benefits when 62 percent of voters approved the
proposition in the May 7 city election.

Though the lawsuit filed in state District court late Wednesday
alleges breach of contract and unfair insurance practices by the city,
attorney Patrick Wiseman said the real issue is equality and whether
employees receive the same pay and benefits for the same work.

"This is a case about whether there are constitutional rights to be
treated equally," he said.  "If there are, then this is a prime case
for the courts to vindicate those right."

Wendy Foxworth, co-pastor of Metropolitan Community Church in Austin,
said she and her partner, city employee Kathryn janes, joined the
lawsuit because they felt their constitutional rights had been
violated. 

"At a time when the nation is trying to ensure greater access to
preventive health care, the city has taken away health care from our
families,"  Foxworth said.  "Our families deserve the same protection
as other city employee families."

Because the city has not had time to file its response to the lawsuit,
Wiseman said, he advised the six plaintiffs--Janice Bailey, Renee
Villeneuve, Michael Moon, Tom R. Cox, Foxworth and Janes--not to
discuss the suit further. 

Proposition 22 amended the City Charter to limit insurance benefits to
a city employee's immediate family, spouse and spouse's family.
"Spouse" was defined as a husband or wife--effectively canceling the
domestic-partner policy approved by the City Council in September. 

Michael Brandes, former campaign manager for Concerned Texans, which
championed Proposition 22, doubted the legal challenge would change
the election outcome.

"I believe that, having had a variety of attorneys review the
amendment, it will stand up to the scrutiny of the law," Brandes
said.  "A lot of legal talent looked through that amendment before it
even got to the petition stage."

Jay Jacobson, executive director for the ACLU in Texas, said the
organization's legal panel will review the merits of a similar lawsuit
by police officer Michele Woodfin.

"Frankly, in a case like this, it's merely a formality," said
Jacobson, who predicted the Woodfin lawsuit would be filed and joined
to the existing suit.

Wednesday's lawsuit alleges the city breached its insurance contract
and engaged in deceptive trade practices by failing to provide the
insurance coverage.  It also claims the city violated state codes
barring discrimination based on sexual orientation or marital status.

Plaintiffs seek an injunction preventing the city from enforcing the
charter amendment and an unspecified amount of monetary damages.

Wiseman said he expected additional plaintiffs to join the lawsuit,
including heterosexual couples.

Dianne Hardy-Gracia, executive director of the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby
of Texas said several gay employees and their partners resisted joing
the lawsuit because they feared the reaction.

"Many had to wrestle with coming out publicly," she said.  "And some
had to go home and come out to their parents.  That's always very
difficult."