James Esseks,
Co-Director,
勛圖眻畦 LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project
Share This Page
November 20, 2009

As I read those words at the end of the title of a newly issued case from a federal appeals court in California, my high school Latin came flooding back to me and I got teary-eyed.

defines the term Et uxor as And his wife. Except in this circumstance, the court used it (appropriately) to mean And her wife. Times have changed, even for the federal judiciary.

The case is about Karen Golinski, who works as a staff attorney for the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which covers appeals from federal courts in nine western states. She and her long-time partner, Amy, married in California in 2008. Once married, Karen asked her employer to add her wife to the health care plan. When the federal court system told her Amy wasnt eligible because their marriage wasnt recognized by the federal government, she filed a complaint with the court system, with help from Lambda Legal and the law firm Morrison & Foerster. They pointed out that the refusal to recognize Karen and Amys valid California marriage violated the courts internal policy of not discriminating based on sex or sexual orientation.

This week, Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit, issued a in this dispute, stating once again that Karen is entitled to receive health care coverage for her wife, just like any other lawfully married employee of the federal courts. But this time, he added Et Uxor to the caption of the case, so that it reads "IN THE MATTER OF KAREN GOLINSKI, ET UXOR", reflecting in yet another way the federal courts recognition of the validity of Karen and Amys union. And throughout the decision, the Chief Judge refers to Amy as Karens wife.

The merits of the decision are important guaranteeing employees of the federal court system equal pay for equal work but the courts linguistic respect for their relationship is also a milestone.

Learn More 勛圖眻畦 the Issues on This Page