Arlington County v. White
259 Va. 708, 24 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1504, 528 S.E.2d 706 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Dillon Rule, a local governing body exceeds its implied authority to provide health insurance benefits to its employees' "dependents" when it creates a definition of dependent that includes domestic partners based on financial interdependence rather than financial dependence.
Facts:
- Arlington County maintained a self-funded health insurance benefits plan for its employees, funded in part by local tax dollars.
- In May 1997, Arlington County announced it was expanding the definition of 'eligible dependents' to include an employee's spouse, a federally-defined tax dependent, or a 'domestic partner.'
- The County's policy defined a 'domestic partner' based on eight criteria, including that the partner resides with the employee, shares basic living expenses, and is 'financially interdependent with the employee.'
- The policy did not require the domestic partner to be financially dependent on the employee for support.
- The domestic partner could be of the same or opposite sex as the employee.
- Arlington County began covering individuals as domestic partners and paying benefits under the expanded plan.
Procedural Posture:
- Andrew White, Diana White, and Wendell Brown (the Taxpayers) filed a bill of complaint against Arlington County in the trial court.
- The Taxpayers sought a declaratory judgment that the County's policy was unauthorized and an injunction to prevent its implementation.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the trial court.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Taxpayers, ruling that the County's plan violated the Dillon Rule.
- Arlington County, as appellant, was granted an appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a local government's self-funded health insurance plan, which extends coverage to employees' 'domestic partners' who are defined as 'financially interdependent' rather than financially dependent, exceed the authority granted by the state legislature under the Dillon Rule?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Koontz
Yes. A local government's health benefits plan defining a dependent based on financial interdependence exceeds its authority and violates the Dillon Rule. Virginia statutes empower localities to provide health benefits for employees and their 'dependents,' but do not define the term. While this implies localities have the power to define it, that power must be exercised reasonably. The County’s definition, which requires only financial 'interdependence,' deviates from the established meaning of 'dependent,' which implies reliance on another for support. Although spouses are covered regardless of financial status, this is a long-standing exception contemplated by the legislature. The legislature did not intend to allow localities to adopt a definition that abandons the core concept of financial dependence for other individuals, making the County's action an unreasonable implementation of its authority and therefore an ultra vires act.
Concurring - Justice Kinser
Yes. The County's plan violates the Dillon Rule. The majority is correct to decide this case on the narrow ground that the County's definition of 'dependent' is unreasonable because it substitutes 'interdependence' for 'dependence.' This approach correctly resolves the issue presented without addressing the more complex public policy arguments raised by the dissent concerning same-sex unions and common-law marriage. Deciding the case on those broader public policy grounds could inadvertently call into question other state laws, such as tax statutes that allow dependency exemptions for unmarried members of a household, which is an unnecessary complication.
Dissenting-in-part-and-concurring-in-judgment - Justice Hassell
Yes, the plan is invalid, but the majority avoids the fundamental issue. The County's action violates the Dillon Rule not merely because of its definition of dependency, but because it represents a disguised effort to recognize common-law marriages and same-sex unions, which are contrary to Virginia's established public policy. By defining a 'domestic partner' with criteria that mimic a marital relationship, the County is legislating in the area of domestic relations, a power reserved exclusively for the state's General Assembly. The majority's narrow holding on 'interdependence' fails to resolve the central conflict and invites the County to simply amend its plan, forcing future litigation on an issue that the court should have decided definitively.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the strict application of the Dillon Rule in Virginia, narrowly constraining the power of local governments to only those powers expressly granted or necessarily implied by state law. By focusing on the semantic distinction between 'dependence' and 'interdependence,' the court established a precedent that a locality's discretion in implementing its authority is not boundless and must adhere to the established meaning of statutory terms. This ruling significantly limited the ability of Virginia localities to extend employee benefits to non-traditional partners, forcing any such expansion to be based on a clear showing of financial dependency rather than the nature of the personal relationship.
