AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Employment & Labor Law for Public Safety Agencies


Back to list of subjects             Back to Legal Publications Menu

Survivorship

    A civilian employee of the FBI elected his wife to receive survivor benefits in the Federal Employees Retirement System upon his death. He was married to her for less than nine months before his death and had no children together. When she sought the benefits, the Office of Personnel Management denied her claim. Under 5 U.S.C. 8441(1), a widow is defined as a “surviving wife” who: “was married to [the covered decedent] for at least [nine] months immediately before his death” or “is the mother of issue by that marriage.” Subsequently, a Merit Systems Protection Board administrative law judge denied a request she filed for information as to whether the nine-month requirement had previously been waived for others and whether the nine-month requirement ad ever been sufficiently explained to her husband. This ruling became the final decision of the Board, and a federal appeals court affirmed it, applying rational basis scrutiny and applicable U.S. Supreme Court precedent. It rejected an argument that the nine months rule was unconstitutional. Becker v. Office of Personnel Management, #16-1365, (Fed. Cir.).     Surviving family members of eight firefighters who died in 2003 were denied survivors' benefits under the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Act, 42 U.S.C. 3796. The firefighters had not been public safety officers within the meaning of the Act, as they were employed by a private company that worked as an independent contractor supplying firefighters to the state and government agencies for a fee. Under the Act, a public safety officer is defined as "an individual serving a public agency in an official capacity. Accordingly, no survivor benefits were available to the families under the Act. Moore v. Dep't of Justice, #13-8001, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 14149 (Fed. Cir.).
     The male same-sex partner of a Missouri highway patrolman killed in the line of duty challenged two state statutes. The first provides benefits to the spouse of a state highway patrolman killed in the line of duty, while the second statutes provides that the word spouse in the first statute only refers to a marriage between a man and a woman. The plaintiff was denied survivor benefits and argued that he was denied his equal protection rights under the state Constitution on the basis of his sexual orientation. Rejecting this claim, the Missouri Supreme Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to survivor benefits because he was not married to the decedent, and that would be the case even if they had been a heterosexual couple but unmarried. The statute concerning benefits discriminated solely on the basis of marital status, not sexual orientation. The plaintiff did not have standing to challenge the ban on benefits for same-sex married couples as he was not a member of that class of persons. Glossip v. Mo. Dep't of Transp. & Highway Patrol Employees' Ret. Sys., #SC92583, 2013 Mo. Lexis 294. 
    The unrelated death of a plaintiff does not prevent her survivors from recovering damages for emotional distress caused by sexual harassment and constructive termination. Los Angeles (County of) v. Super. Ct. (Schonert), 1996 Cal.App. Lexis 1082, 50 Cal.App.4th 1453, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 358. [1997 FP 28-9]
     When a California law enforcement officer causes the death of a person, the estate cannot also recover for the decedent's emotional injuries; the wrongful death action provides sufficient monetary recovery. Garcia v. Super. Ct., 42 Cal.App.4th 177 (1996). {N/R}

Back to list of subjects             Back to Legal Publications Menu