On December 3, 2013, plaintiffs, two employees of BNSF Railway Company who were married to same-sex spouses, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Washington against the BNSF Railway Company under the federal Equal Pay Act, 29 USC §206(d)(1), §216, and related sections. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, they asked the court to declare that BNSF must pay company spousal benefits, regardless of the BNSF employee's sex or sexual orientation, and to enjoin the defendant from continuing its benefit discrimination and denial of plan benefits. The plaintiffs also asked for compensatory damages for the benefits they should have received thus far. Later, in an amended complaint, plaintiffs added causes of action under Title VII, ERISA, and a state anti-discrimination statute, all of which stemmed from the same denial of benefits.

The case arose from BNSF's definition of marriage. Plaintiffs were residents of and legally married in Washington State. BNSF, however, defined marriage as between a man and a woman. As a result, the firm denied benefits to plaintiffs' same-sex spouses, which led to the lawsuit.

On September 22, 2014, the District Court for the Western District of Washington (Judge Ricardo S. Martinez), dismissed the ERISA claim for lack of jurisdiction and allowed the remaining claims to continue, by granting in part and denying in part the defendant's motion to dismiss.

On February 24, 2015, the Court (Judge Ricardo S. Martinez), dismissed the case pursuant to the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal. Prior to settling, BNSF had voluntarily started providing benefit coverage for same-sex spouses, including the plaintiffs' spouses.

Megan Dolan - 08/07/2014
David Hamstra - 03/22/2015


compress summary