## Facts

- The City of Atlanta adopted 1986 ordinances prohibiting discrimination based on “sexual orientation” in various city-controlled or city-regulated contexts, including city employment and certain licensed or permitted activities.
- In June 1993, the City enacted a domestic partnership registry ordinance defining domestic partners as two people (same or opposite gender) who live together and sign a declaration of mutual responsibility; registration functioned primarily to extend jail visitation privileges.
- In August 1993, the City enacted a domestic partner benefits ordinance extending certain employee benefits (e.g., leave and health/dental benefits) to domestic partners in a manner comparable to spouses, subject to not conflicting with Georgia law.
- A group including a state legislator, city council members, a taxpayer, a city employee, and a retired employee sued, alleging the ordinances were unconstitutional and beyond municipal authority.
- The trial court dismissed the challenge to the anti-discrimination ordinances but invalidated both domestic partnership ordinances as exceeding the City’s powers.
- The City appealed the invalidation of the domestic partnership ordinances, and plaintiffs cross-appealed the dismissal of their challenge to the anti-discrimination ordinances.

## Issues

1. Whether Atlanta had authority to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in city employment and other city-related activities.
2. Whether Atlanta had authority to create a domestic partnership registry for the limited purpose of jail visitation.
3. Whether Atlanta exceeded its authority by extending employee benefits to domestic partners not recognized as “dependents” under Georgia law.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed in part and reversed in part.
- The Court affirmed dismissal of the challenge to the sexual-orientation anti-discrimination ordinances, holding they were within municipal police power and not preempted by state law.
- The Court reversed the trial court’s invalidation of the domestic partnership registry ordinance, holding it was a limited administrative mechanism tied to jail visitation and did not create a new legal family status.
- The Court affirmed invalidation of the domestic partner benefits ordinance, holding it was ultra vires because it effectively expanded eligibility for benefits beyond state-law definitions governing dependents.

## Legal Principles

- Municipal powers are strictly construed; fair doubt about the existence of a municipal power is resolved against the municipality.
- A municipality may exercise police power to promote the general welfare by regulating city employment and city-controlled or city-regulated activities, including adopting anti-discrimination protections, unless barred by state law or preempted by a state statutory scheme.
- A municipal registry serving a narrow administrative function for managing city institutions (such as jail visitation) can be authorized where it does not purport to alter substantive family-law status under state law.
- A city may not confer employee benefits in a manner that conflicts with, or effectively rewrites, state statutory definitions (including who qualifies as a dependent for benefit purposes).

## Conclusion

The court upheld Atlanta’s authority to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and to maintain a domestic partnership registry for jail visitation, but it held the City lacked authority to extend employee benefits to domestic partners outside state-law dependent categories.


City of Atlanta v. McKinney, 265 Ga. 161, 454 S.E.2d 517 (Ga. 1995)