## Facts

- Montgomery County enacted the Employee Benefits Equity Act of 1999, extending County employment benefits to employees’ domestic partners, including same-sex and opposite-sex partners.
- Covered benefits included health insurance, leave, and survivor benefits, intended to be comparable to those provided to spouses of County employees.
- The ordinance defined eligibility criteria for domestic partners (including shared residence and mutual financial responsibility) but did not require marriage.
- The ordinance also expanded certain County code definitions (including in ethics provisions) to include domestic partners, affecting benefit administration that interacted with federal benefit frameworks such as COBRA and the FMLA.
- Maryland state law then provided that only a marriage between a man and a woman was valid in Maryland.
- County residents and employees sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the ordinance exceeded home rule authority and conflicted with state marriage law and federal statutes.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for the County, and the challengers appealed to Maryland’s highest court.

## Issues

1. Whether a charter county may, under Maryland home rule authority, enact a local law extending employment benefits to domestic partners of county employees.
2. Whether extending spouse-like benefits to domestic partners conflicts with, or is preempted by, Maryland marriage law or state public policy on marriage.
3. Whether the ordinance conflicts with, or is preempted by, federal benefit statutes such as COBRA and the FMLA.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed summary judgment for Montgomery County.
- The court held the ordinance was a valid local law governing the County’s internal personnel policies and employment relationship.
- The court held the ordinance did not create a new marital status and did not alter or contradict Maryland’s definition of marriage.
- The court held the ordinance was not preempted by, and did not conflict with, applicable federal benefit statutes.

## Legal Principles

- Under Maryland home rule, a charter county may enact local laws addressing the county’s structure, organization, and internal governance, including employee benefits, unless barred by preemption or conflict with state law.
- A local law is invalid if the State has occupied the field or if the local law directly conflicts with state law or frustrates the state legislature’s purpose; parallel regulation alone does not establish preemption.
- Extending employment benefits to domestic partners is an employment-policy determination and does not regulate marriage or confer the full set of legal rights and duties associated with marriage under state law.
- Federal benefit statutes establishing required minimum coverage or rights do not, without more, prohibit an employer from offering broader benefits to additional categories of beneficiaries.

## Conclusion

Maryland’s highest court upheld Montgomery County’s domestic-partner benefits ordinance as a lawful exercise of home rule authority regulating local personnel policies, finding no impermissible intrusion into state marriage regulation and no preemption or conflict with state or federal law.


Tyma v. Montgomery County, 801 A.2d 148 (Md. 2002)