Pitt’s decision to extend same-sex benefits ended pleas from employees to institute the… Pitt’s decision to extend same-sex benefits ended pleas from employees to institute the benefits, but it may not end a long-standing lawsuit against the University.

In a widely distributed memo released Sept. 1, Chancellor Mark Nordenberg announced, “Pitt will begin offering health insurance benefits for the same-sex and opposite-sex partners of its eligible employees.” The memo did not, however, state whether the University had settled claims of seven of its current and former employees that Pitt wrongly denied benefits to the same-sex partners of those employees.

The plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, are appealing Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Robert Gallo’s ruling that Pittsburgh’s anti-discrimination ordinance does not require that Pitt provide health insurance benefits to partners of same-sex employees.

According to Vic Walczak, legal director of the Pittsburgh office of the ACLU, the lawsuit stands, and the appeal will go to Commonwealth Court unless Pitt resolves outstanding issues with the seven plaintiffs. The court scheduled oral arguments for the case for Oct. 6.

“There are still issues in the lawsuit, primarily the money people paid to buy their partner[s] insurance or pay for health costs,” Walczak said.

Robert Hill, Pitt’s vice chancellor for public affairs, would not comment on specific issues in the lawsuit, but stated that “we never believed the courts were the right place to resolve this.”

“We didn’t choose the forum, but we won twice in that forum,” Hill said, referring to Gallo’s 2000 temporary injunction that ordered the Pittsburgh Human Relations Commission to halt investigation of the case, and to Gallo’s January ruling.

Walczak suggested that the ACLU and Pitt would communicate in the next several days, but as of yet, the two sides have not discussed the pending appeal. He also said that the plaintiffs would decide whether to continue the appeal by the end of next week.

Bruce Venarde, a plaintiff in the case and an associate professor in the history department, is not surprised that Pitt did not address the issue of the lawsuit when it made a change in its policy on same-sex benefits.

“The management of the University is proceeding very carefully and formulating an argument, especially to people that might be hostile to this change,” he said. “This is strategic on their part.”

Venarde specifically referred to conservative Pennsylvania state legislators, whom the University cited in the past as an impediment to extending health insurance benefits to partners of same-sex employees.

State Rep. Jerry Birmelin, R-Wayne, has offered amendments in the past aimed at barring public universities that offer same-sex benefits from receiving state appropriations. He said he did not expect that legislation similar to what he introduced in the past would be successful in the legislature.

While Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Squirrel Hill, anticipates some rhetorical “fireworks” from conservative legislators, he shares Birmelin’s outlook that Pitt’s appropriation will not be affected.

“This difference this year, as opposed to two years ago, is that you have a progressive, Democratic governor,” Frankel said.

Venarde does not doubt that the political climate of the state legislature factored into Pitt’s decision to change its policy, but he believes Nordenberg’s decision took more into account.

“The paper I saw said litigation was in the past, which just isn’t true,” Venarde said. “It’s a little disingenuous to say that this has nothing to do with the lawsuit.”