In an attempt to end the same-sex benefits lawsuit once and for all, Pitt has challenged the… In an attempt to end the same-sex benefits lawsuit once and for all, Pitt has challenged the City of Pittsburgh’s Equal Rights Ordinance.

When the case began in 1996, Pitt was accused of violating the ordinance, which declares that no citizen shall be denied rights on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity or sexual preference.

The University filed its request for a permanent injunction, or stoppage, to the case on Tuesday, making it the first time University will be the plaintiff in the seven-year saga of the lawsuit.

The American Civil Liberties Union’s brief on the case calls the University’s challenge – which says the ordinance violates Pennsylvania’s Home Rule Act and Human Relations Act – “without merit.”

The challenge comes after Pitt was awarded a preliminary injunction in April 2000 and then had litigation voluntarily suspended by the plaintiffs for a year. The plaintiffs, several University employees whose domestic partners were not given full health benefits, agreed to stop the lawsuit in exchange for the formation of a committee to study the effects of granting full benefits to the same-sex partners of employees.

The committee’s findings were released in a report during the summer, several months later than expected. The committee concluded that “to move unilaterally to offer domestic partner health insurance benefits now would not be prudent.”

Christine Biancheria, one of the lawyers for the ACLU, which represents the plaintiffs, called the committee “a complete and utter failure.”

She said the latest action on the part of Pitt is “attacking the ability of the city to protect the rights of gays and lesbians.”

Pitt Vice Chancellor for Public Affairs Robert Hill said the University was pursuing the action to end the lawsuit.

“We never felt that this was a matter that needed to be decided through litigation,” Hill said.

Rainbow Alliance President Josh Ferris called Hill’s comment “a lie,” saying Pitt has shown no desire to communicate and solve the problem internally.

“The University’s refused to talk,” Ferris said. “We would like to do this in the most civil means possible. But they refuse to be civil, so we have to take them to court because they’re breaking the law in the city of Pittsburgh.”

Hill disagreed.

“The court has ruled that the University did not discriminate,” he said. “We think it’s unfortunate that the adversaries decided to reinstitute the lawsuit, thereby breaking the moratorium.”

Hill added that the committee recommended a multilateral solution, with every state-related university working together and “we’re still hopeful for resolution along those lines.”

“Pittsburgh is a home-rule municipality and it has the rights to protect its citizens any way it needs to,” Biancheria said.

As the case enters its seventh year, it continues to be a major issue for local and student activists. Ferris said prospective students usually don’t know about the case until they get to campus, where fliers and protests are common sights.

“Students ask me ‘I’m out, should I come to Pitt?'” Ferris said. “The reality of it is, if you have a better shots in New York or Miami, go for it.”

The committee’s report included a section discussing the effect the lack of benefits has on attracting faculty and students.

“Few if any students make the choice to attend or not to attend the University of Pittsburgh on the basis of the benefit package offered to its employees,” it concluded. It also said “the number of individuals who decide not to accept a position at the University or who decide to leave the University [based on the benefits package] is probably not zero, but is not large enough to have materially affected the quality of the University’s overall achievements.”

Student Government Board member Andrea DeChellis said she disagreed with the committee’s assessment.

“It’s a famous ACLU case now,” she said. “When I go to other universities, people know us by that case.”

According to Ferris, the University is demonstrating “a very common form of homophobia.”

“It’s not gonna be your Fred Phelps and Jesse Helms homophobia,” he said. “These policies are actually hurting people. Some of these employees’ partners need these benefits. It’s that simple.”

Perhaps the primary reason the committee gave for not providing benefits was the potential for backlash in the state Legislature. “Any movement to begin granting same-sex benefits runs the risk of losing accumulated good will in Harrisburg and may also have a tangible adverse effect on the University’s funding,” it concluded.

State Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Pittsburgh, whose district includes Pitt’s campus and some surrounding areas, said the committee’s assessment of the political climate was most likely accurate.

“There would have probably been an effort to punish Pitt,” he said, adding that the action could have come from either a direct law or from state appropriations.

Frankel said, though, that with Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell now in office, there is “a level of protection” afforded to state-related universities that wish to offer domestic partner benefits. Frankel also said Rendell “has a record of standing up for civil rights.” He added that a direct law limiting a university’s ability to offer the benefits “would never be signed by Governor Rendell.”

“I do think it’s an opportunity for the University to take another look at pursuing the issue,” he said, adding that, although there would be “screaming and some of my right-wing colleagues demanding Pitt’s head on a plate,” the University could take advantage of “a new dynamic in Harrisburg.”

Citing the recent pay increases of Chancellor Mark Nordenberg and five other top University officials and the committee’s estimated figure of just more than $1 million to provide same-sex benefits, Ferris said he believes for Pitt, “money is not a factor.”

“Pitt just wants to win, and they don’t even know why they want to win anymore,” Ferris said. “There’s so many times I’m like ‘just grant [the benefits] already, I’ve got homework to do.'”

Biancheria said Pittsburgh has a tradition of being a “front-runner” for the state in granting civil rights for citizens, adding that it was “a tradition that I guess Pitt would rather roll back.”

Despite the case, though, Ferris said he still believes he is at a good school.

“I came to Pitt because I liked it,” he said. “It doesn’t make you want to leave, but it does make you want to work harder to change it.”