Seattle, WA - February 4, 2008
Volkswagen Group of America last month
filed a motion to dismiss a claim for damages brought by
Steve Parsons, the domestic partner of 61 year-old Bill
McKnight, who suffers from malignant mesothelioma.
Volkswagen argued that domestic partners in Washington
cannot assert a claim for loss of consortium (loss of
comfort, care, and society) when their partner is
grievously injured by wrongful conduct.
The Washington legislature passed groundbreaking
legislation in 2007 that explicitly gives domestic
partners important rights due to the economic benefits
that such partnerships confer upon the state. The new law
was intended to prevent discrimination against committed,
long-term, same-sex relationships. Nevertheless,
Volkwagen is contending that the legislature somehow
intended to discriminate against domestic partners when
it comes to loss of consortium claims.
Volkswagen's tortured interpretation of the historic
Washington law would deprive domestic partners of equal
protection and is unacceptable on ethical and legal
grounds. Says attorney Roger Worthington, "Our
clients are not asking for special treatment. They are
asking for equal protection under the law. Just like
anyone else, they deserve to let a jury decide whether
they are entitled to damages for loss of comfort, care,
companionship and society."
Bill's partner Steve adds, "We've been
together in a committed relationship for fourteen years
and are legally registered under Washington law. Like
every other American, we should have fair and equal
treatment. That was the whole point behind
Washington's domestic partnership law."
Do as we say, not as we do
Volkswagen's attack on the rights of domestic
partners in Washington is hypcoritical considering
Volkswagen's extensive diversity marketing campaigns.
Their most recent advertising campaign, from 2000-2005,
directly targeted the gay and lesbian community and
offered to donate proceeds from photo sales to the LA Gay
and Lesbian Center. In spring 2002, Volkswagen began
running mainstream ads in OUT and The Advocate, two
gay-oriented magazines.
The law firm for Volkswagen that filed the motion,
Williams, Kastner & Gibbs, touts a progressive
diversity policy on its website. The law firm's home
page broadcasts the following: "In order to maintain
and nurture diversity, each of us must not only
understand and tolerate the differences between ourselves
and those with whom we work, but more importantly, we
must outwardly manifest our desire to embrace those
differences as a positive good benefiting everyone. This
understanding and appreciation must be reflected
positively by our everyday words and deeds."
Loss of consortium: injury v. death
Washington state passed landmark legislation in 2007 that
extended legal protections to domestic partners in areas
of health care, illness, incapacity, and death. As the
legislature has done with numerous other statutes, the
law extended loss of consortium rights to a domestic
partner whose partner was wrongfully killed by a
defendant. The law, like all loss of consortium laws,
recognizes the grief and pain suffered when a partner,
spouse, parent, or child is wrongfully killed. The
deprivations suffered by the surviving spouse or domestic
partner include economic contributions to the household,
care, and affection.
Courts have the power to interpret laws to prevent
grossly unfair results. When the Washington legislature
sought to compensate a class of persons for loss of
consortium in a wrongful death action, it is plainly
wrong to suggest that the legislature believed that
people only suffer loss of consortium upon death, and
that the legislature preferred to have a spouse or parent
die rather than be injured. These absurd results are
accentuated when looking at the intent behind the law in
the first place: to reward committed relationships
between domestic partners because of the social and
economic benefits they confer upon society.
Volkswagen's argument that a domestic partner must
wait until his loved one passes away before he or she can
assert a "loss of consortium" claim does not
exploit a "legal loophole." Instead, it is a
cynical and regrettable attempt to exploit prejudice
against gays and lesbians in an effort to avoid
liability. A hearing to resolve this issue has been
requested, but not yet set by presiding judge Hon. Mary
Roberts.
Bill McKnight and his partner, Steven Parsons, are
courageous victims of asbestos poisoning. They are both
struggling bravely against the disease, and our firm is
proud to represent them.