

In yet another example of the disparity between same-sex couples and married heterosexuals, a Pennsylvania woman has been denied unemployment benefits after moving to Florida with her partner of eight years.
Under a doctrine called "follow the spouse," a husband or wife obliged to quit his or her job by a family move qualifies for unemployment benefits in the state of Pennsylvania and elsewhere.
But Joan Procito, a financial manager in Drexel Hill, was given the cold shoulder by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review after she moved to Florida with her partner and stepson. Procito's partner, Mary Jo Sheller, moved to Florida to be close to her disabled son, who was entering college.
Procito is suing the state officials in commonwealth court, where a three-judge panel heard arguments last week. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the board of review's attorney, Gerard M. Mackarevich, told the panel "it would be madness" for the board to treat same-sex couples the same as spouses.
"How," asked Mackarevich, "can the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review pick and choose between people to decide whether they are sufficiently intermingled to qualify as legally married?"
The dilemma might seem insurmountable to Mackarevich, but the state of New York has managed nicely, ever since the American Civil Liberties Union challenged state policy in an identical case five years ago.
Like Procito, Jeanne Newland followed her partner, who found a better job in Virginia back in 2002. Newland assumed she'd quickly find a job of her own there, but after some time passed with no success, she decided to apply for unemployment. One bureaucrat told her that she would qualify if she had been engaged to be married to a man.
Newland and the ACLU went to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, where even Newland's former employer lobbied on her behalf, to no avail. In June 2003, Gov. George Pataki wrote to the board, asking it to reconsider. The board agreed.
While the reconsideration was pending, however, the New York Department of Labor changed its policy. In a letter to the board in early 2004, the department recognized that unmarried couples in committed relationships have "good cause" for surrendering a job when their partner must relocate.
Apparently, New York has not faced "madness" in the 2 1/2 years since the unemployment policy has been changed. Nor has the Empire State had a problem determining the difference between life partners and casual friends. In Pennsylvania, meanwhile, Procito will wait for the court to rule and take it from there. (Ann Rostow, Gay.com)
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
Be the first to comment on this story.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.