Pictured Dan Kline. Photo by Tracy Baim
It has been a long time coming. Thanks largely to Lambda Legal, Frank Sories and Dan Kline are finally reunited, employed, and happy. Kline, a UPS industrial analyst with 20 years of experience, was denied a transfer because, to put it bluntly, his partner is not his wife. The company had a 'trailing spouse' policy, which easily allowed married employees to be relocated, but it disadvantaged unmarried couples and clearly discriminated against same-sex relationships. Fortunately, their story has a positive ending and it is best told in their own words.
Marie-Jo Proulx: Can you recount the events that led you to sue your employer?
Dan Kline: Frank works for United Airlines. He worked in a reservations office in San Francisco, which in October 2002 they said they were going to close effective January 2003. So the options were either take a furlough or follow the work to one of three different sites across the United States.
Frank Sories: One was Washington, one was Chicago and one was Honolulu. … I had 18 years with the company at that time and I was within a little over three years of being able to take an early retirement. I was 51. … If I had left to find another job then I would have lost all my seniority, my travel benefits, pension, all of those and started from scratch. So I didn't really see any other alternative than to take the transfer.
[Chicago was chosen in the hope that eventual staff cuts would not hit as hard here as in regional offices.]
DK: That's when I went to UPS and asked them [for a transfer]. I was told initially that I could resign and re-apply [at another location]. … I had been there just shy of 20 years. … Having been aware of other opportunities for married employees in similar situations I was aware of the 'management-initiated transfer,' which did allow for a UPS husband or wife to follow a non-UPS spouse in an employment opportunity which was an improvement in their status. They called this policy 'trailing spouse.' … I submitted an application in mid-November 2002. I waited … only to find out after Christmas that my application had been lost and that it had been approved locally, regionally, which was the western United States, and if it had gotten to Atlanta [UPS headquarters] then it was lost. I had to re-submit an application. … Frank actually started to work here Jan. 6. … Then on Friday of that week I got a call … saying my request had been denied and I did not qualify as a spouse.
FS: He was told that had he resided in Vermont or Hawaii, because of the laws in those states they would have had to grant him the transfer.
MJP: So UPS did recognize civil unions.
FS: Where the state legislation forced them to do so.
DK: So that was Jan. 10. … About an hour later I was being brought into an office by my department for some unknown reason. I was presented with a 20 years of service recognition. It was a plaque, an opportunity to say thanks for 20 years of totally dedicated service.
MJP: Basically, they wanted you to leave.
DK: No, they didn't know anything about the call. … So it was ironic.
MJP: Your immediate supervisors, who knew you had put in for a transfer, were they supportive?
DK: Yes. Everybody was supportive.
FS: He had received a lot of encouragement to pursue this. They felt that he qualified, so their definition of spouse was more progressive from [that of] the corporate headquarters.
DK: I was quite demoralized. I had to take some time off, because it was quite shocking that I was not afforded the same opportunity because of marital status. I actually sought out legal counsel. I got a referral to Alex van Broek, who was my lead defense from Oakland and he was instrumental in filing a Department of Fair Employment and Housing complaint. With the Supreme Court victory [in Lawrence v. Texas], Jon Davidson from Lambda in L.A. had been contacted.
FS: He [Alex van Broek] thought it was a case in which they'd be interested and they were. In the meantime, prior to Jon coming on board Alex had made numerous contacts with the attorneys from UPS, asking for consideration for Dan and received a series of refusals. Very clear cut.
DK: Jon wrote a letter to the UPS counsels and asked them to reconsider. They messaged back and said this was going to take some time. At that point UPS asked for an indefinite extension. This was mid-July. We had been apart for seven months. We said we weren't interested, that we were going to move ahead [with the suit]. … Every point of the way, we were just interested in walking away, having them change the policy and moving on with our lives.
FS: Dropping all the complaints, if they had allowed the transfer within the time that had been specified. That was our offer.
MJP: Otherwise you were going for some kind of financial compensation?
DK: No, we were totally interested in just getting transferred and changing the policy. We were not pursuing any damages other than what I had paid to Alex and I was even willing to drop that and Alex was willing to accept that.
FS: As far as the relocation itself, it would cost UPS nothing because United assumed the cost: moving, the storage, two months of lodging.
DK: So we went ahead and filed in the State Supreme Court, saying that we felt that our case was one of discrimination. We held a press conference, which was orchestrated by Lambda and broadcast in Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, and New-York. And then UPS issued its statement saying it had already changed its policy.
[The statement said the change had taken place earlier in the year. But no official announcement had been made until the Lambda press conference.]
FS: 'Earlier in the year' I think is very interesting terminology because fewer than 24 hours prior one might define as earlier in the year. They also announced a package of benefits for domestic partners that was going to take effect in the fall.
MJP: Throughout all this, did UAL offer any support? Did they know of the proceedings that were going on?
FS: No, I'm very low key at work. The few people on the management staff that I shared with were very supportive. United has offered domestic-partner benefits for a number of years. Dan flies on passes as a spouse would. United had kind of bent over backwards considering they were a bankrupt airline and that anybody who wanted a transfer got it and that everybody got their first choice, and the moves were paid for … I thought they really did a great job.
MJP: During that period, if you had been able to marry in California would you have considered doing so as a way of circumventing the transfer issue, or would you have stuck to your claim out of principal?
FS: It's hard to answer because the thought never would have occurred to us. Let's say it was less than a year ago, but still, it seemed unconceivable.
DK: My frustration about not being able to be married to take advantage of that 'trailing spouse' opportunity was considerable. … I've given undivided contribution to the company. [I was thinking] don't hold that against me that I can't be married.
FS: If marriage had been an option and they had a policy in place to allow spouses to transfer, because of our choice not to marry, then in my opinion we would have no case. I wouldn't have held UPS responsible for the fact that we chose not to marry. We felt that this was discriminatory because we had no choice.
DK: We've been together 28 years. How much better does it get in terms of having a committed relationship?
FS: One of the responses we got early on was that UPS didn't want to be in the position of having to make subjective decisions as to what was and was not a committed relationship. But to me, that argument wasn't valid because working for United Airlines, it's very clear criteria, there's paperwork that you provide. … If you are in a registered domestic partner situation in your locality, city, state, if you show proof of that, there is nothing else that you need to provide. [Otherwise you can show] a joint mortgage, joint lease, joint checking account. They lay it out, you provide this many pieces of document of this nature and if you do, you qualify. That's it. There is no subjective decision whatsoever.
MJP: Was there ever a point where you thought you might quit? Did you ever think "it's been long enough, I'll just go to Chicago"?
DK: Yes, we both thought about it, we talked about it but it was not a viable consideration. I have a lot invested.
FS: We didn't think that we should have to resort to that.
DK: We were commuting almost every weekend. It was nine months of very emotional turmoil for both of us.
FS: It's not so much the separation, it's the not seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, it was the idea that this might be permanent. Plus we had lived in San Francisco since 1979, so there was a lot to deal with: giving up my life back there that I had known for all those years and the prospect of not being with the one person that meant everything to me, that was very traumatic.
MJP: How do you feel about UPS today? Is there a little bit of resentment, or is it business as usual?
DK: It's business as usual as I always wanted it to be. I always wanted to do my job, I felt that my sexual orientation had nothing to do with this. It's just servicing the delivery of packages, the transportation of goods. So I'm doing that, I'm here in Chicago, we're happy to be reunited, UPS has changed their policy.
FS: You have to almost think of it as UPS is a better and fairer place to work than it was a year ago.
DK: I can't think of it any other way because they have come a long way in a little less than six months. Since August a lot of change has happened. They have moved to come further than any other transportation industry has in respect to same-sex partners. So that's very good news. For myself and for future employees it's a very right thing.
