[media-credit name=’AJ MACLEAN/Herald photo’ align=’alignnone’ width=’648′][/media-credit]The Wisconsin American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit Wednesday against several state agencies, including the University of Wisconsin, on behalf of six lesbian couples.

The lawsuit seeks domestic partner health insurance and family leave protection for each couple. The petitioners believe the right to equal protection under the state constitution is being violated.

The UW System Board of Regents, Department of Employee Trust Funds, Department of Employee Trust Funds Board, Wisconsin Insurance Group, Department of Transportation and Department of Corrections were named as defendants in the suit.

“These couples have made long-lasting, lifetime commitments to support one another,” ACLU Legal Director Larry Dupuis said during a press conference Wednesday. “They have suffered real harms because of the state’s current policy of not permitting them to have domestic partner benefits.”

However, UW System Communications Director Doug Bradley said individual state agencies have no control over whether domestic partner benefits are offered to employees. The state of Wisconsin, by law, does not allow for benefits for unmarried couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

“As a state agency, we have to abide by state statutes,” Bradley said.

The Board of Regents and UW System supports domestic partner benefits for gay and lesbian couples, Bradley added.

“The Regents have gone on the record as recently as last November and passed a resolution that said we endorse state group health insurance for domestic partners of all state employees,” Bradley said. “We encourage the governor and the Legislature to amend state statutes to provide that benefit.”

UW is the only Big Ten school that does not provide domestic partner benefits to employees.

Though Democratic Governor Jim Doyle proposed funding for such benefits in his 2005-07 budget, the Republican-controlled Joint Finance Committee struck the measure down, citing lack of funding as a reason.

Assembly Speaker John Gard, R-Peshtigo, said the issue is not something that should be decided by a “liberal Madison” judge.

“This is an issue that the taxpayers of the state of Wisconsin should get to decide through their elected representatives,” Gard said in a statement.

Despite state law, the plaintiffs in the case believe they have the same right to benefits as married couples.

Megan Sapnar, a UW graduate student and teaching assistant, said she does not receive the same compensation as married employees because her partner, Ingrid Ankerson, cannot receive benefits from the state.

“I have received the same offer for funding as my married colleagues did, made the same commitments and sacrifices in order to go back to graduate school,” Sapnar said. “I believe we deserve equal compensation for the same work I am doing as my colleagues.”

Jody Helgeland, a plaintiff in the lawsuit and a research specialist at UW, said it is unfair for the university to not allow domestic partner benefits for her partner, Jessie Tanner.

“I have coworkers who I work alongside — I do the same work, get the same pay,” Helgeland said. “And yet, I still can’t add Jessie to my insurance.”

Helgeland said Tanner needs medications that cost up to $600 per month. Though Tanner received health insurance through a previous job, she now has to ration her medications since her job ended.

Another plaintiff in the case, Jayne Dunnum, a 15-year employee for the DOC, said she and her partner, Robin Timm, share the same things married couples share except partner benefits.

Dunnum said the couple pays $270 per month for limited health insurance for Timm.

“In this one very important area, I am treated very differently from the rest of my coworkers,” Dunnum said. “That is why we are here today; it is really a matter of fairness. We are just asking the state to do the right thing.”

This lawsuit is not the first of its kind to be brought to state courts.

Dupuis said the Montana State Supreme Court in December 2004 found the failure of the state to provide domestic partner benefits violated the state’s equal protection clause.

The lawsuit does not seek marriage for gay and lesbian couples, Dupuis said, and the couples are not suing for monetary damages.