This case, brought by plaintiffs Hinman and Advocates for Gay and Lesbian State Employees against the Department of Personnel Administration, questions the exclusion of same sex couples from dental benefits as proscribed by the State Employees Dental Care Act. They question the manner in which the Act classifies family members, particularly spouses, and assert that this classification itself is discriminatory, since same sex couples were not allowed to marry in the state of California in 1985. They allege that this classification and its administration violate the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.

The case concerns plaintiff Himman, a worker at the Employment Development Program and his partner of 12 years, who, in 1981, he attempted to enroll in his dental plan, and who was later deleted from the plan by DPA. The case states: "Hinman and Beatty own their home together, place their assets in a joint bank account, share the common necessities of life, and are each other's primary beneficiaries in their wills and life insurance policies.   Hinman and Beatty have entered into a covenant of mutual economic support and would marry if they were not prohibited from doing so by state law."

However, the court decides that, in pursuing the DPA's classification system, the plaintiffs erred. The DPA distinguishes between married and unmarried employees. The court advises: " As we have discussed, that distinction is rationally related to a legitimate state purpose, the state's interest in promoting marriage.   As counsel for DPA correctly points out, plaintiffs' real quarrel is with the California Legislature if they wish to legitimize the status of a homosexual partner.   Plaintiffs may achieve the reform they seek here only by attacking Civil Code section 4100, which defines marriage to be a civil contract 'between a man and a woman.' We cannot change that law here."