Domestic partner benefits outlawed?
May 15, 2008 by Fred HosierPosted in: Dubious decisions, Here comes the judge, Special Report
As long as your company is consistent, you can give benefits to whomever you want, right? A recent court ruling took that decision away from public employers in one state.
Public employers in Michigan aren’t allowed to offer health insurance benefits to domestic partners of their employees, according to the State Supreme Court.
Reason: The state constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage approved by voters in November 2004, makes offering domestic partner benefits illegal, according to the court.
After the amendment passed, State Attorney General Mike Cox told the city of Kalamazoo it must suspend domestic partner benefits.
Several city and county governments and state universities in Michigan offered these benefits. A group of 21 people, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, went to court to appeal Cox’s decision.
They won in trial court, lost at the appeals level, and now the state’s highest court has sided with the Attorney General and appeals court.
After the appeals courts ruling, several public employers reworded their benefit plans to comply with the constitutional amendment while still offering domestic partner benefits.
It’s unclear how the high court’s ruling will affect those benefit plans now.
The plans are written in such a way to include gay and straight couples who aren’t married. To qualify, couples must meet certain requirements, including proof of co-residency.
The court ruling doesn’t affect private-sector companies that provide domestic partner benefits.
There are an estimated 375 couples in Michigan who participated in public employers’ domestic partner benefit programs.
Different rulings in other states
The Michigan ruling has been unique among states where the question of domestic partner benefits provided by public employers has been raised.
In nine other states, courts have ruled that similar defense-of-marriage constitutional amendments or laws don’t affect public employers’ domestic partner benefit plans. Forty-one states have some sort of anti-gay-marriage amendment or law.
(Those nines states with court opinions contrary to Michigan’s are Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, Washington, Illinois, Maryland, Colorado, Massachusetts and California.)
The public employers weren’t the pioneers in domestic partner benefits. Private businesses took the lead.
Emerging research is showing this to be a cost-effective strategy for attracting and retaining high-quality workers. Currently, more than half (at least 269) of the Fortune 500 companies provide domestic partner benefits.
Private companies offering these benefits also aren’t limiting them to same-sex couples. A study shows 58% of these policies extend to same- and opposite-sex non-married couples.
We’d like to hear from you on this issue. Does your company offer domestic partner benefits? Drop us a note in the comments box below.
Tags: benefits, court decision, domestic partner
May 15th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
We offer domestic partner benefits for medical/vision insurance only
May 16th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Yes, I work for a hospital that offers domestic partner benefits, and I think it is wrong. If we are going to do this as a country then why can’t I add my aging mother, father, adult child, or grandchild to my health care benefits if they live in my home. Let’s be fair about this. I think this country and the ones claiming to be running it need to sit down and take a look at what is happening in this country and forget about being so politically correct!
May 16th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
We offer domestic partner benefits for medical/dental/suplimental life
May 16th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
We offer full domestic partner benefits (i.e., health, dental), including coverage of partners as “family” in sick leave and other policies. This does enhance our ability to recruit during the current labor shortage, and has not proved to be any more expensive.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
We offer same sex domesitc partner benefits under all of our group medical, dental and vision plans.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I work in CT. CT has a Civil Union Law which allows us to easily follow offering insurance. Proof of Civil Union = insurance eligibility. We do not offer domestic partner benefits for “non legally joined” partners.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
My company offers insurance to domestic partners of same sex, but not opposite sex partners. Their take on it is opposite sex partners have that opportuniy to marry in the state of NV where as a couple of same sex does not. As for myself I consider this discrimination against opposite sex partners and feel that one group of individuals is being treated differantly based on sex. In addition with the number of individuals running around this county with no insurance coverage I think it would be to the benefit of us all to work towards getting individuals health insurance coverage regardless of their sex or the sex of their domestic partner.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
We do not offer domestic partner benefits.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
We offer domestic partner benefits for medical, dental and vision.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
We currently do not offer domestic partner benefits, though I am changing that since there is no additional cost for the rider. I will do so for one year as I will have to watch for increased claims that would affect the rating charges.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
We do not offer domestic partner benefits and I can’t see it happening ever.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
I think the line is to uncertain. Isn’t it singling out same partner couples above other couples who strickly live together. I know here in Michigan there were alot of complaints about same sex couples not receiving benefits when live in couples of the opposite sex could.
To me, that could create all new discrimination law suits in representing unmarried straight couples who live together and the health care costs could be huge. It could then be disputed that children from these relationships should also be covered. Companies may find it difficult to find the additional resources to fulfill everyones needs.
Where the line should be drawn has always been clear in the past. Everytime people try to change it for their benefit others suffer. If the costs go up as it could, companies would have to pull back some health care or even release some employees. Is it fair to those who a released or who really needed the better more costlier insurance?
I do however feel it is wrong for the State to ddecide the fate of the Company and its budget. Why not let there be a guideline where the employee has to be offered insurance (State requirement) and any additional decision be made internally by the Company as long as the policy is accross the board and fair to all employees who work there? The Company can then decide the value of adding the changes to the policy based on there budget and just think, maybe some of the companies (Especially here in Michigan) would not have to go oversees or to another State.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
What if a domestic partnership contains an adult parent and adult child - living together and sharing all expenses - why would they not be eligible? Either the definition or the purpose of the ruling should be questioned.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:08 am
I believe that any persons that are in a financially commited relationship, be it male-female, mother-daughter, same-sex, etc., should have the option to have a shared benefit coverage. Part of the health care coverage problems in this country are due to so many not having insurance. It is the un-insured that drive the costs up, as someone has to bare the brunt of their medical procedures. As I have been in a committed relationship for 10 years, and am a senior citizen, the domestic partner coverage option is blessing. For 40 years I having been paying into social security, to hopefully have some financial security as I age, and if we were to marry, 1/2 of that social security would be taken away… from each of us! So, it is does not make good sense to marry at this late age. I truly believe in God’s eyes, we are committed to each other. Why should man decide if that commitment is worthy. Hooray for Pennsylvania in taking this vital step!
May 19th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Domestic partner in our company is not restricted to only same sex coverage. The definition of domestic partner is if you have a long term relationship and you have occupied the same residence for more than one year. If you can prove your partner resides with you and has for more than one year that person is allowed to enroll in our benefits, to include their eligible children. Our organization only pays the employee coverage, so all dependent coverage is run through the employee’s Section 125 account.