Employer Discrimination - Sexual Orientation and Marriage - Benefits?

[tigger07]

For the last several years my employer has offered insurance benefits for same sex domestic partners but excludes opposite sex domestic partners. The previous consideration was due to the laws banning same sex marriage. Now that 32 states allow and recognize same sex marriage I asked if the coverage option would extend to opposite sex domestic partners. The response I received noted that when all 50 states allow same sex marriage, they will change the option to "spouse" only. I have been researching this topic and have found that when employees have disputed this legally, the outcome was they were not discriminated against under a "Domestic Partner Policy" but there was a possibility of discrimination under Sexual Orientation and Marital Status. With the laws changing regarding same sex marriage, would not offering the same options of benefits to both domestic partner relationships result in discrimination against heterosexual domestic partnerships?

 

[ElleMD]

Sorry, but you have no case. If you want to cover someone under your benefits, marry them. This is entirely legal.

 

[disagreeable]

"I would have thought the best way to get respect and dignity is through the democratic process,"
"such a major social change as redefining marriage should be decided through the political process, not the courts"
Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton

I assume you meant to write that in the reverse and are dealing with refusal to give insurance to a domestic partner, not spouse. If you did not then you have standing because it has been ruled an employer must make insurance available equally to all employees at a given level if they are offered. A domestic partner does not meet that qualification in Utah.

 

[tigger07]

My question in simple terms - Is it acceptable/lawful for an employer to offer insurance benefits to same sex domestic partners but not opposite sex domestic partners given the laws governing same sex marriage are changing. Also, I may live in Utah but my employer is not based here and is an international corporation.

 

[disagreeable]

It sounds like this is not legal on the surface because it offers coverage unequally between employees. Contact the state department of insurance and explain your situation.
https://insurance.utah.gov/agent/fraud/report.php

 

[ElleMD]

Nope, totally legal. As same sex marriage is still not legal in all 50 states, employers are legally permitted to offer spouse like coverage to same sex partners. As every state allows opposite sex marriage, you are not being discriminated against. You have an option available to cover that person. Same sex partners do not universally have that option and even in many states which do, it is a very new option. What I have seen, is not a universal coverage for any gf or bf, but rather a sunset on how long the same sex partner can be covered before they must be legally married. Assuming they live/work in a state/country which even allows for it.

 

[disagreeable]

Elle, OP clarified it was the opposite. The company is allowing same sex partners to have coverage but not a conventional husband wife relationship. That means they are offering coverage differently. It then becomes an issue as to whether the comparisons meets state and Federal law on offering of company group insurance.

 

[cbg]

My question in simple terms - Is it acceptable/lawful for an employer to offer insurance benefits to same sex domestic partners but not opposite sex domestic partners given the laws governing same sex marriage are changing. Also, I may live in Utah but my employer is not based here and is an international corporation.

Yes. In states that have not legalized same sex marriage it is lawful for an employer to offer insurance benefits to same sex partners but not opposite sex partners. Opposite sex partners have the option of marriage, at which point they become eligible dependents. In states that have not yet legalized same sex marriage, same sex domestic partners do not have that option.

 

[cbg]

Elle, OP clarified it was the opposite. The company is allowing same sex partners to have coverage but not a conventional husband wife relationship. That means they are offering coverage differently. It then becomes an issue as to whether the comparisons meets state and Federal law on offering of company group insurance.

So show me where the law says all employees have to be treated identically?

You're wrong on this one, Dis. This is actually pretty settled law, even if the laws on same sex marriage are changing.