Domestic Partner Insurance Coverage

[Samantha70364]

I began working for a large corporation that offers Health and Life insurance coverage to a domestic partner. Because I parnter meets all the requirements other then being same sex I am told that he cannot be covered. Would this not be considered reverse discrimination?
Thanks
Samantha

[Anonymous]

The term "reverse discrimination" doesn't seem to fit - that term is normally applied to suggest that there is harm in "affirmative action" policies, on the theory that the benefit they offer to a person from a disadvantaged group constitutes discrimination against other employees. There is no benefit to gay employees from your employer's policy to not offer domestic partnership benefits to heterosexual couples.

The reason corporations offer domestic partner benefits to same sex couples is ordinarily to improve employee loyalty, reduce turnover, and stay a step ahead of (or match) the benefits offered by other employers. As same sex couples cannot marry, save for in Massachusetts, in most parts of the nation they cannot qualify for the benefits offered to married couples.

The response you are likely to get from your employer is that the benefits are available to you if you marry. I am not aware of any court that has held that approach to be unlawful.

Until the states either follow the Massachusetts model, or otherwise create forms of registered domestic partnership which offer gay couples all of the benefits and incidents of marriage, it is likely that this type of disparity in treatment will continue.

[Stymnus]

Sorry to bring an old post to life here.

I was wondering the same, and in my case my employer is IN the state of Massachusetts, though I myself am a New Hampshire resident (which may be the sticking point here).

Since in MA both heterosexual marriage and same sex is allowed, is it discrimination if they do not allow both types of DP coverage? Or am I out of luck because I'm not a Massachusetts resident?

[aaron]

Is it that your employer offers benefits to married couples, but not to domestic partners? Or your employer offers benefits to married couples and gay domestic partners, but not to heterosexual domestic partners?

[Stymnus]

The employer offers benefits to married couples, and to qualifying DP's. The only qualification we don't meet is that she and I aren't same-sex.

From a legal document defining what is a qualifying DP, comes the following Q&A:

"Is my opposite gender domestic partner eligible for enrollment under my coverage? No, XXXXXX is offering benefit coverage to same gender partners only since opposite gender partners have the legal option to marry."

[aaron]

I should also ask, is your actual place of employment in Massachusetts or New Hampshire? If it is in New Hampsire, your employer would have to follow NH (and federal) law in relation to your benefits, not MA law.

[Stymnus]

The worksite itself is an hour from my home in Massachusetts, not very far from Boston, and I will not be telecommuting, but working at that site all the time.

The HQ of the company is NOT in Massachusetts, if that makes a difference, its headquarters is in New York state. But this is one of the main US locations.

[aaron]

Well, definitionally, it is discrimination because it is a policy which treats simiarly situated people differently. It is probably not unlawful discrimination within the context of a company creating HR policies for multistate operations, although I would be surprised if such a company did not ultimately revise its policies to exclude domestic partnership benefits in jurisdictions which permit gay marriage. I doubt that the question has yet been addressed in court, so it is hard to anticipate how a court might treat the issue under Massachusetts state law.

[Stymnus]

See, that's precisely what I don't want to happen. I'd hate for same-sex DPs to lose their rights because I want what they have...but sadly that might be the path of least resistance were I to push the issue legally