sign in sign up
<<
Home , Cohabitation, Domestic partnership

Loyola Consumer Law Review

Volume 6 | Issue 2 Article 4

1994 Domestic Partnerships Benefits: Redefining in the Work Place Steven N. Hargrove

Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/lclr Part of the Consumer Protection Law Commons

Recommended Citation Steven N. Hargrove Domestic Partnerships Benefits: Redefining Family in the Work Place, 6 Loy. Consumer L. Rev. 49 (1994). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/lclr/vol6/iss2/4

This Feature Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola Consumer Law Review by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please [email protected]. Domestic Partnerships Benefits: Redefining Family in the Work Place

by Steven N. Hargrove I. INTRODUCTION tion.4 Insurance plans alone, includ- The complexity and diversity of ing health insurance, constitute six what constitutes a "family" is ever- percent of total compensation costs.' changing. Today, the traditional no- men and feel discrimi- tion of , , and children nated against by not being able to does not exist in the majority of - enroll partners in insurance plans or holds. Only 22 percent of America's take time off to care for an ailing 91.1 million households fit the tradi- partner. provi- tional description of married, hetero- sions lessen the economic discrimina- sexual, two- .' Instead, tion resulting from the ban on same- families consist of a wide range of lifestyles and living arrangements, including: working single-, Since lesbians and foster parents, step-parents, unmar- are not allowed to marry, the ried heterosexual partners, homo- push for domestic sexual partners, , extended partnership benefits in the families, and unmarried couples liv- ing together with children. Currently, workplace has become a 4.6 percent of all house- cutting-edge issue in the gay holds are comprised of unrelated adults civil rights movement. who share the same residence.2 Some of these households are comprised of lesbians and gay men who are in- sex . While domestic part- volved in long-term, committed rela- nerships also cover opposite-sex tionships. couples, this status is especially im- In fighting for their civil rights, portant to gay couples since they do lesbians and gay men have challenged not have the option of marriage.6 the traditional notion of "family." Domestic partnership benefits are Lesbians and gay men live together in available in a variety of forms. Some on-going relationships, share finan- employers offer only sick and bereave- cial commitments, raise children to- ment leave because it tends to cost gether, care for each other "in sick- less, while other employers offer a ness and in health," and consider them- full range of benefits, comparable to selves to be families within the full those extended to married employees. meaning of the word. With this chang- Over one hundred companies offer ing definition of family comes a push domestic partnership benefits at this for societal recognition and for those time and the number is rapidly ex- benefits conferred upon traditional panding as more employers recognize families and . These range the diversity that exists within their from and to em- work force.7 ployment and tax benefits. This article examines what domes- Since lesbians and gay men are not tic partnership benefits are, why they Steven N. Hargrove received his Master's allowed to marry, the push for domes- are offered, and what the legal re- of Science in Industrial Relations from tic partnership benefits in the work- sponse has been. The issues are then Loyola University Chicago in 1993. He will place has become a cutting-edge issue explored within the context of case receive his J.D. from Loyola University 3 Chicago School of Law this spring. He in the gay civil rights movement. studies of companies and organiza- received a Bachelor of Music and a Master Fringe benefits can now account for tions currently offering domestic part- of Music from Oklahoma City University. 27 percent of employment compensa- nership benefits to their employees.

Volume 6 Number 2/Winter 1994 49 I Lead Articles Domestic partnership , and equality among ner.' 6 Municipal and private employ- provisions lessen the all employees, regardless of marital ers usually offer this type of plan. economic discrimination status. Other municipal employers offer- The concept of domestic partner- ing some sort of domestic partnership resulting from the ban on ship coverage in the private sector plan include: West Hollywood, Santa same-sex marriage. While appears to have been an outgrowth of Cruz, and , Calif.; East domestic partnerships also the coverage offered by municipal Lansing and Ann Arbor, Mich.; Bos- cover opposite-sex couples, employers.9 Berkeley, , is ton and Cambridge, Mass.; Seattle, this status is especially believed to have been the first city to Wash.; Minneapolis, Minn.; New important to gay couples extend health plan benefits to domes- , N.Y.; , D.C.; and tic partners. 0 Domestic partnership Travis County, Tex. Two cities, Madi- since they do not have the was initially raised as an equity issue son, Wisc., and Takoma Park, Md., option of marriage. by Berkeley's Human Rights Com- allow employees to use leave time to mission." A domestic partnership care for domestic partners.' 7 Some ordinance was enacted as a way to domestic partnership ordinances II. DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP: eliminate discrimination based upon merely permit a couple to register for WHAT IS IT? marriage as a factor in granting health purposes of recognition, although most Generally, a domestic partnership benefits. The ordinance is intended to bestow limited benefits upon employ- is defined as "two people who share a remedy inequities in the provision of ees of the municipality. A few even primary residence, are financially and health care benefits. give full benefits to the registered emotionally interdependent, and have In 1985, Berkeley extended health partner of a municipal employee. a commitment to caring for each insurance, bereavement leave, and No state has extended health care other's needs."8 This term can apply other spousal benefits to the domestic coverage to the domestic partners of to opposite-sex or same-sex partners. partners of city employees. 2 By 1987, its employees, although Ohio does Some companies offering domestic all of Berkeley's insurance carriers give state employees sick and bereave- partnership benefits may provide ben- offered health coverage for domestic ment leave to care for a "significant efits to all unmarried employees, re- partners. 3 Berkeley's policy requires other."8 gardless of . Others unmarried couples to file an "Affida- limit domestic partnership benefits to vit of Domestic Partnership," attest- III. JUDICIAL RESPONSE gay men and lesbians because oppo- ing that they have lived together for at The courts have become increas- site-sex couples have the option of least six months and "share common ingly involved in issues affecting do- marriage. necessities of life."'4 The individuals mestic partnerships. Marriage and Benefits employers confer upon filing must be over eighteen years of family are the formal basis upon which domestic partners include various age, must affirm that they are each a majority of employee benefits are combinations of bereavement leave, other's sole domestic partner, and must granted. To date, no court has al- family sick leave, health insurance declare that they are "responsible for lowed a same-sex couple to engage in coverage, subsidized travel and relo- their common welfare."' 5 Should the a state-sanctioned marriage. 19 Couples cation expenses, and employee dis- domestic partnership dissolve, the who have a committed relationship counts. Employers decide on a ben- couple must file a statement of termi- but choose not to marry, or cannot efit plan based upon such factors as nation. The employee would have to marry, should not be excluded from their employees' needs, public pres- wait six months to register a new part- the benefits available to married sure, litigation, and the company's couples. financial situation. In some instances, Some companies offering A few court decisions have ex- this decision will depend upon the tended same-sex couples the advan- domestic partnership benefits availability of an insurance carrier tages previously thought appropriate willing to cover domestic partners. may provide benefits to all only for heterosexual spouses. The The philosophy behind domestic unmarried employees, bulk of the litigation is focused on the partnership coverage is that an em- regardless of sexual current legal definition of "family," ployee and his or her partner are, in orientation. Others limit as used in ordinances, statutes, and effect, spouses. Benefits are made domestic partnership benefits policies. One of the goals of the les- available to an employee and his or bian and gay community "is to expand to gay men and lesbians her partnerjust as they are available to the meaning of 'family' so that les- an employee and his or her . because opposite-sex bian and gay families are legally pro- The goals of domestic partnership couples have the option of tected in the same way as heterosexual coverage are those of fairness, non- marriage. families."2 Domestic partnership rec-

Loyola Consumer Law Reporter Lead Articles ognizes that "family" may include a Since Hinman's partner was not a nation was permissible.31 Although category of not-married, but not- spouse, coverage was denied. AT&T's promise of non-discrimina- single, people. The Hinman court declined to ac- tion was explicit, the court found that One of the first cases to deal with knowledge that and gay since the policy at issue did not appear the interpretation of "family" was couples can have relationships simi- in the benefit plan documents, the Braschi v. Stahl Associates.2 In lar to those of married couples. In- governing federal law - the Employee Braschi, the New York Supreme Court Retirement Income Security Act of held that a surviving lover of a long- The goals of domestic 1974 - would not require AT&T to term same-sex relationship qualified comply with its promise. partnership coverage are as a member of the decedent's family But some gains have been made. In under the anti-eviction provisions of those of fairness, aNew York case, Gay TeachersAssoc. 3 the New York rent control law.22 In so nondiscrimination, and v. Board ofEducation, 2 several teach- holding, the court expanded the defi- equality among all ers and employees have sued the New nition of "family" to include "two employees, regardless of York City Board of Education for adult lifetime partners whose relation- . health and dental benefits for their ship is long-term and characterized by domestic partners. When the employ- an emotional and financial commit- ees applied for benefit coverage for ment and interdependence,"23 not just stead, the court concluded that all their partners, the Board of Education persons related by blood or law. Ac- homosexuals, whether involved in denied the benefits, claiming that ben- cording to the court, the fact that the long-term relationships or not, were efits were available only to "legal two men lived together for over ten analogous to unmarried individuals. spouses."33 The plaintiffs claimed that years sufficiently established that they The Hinman court relied on this denial of domestic partnership had an emotional commitment to each California's strong state policy in fa- benefits unlawfully discriminates on other. The men considered each other vor of marriage.28 However, because the basis of marital status, thereby spouses, and friends and family con- California law prohibits marriage be- constituting sexual orientation dis- 3 sidered them to be married as well. tween same-sex couples, Hinman's crimination. " On October 30, 1993, They regularly visited each other's partner could not qualify as a spouse Mayor David Dinkins signed a court families and attended family func- under the benefit plan.29 settlement providing health benefits tions together as a couple. Addition- In another case, the partner of an for all unmarried domestic partners of ally, the two men shared all debts and employee who died was not allowed New York city employees, gay or obligations, including a household to collect death benefits, even though straight. budget. The Braschi case is a land- the company had promised not to dis- Another court acknowledged that mark decision because it recognizes criminate on the basis of sexual orien- lesbian partners can constitute a fam- 30 35 same-sex couples as family tation. In Rovira v. AT&T, Sandra ily. In re Guardianshipof Kowalski members.24 Rovira, the surviving partner of an Some employees have pursued ju- AT&T sales manager, requested the The Braschi case is a "sickness-death I dicial action to gain benefits for their benefit" that was a landmark decision because it domestic partners. In Hinman v. De- part of her deceased partner's AT&T recognizes same-sex couples partment of Personnel Admin.,25 the benefit plan. According to the ben- as de facto family members. plaintiff was a gay state employee efit, AT&T would provide one year's who had lived with his partner for salary to the surviving spouse or un- over twelve years. The Hinman court married children of the AT&T em- involved the efforts of Kowalski' s les- upheld a decision to prohibit Hinman ployee who died as a result of an bian partner, Karen Thompson, to from enrolling his partner in a dental illness. Rovira requested the benefit obtain guardianship over Kowalski plan reserved for "family members" for herself and her children. Although after Kowalski sustained serious brain 6 of state employees. The State Em- AT&T's personnel policies promise damage in an automobile accident. ployees' Dental Care Act at issue con- not to discriminate on the basis of The Minnesota Court of Appeals rec- tained no definition of "family." But sexual orientation or marital status, ognized same-sex families as "fami- the Department of Personnel Admin- AT&T denied the request because the lies of ," and acknowledged istration, which administers the ben- women were not legally married and the importance of Thompson's con- 37 efits plans, incorporated the defini- the children were not the employee's tinued presence in Kowalski's life. tion of "family" from the pre-existing natural or adopted children. Finally, after an exhaustive legal Health Care Act. That Act defined The Southern District Court of New battle, the court appointed Karen Th- 3 "family member" as an employee's York ruled that AT&T's noncompli- ompson guardian. " 26 spouse and unmarried children. ance with its policy against discrimi- These decisions indicate that an

Volume 6 Number 2 / Winter 1994 51 I Lead Articles overall change in the legal status of can-American employees or Latino These decisions indicate that nontraditional family arrangements is employees. These groups provide gradually occurring. While some ju- networking opportunities, coordinate an overall change in the legal risdictions are ready to make changes social events, and provide informa- status of nontraditional family in the legal recognition of domestic tion on diversity within the workplace arrangements is gradually 39 partners, others are not. Most impor- and on workers' rights. The list of occurring. The future tantly, the hurdle of having a court companies supporting such groups implication for the declare that a same-sex couple is a includes Xerox Corp., American Tele- interpretation of "family," as family has been passed. The future phone and Telegraph Co., Lockheed implication for the interpretation of Corp., Hewlett Packard Co., and Levi used in personnel policies, is "family," as used in personnel poli- Strauss & Co., among others. 40 Very still to be seen. cies, is still to be seen. often these groups are the catalyst for the eventual extension of domestic IV. IMPLEMENTATION partnership benefits. Since gays and ployees exist within the organization Designing and implementing a do- lesbians are the ones most often af- and that these employees are a valu- mestic partnership program requires a fected by the inequality of benefits, able asset that the corporation does great deal of thought and effort. Some they are also the ones most concerned not want to lose. The key decision people are strongly opposed to do- about domestic partnerships. When makers who are "friendly" toward the mestic partners for religious and moral support groups are formed, individu- idea of domestic partners should be reasons. Others feel that if their com- als are empowered by their numbers identified because they may be will- pany offers these benefits, it would be and are more willing to lobby for ben- ing lobbyists. It is important to pro- tantamount to voicing approval of al- efits that they might otherwise have vide these key people with the infor- ternative relationships. While these been denied. These groups are a strong mation necessary to support their ef- may be considerations, the substan- starting point for the exchange of ideas forts. tive issue that should surface is one of and support for implementation. financial equality among all employ- Originally, employees achieved 2. Domestic partnership benefits benefits for their families through must be presented as a fairness collective bargaining efforts by unions issue. Although AT&T's personnel after World War II. 41 Similarly, col- Explain that married employees policies promise not to lective bargaining may also be the reap a financial gain by being able to discriminate on the basis of most successful way for alternative tap into employer-provided benefits families to obtain domestic partner- and that domestic partners wish to do sexual orientation or marital ship benefits. When contracts are the same. It should be noted that in status, AT&T denied the renegotiated, domestic partnership municipalities with domestic partner- request because the women benefits may be one area that unions ship registration and non-discrimina- were not legally married and will fight for if such a need exists tion ordinances based upon sexual the children were not the within their membership. The weekly orientation and/or marital status, the employee's natural or publication Village Voice first ex- door may be open for litigation based adopted children. tended benefits to domestic partners upon unequal benefits for married in 1982 as a result of negotiations versus non-married employees and with District 65 of the Distributive their partners. ees regardless of marital status and Workers of America. 42 Unions still sexual orientation. In addition, the wield a strong influence in some em- 3. Gay and lesbian employees must support of management is imperative ployment areas, and their power should be willing to voice their needs in order to create a positive atmo- not be underestimated. within the organization. sphere for the domestic partnership The following ideas may be help- Gay and lesbian employee groups program. ful when lobbying an employer for can form coalitions with heterosexual 43 domestic partnership benefits: unmarried partners to lobby for do- A. How to Get an Employer to mestic partnership benefits. Statis- Offer Domestic Partnership 1. Gaining the support of key tics show that within the organiza- Benefits executives is essential in any tions offering domestic partnership During the past few years, gay and employee lobbying effort. benefits to heterosexual and homo- lesbian employees have banded to- Education should be used as a way sexual employees, the majority of gether to form support groups, much to gain support. Management must employees using the benefits are het- like the groups which exist for Afri- first realize that gay and lesbian em- erosexual."

Loyola Consumer Law Reporter I Lead Articles 4. The cost of adding additional some partners already have adequate alleviate fears of fraud and of people to a benefits plan should coverage and other people will feel the benefits. However, it should be always be discussed. that the tax burden outweighs the ben- noted that these requirements are not Today, employers are especially efit. mandated for married employees. concerned about the high cost of AIDS. Some employers have used the term Many employers feel that by offering "family" in defining domestic part- domestic partnership benefits, a large Some people are strongly nership benefits. While most homo- number of gay partners with AIDS opposed to domestic partners sexual partners would consider them- will be added to health insurance poli- for religious and moral selves to be a family, or at least a cies. But the companies that currently reasons. Others feel that if "family of affinity," care should be offer domestic partnership benefits taken when this term is used due to the their company offers these have not seen this type of increase. great deal of litigation. Employers The incidents of AIDS within the gay benefits, it would be must utilize a sufficiently narrow defi- community are leveling off, whereas tantamount to voicing nition of domestic partnership in or- the number of cases within the hetero- approval of alternative der to exclude other possible partners. sexual population continues to in- relationships. While these Since the concept of a domestic part- crease. It should also be noted that the maybe considerations, the ner is the equivalent of a married average cost to treat kidney failure is spouse, brothers, sisters, , substantive issue that should approximately $175,000; breast can- roommates, and other relatives should cer treatment costs approximately surface is one of financial not qualify as domestic partners. $52,000; and AIDS treatment costs equality among all employees These people may be considered "de- approximately $69,000.11 Thus, the regardless of marital status pendents" for other reasons, but they cost of AIDS is less than the cost of and sexual orientation. should not be included in the category other catastrophic illnesses and should of "domestic partner." not be a deterrent to employers con- Corporations usually require some sidering domestic partnership benefits. 7. Capitalize on the public relations sort of documentation to prove that a Also, health benefits are only a por- benefits. domestic partnership exists between tion of available benefits that an em- Companies that offer domestic part- two people. A few cities, such as New ployer may offer. nership benefits are considered pro- York and San Francisco, now offer 4 gressive. Moreover, market research registration for domestic partners. 1 5. Address who will and can use shows that gay and lesbian consumer For a small fee, couples can register domestic partnership benefits. loyalty rivals that of other groups. with the city clerk as domestic part- In order to limit costs, many compa- ners and receive a certificate indicat- nies extend coverage only to same-sex B. Designing a Domestic ing their status. Corporations located couples. For example, Lotus Develop- PartnershipBenefits Package in these cities could require proof of ment offers the benefits only to homo- No legal definition of a domestic registration with the city clerk before sexual employees because they are the partner exists; therefore, one of the granting employees domestic partner- only employees who are legally unable first issues an employer must address ship benefits. However, since most to marry in the United States. 6 Al- is who will constitute a covered do- communities do not offer such a ser- though plans without specificity mestic partner within the organiza- vice, the burden falls upon the em- may be more successful in diffusing tion. As previously mentioned, the ployer to request and maintain docu- moral and religious friction, they also most common definition includes "two mentation of employees with domes- tend to be more costly. Employers of- people who share a primary residence, tic partners. fering domestic partnership benefits to are financially and emotionally inter- homosexual and heterosexual employ- dependent, and have a commitment to Education should be used as ees find that the majority of the employ- caring for each other's needs. ' 47 Cri- ees who sign up for the benefits are teria employers have used to deter- a way to gain support. heterosexual couples. mine the existence of a domestic part- Management must first realize nership include: , the ex- that gay and lesbian 6. Emphasize that a small percent- istence of a personal relationship, a employees exist within the age of eligible employees are private and public recognition that organization likely to register for benefits. two people are a couple, the intent to and that these Many employees do not want to be life partners, and registration employees are a valuable admit that they are involved in a do- (where available). 48 Most employers asset that the corporation mestic partnership. Additionally, find that these minimal requirements does not want to lose.

Volume 6 Number 2 / Winter 1994 53 I Lead Articles A procedure must also be estab- involved in a domestic partnership. may be equal to or more expensive lished for the termination of a domes- All of these aspects should be consid- than the cost of AIDS. 5 Les- tic partnership. Such a procedure ered before extending benefits. bian partners are at very low risk for could be in the form of requiring the A final and challenging step in in- AIDS and heterosexual domestic part- employee to notify the benefits de- troducing domestic partnership ben- ners are at the same risk as married partment within a certain time frame efits is the organization of an effec- couples.5 6 In fact, health costs may of the dissolution of the domestic part- tive communications campaign." actually be higher for populations in nership. Employers should also re- "Employees need to understand the which most of the domestic partner- quire a waiting period between the personal, financial and legal implica- ships consist of opposite-sex partners dissolution of one domestic partner- tions of signing up for domestic part- because of the possibility and likeli- ner coverage. This is also the hood that these couples will have chil- [T]he cost of AIDS is less than employer's opportunity to both pro- dren. the cost of other catastrophic mote widespread understanding of the A few insurance companies have rationale for the program and encour- been willing to provide benefits for illnesses and should not be a age of diversity in the work domestic partners in exchange for a deterrent to employers place."52 Most companies that have surcharge to their premiums. Some of 1 considering domestic extended domestic partnership ben- these surcharges have been dropped partnership benefits. efits have preceded or accompanied after a few years of experience with the policy with a nondiscrimination domestic partnership coverage when 57 ship and the institution of another in statement based upon sexual orienta- costs were lower than expected. order to help prevent fraud and abuse. tion.53 When Berkeley, Calif., first offered Another important aspect of do- An issue of concern to employees domestic partnership coverage, its mestic partnership benefits is the is palimony. Employees should be carrier, Kaiser Permanente, levied a 2 choice of benefits to offer. Although aware that by signing up for domestic percent loading charge to cover ex- there are no explicit legal provisions partnership benefits and providing pected additional costs. After a pe- requiring employers to offer identical affidavits concerning mutual support, riod of three years, the carrier dropped benefits package to married and un- they may be creating a legally en- this charge because a justification for married employees, the typical under- forceable contract. As courts change the charge never arose. Larger em- standing of coverage for domestic the definition of "family" and spousal ployers can self-insure, thereby partners is the extension of all ben- equivalents, employees may be held efits currently provided to an liable for a partners debts, and may be No legal definition of a employee's spouse. Employers may forced to pay support payments, should want to proceed slowly at first, per- the partnership dissolve. Employees domestic partner exists; haps offering only sick and bereave- should know that domestic partner- therefore, one of the first ment leave before implementing full ship is not an area that can be entered issues an employer must health insurance coverage. By pro- into lightly. address is who will constitute ceeding slowly, the company should a covered domestic partner arrive at some idea of the approximate V. INSURANCE COMPANIES' within the organization. number of employees signing up for ATTITUDES the benefits before undertaking a siz- The biggest concern among insur- able financial burden. Some compa- ers is the high cost associated with spreading the risks among their large nies have begun by offering subsi- health coverage. Experience shows, employee population. However, larger dized travel, relocation expenses, however, that costs are lower on aver- employers that offer domestic partner employee discounts, or employee as- age for those employees with domes- coverage may have a problem obtain- sistance programs.50 tic partners than for married employ- ing stop-loss or "excess" coverage.58 5 4 Employers must set up administra- ees. Sometimes larger employers offer a tive procedures for dealing with do- AIDS and HIV are a central con- choice of plans to employees and can mestic partners. Human resources, cern to employers and insurers. In- limit the choices that are available to benefits, accounting, and payroll de- surers assume that the vast majority of domestic partners. Ben & Jerry's partments will all be involved in the domestic partners will be gay men Homemade Inc. and Lotus both have documentation and calculation of ben- who are at great risk of acquiring AIDS self-insured plans for their domestic efits. Confidentiality is an important and that their health care costs will partner employees. 9 aspect of administration. Many people soar as a result. However, the cost of Smaller employers usually have to may not want the employee popula- other conditions, such as heart dis- purchase health coverage from an in- tion at large to know that they are ease, cancer, or the birth of a , surer, thus making it more difficult

Loyola Consumer Law Reporter Lead Articles I for a small employer to offer domestic Employers should also - the filing of a joint return. How- partnership benefits. However, some require a waiting period ever, a domestic partner may be able employers have allowed domestic between the dissolution of to claim the other domestic partner as partners to buy individual policies with a dependent and utilize an exemption one domestic partnership and the employer subsidizing the cost.6" for the dependent on the taxpayer's One reason insurers are uncom- the institution of another in tax return. Section 152(a) requires fortable about covering domestic part- order to help prevent fraud that to be a "dependent," an individual ners is the insurer's lack of control and abuse. must receive over half of his or her over the risk pool. Insurers are con- support for the year from the taxpayer cerned that domestic partners would (employee), reside in the taxpayer's change frequently. 6' Employer poli- residence (primary abode), and be a 66 cies, which would require a waiting VI. TAX CONCERNS member of the taxpayer's household. period before and after establishing or With each passing year, the Inter- Paragraphs (1) through (8) set forth dissolving a domestic partnership, nal Revenue Code (Code) becomes the class of individuals included in could relieve this concern. increasingly more complex. In all "dependent," but domestic partners While this discussion has focused instances, the opinion of a competent do not qualify under any of these para- on health insurance, some employers tax adviser is essential and until the graphs. If the domestic partner is a offer life insurance or pension and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) spe- legal spouse or can be classified as a profit-sharing plans to domestic part- cifically spells out the tax ramifica- dependent under Section 152, the fair ners instead of health coverage. Since tions of offering domestic partnership market value of the employer-provided these benefit plans do not require pay- coverage, employers and employees benefits is excludable under Sections ment until termination of employment should seek the advice of legal coun- 105 and 106. If the domestic partner or death, an employee may name any- sel with respect to these benefits. is not a legal spouse and cannot be one as a beneficiary, regardless of classified as a dependent, the value of whether that individual is legally re- A. Taxability of Domestic the benefits will be taxable. lated to the employee. Health insur- PartnershipCoverage ance plans typically have not allowed Section 61 of the Internal Revenue B. Tax Issues for Employers 6 coverage of non-related individuals . 1 Code includes almost all compensa- Under Section 106 of the Code, the Insurance companies also fear that an tion received by an employee, includ- value of employer-provided health employee might choose his sick friend ing fringe benefits, as gross income. plan coverage is excludable from an over a partner for coverage because the The employer cost of domestic part- employee's income when such cover- friend needs insurance. 63 This type of ner coverage appears to be "compen- age is for the employee, the choice is called "adverse selection." sation" under Section 162, thereby employee's spouse, or the employee's Once again, AIDS is also a concern in attributable to the employment of the dependents, as defined in the Code. adverse selection. These concerns can "employee partner." This compensa- As mentioned earlier, however, the be eliminated by open enrollment and/ tion becomes gross income for the domestic partner must qualify as a or a waiting period before domestic part- employee and an expense that should dependent, otherwise, taxes must be 65 ner coverage begins. Claims experience be tax deductible by the employer. paid on any benefits. shows that adverse selection should not Unmarried couples are not gener- The IRS has not yet addressed the be a major concern. ally recognized by the IRS. Unmar- taxation of domestic partner health ben- A few insurance companies will ried domestic partners, therefore, can- efits in their regulations, revenue rul- underwrite domestic partnership ben- not take advantage of the biggest tax ings, or other publications of general efits. The Liberty Mutual Insurance advantage available to married couples application.67 However, the IRS has Company offers coverage for domes- issued at least four private letter rulings: 64 tic partners. Through Liberty Mu- The biggest concern among 9034048 and 9111018 (the second tual, the American Psychological As- supplementing the first); 9109060; and sociation offers major medical, hos- insurers is the high cost 9231062, which have addressed domes- pital indemnity, accident, and life in- associated with health tic partnerships. Private letter rulings surance coverage to domestic part- coverage. Experience shows, are binding upon the party or parties to whom they are issued, but are not bind- ners. Liberty Mutual provides this however, that costs are lower coverage at the same cost as coverage ing beyond those parties. Yet these on average for those for married spouses. The company private letter rulings are usually fol- considers domestic partner coverage employees with domestic lowed in similar circumstances and pro- a "successful experiment" and is will- partners than for married vide insight into how the IRS is likely to ing to write similar policies. employees. rule on a particular question.

Volume 6 Number 2/Winter 1994 I LedAtce

In 1990, the City of Seattle, Wash- adoption, or other traditional means. requiring proof of partnership; be it ington, requested an IRS opinion on If this child is covered in the cohabitation, joint accounts, or signed the tax implications for its employees employee's health plan, the tax analy- affidavits, for example. Thus, the who registered for domestic partner- sis is similar to the coverage of a fraud and abuse of a domestic partner- ship coverage. The IRS issued private domestic partner. If the child is a ship situation should be no more than letter ruling 9034048, holding that "dependent" under Section 152, the the fraud and abuse that currently ex- employer-provided health benefits for value of employer-provided coverage domestic partners or nonspouse co- is excludable under Section 106. If Unmarried couples are not habitants of an employee are exclud- not,7 1the value is taxable under Section able from taxable income only if the 61 . generally recognized by the recipients are legal spouses or legal IRS. Unmarried domestic dependents. The determination of VII. EMPLOYER CONCERNS AND partners, therefore, cannot marital status (legal spouse) is based QUESTIONS take advantage of the biggest on state law. Because domestic partnership ben- tax advantage available to In 9034048, the IRS ruled that the efits are new and controversial, em- fair market value of domestic partner- ployers tend to have many concerns married couples - the filing ship benefits should be determined and questions about extending ben- of a joint return. according to individual policy rates, efits to partners. Cost is the biggest even though the plan involved was a deterrent for employers in extending ists with marriage. Most companies group plan.68 This position was re- domestic partnership benefits. At a do not ask for any proof of marriage versed in private letter ruling 9111018, time when medical costs are escalat- and employees are free to simply sign and the IRS ruled that the fair market ing, most companies are searching for up their spouses. value should be determined by the ways to curb costs. While many em- Employers are also concerned that group rates. The IRS also has held ployers offer such "soft-cost" ben- a large number of people will apply that group rates are the applicable efits as employee discounts, sick and for the benefits. To date, there is no measure in other private letter rulings bereavement leave, and travel and re- evidence to support this fear. The on domestic partnership coverage. location expenses, they may not offer percentage of employees signing up Again, private letter ruling 9231062 full health coverage because of the for benefits tends to be less than five stated that the fair market value of high cost.72 percent of an employer's work force.75 what was held to be taxable under Employers may also fear that claims In fact, it is not unusual to find that Section 61 should be based on group will increase dramatically if health fewer than two percent of employees 69 rates. coverage is offered to domestic part- sign up.76 The number of gay and Private letter ruling 9109060 con- ners. As mentioned previously, em- lesbian employees who are in a per- siders the issue of withholding on the ployers and insurers are concerned manent exclusive arrangement with value of employer-provided domestic that catastrophic illnesses, such as someone who does not already have coverage when the domestic partner AIDS, will be taxing on health plans. benefits is relatively low. Many do- is neither a spouse nor a dependent. However, statistics show that AIDS- mestic partners of employees have This coverage was held to be "wages" related disorders are no more cata- jobs and are covered by their own subject to income tax and FICA with- strophic than heart disease or cancer. employer's plans. Employees also holding.7" Fraud is another concern. Employ- may be reluctant to incur extra taxes. ers fear that employees will sign up And, again, there is the stigma at- C. Domestic Partner'sChildren sick friends who do not have cover- tached to and cohabi- An employee may live with a part- age. Employees who do claim a sick tation arrangements which prevents ner and the partner's children who are friend or relative as a domestic part- some employees from signing up for not related to the employee by blood, ner may find the benefit of limited the benefits. use. Pre-existing condition clauses Levi Strauss reports that less than may limit plan benefits for illnesses one percent of its employees have Insurance companies also existing on enrollment. However, signed up for domestic partnership 77 fear that an employee might employers who already extend cover- benefits. Many employees who have age to domestic partners report no signed up have not enrolled partners. choose his sick friend over a cases of abuse.73 Furthermore, "the Instead, the employees have regis- partner for coverage because social stigma attached to homosexu- tered in case a partner needs future the friend needs insurance. ality makes homosexual ' benefits. Of the number of Levi This type of choice is called of convenience' unlikely."74 These Strauss employees who have regis- "adverse selection." concerns can be easily addressed by tered, 50 percent are employ-

56 Loyola Consumer Law Reporter I Lead Articles ees who have signed up their male Employers should be aware of the made the decision to offer domestic partners, and approximately 40 per- potential for discrimination lawsuits. partnership benefits. Whether or not cent have been male/male relation- If a company operates in ajurisdiction a company decides to offer domestic ships."8 that bans discrimination based upon partnership benefits, company offi- Public opposition is another pos- sexual orientation, circumstances may sible drawback. Employers may fear be ripe to pursue an equal protection Employers are also that shareholders would sell stock or claim. Currently, several states and that customers would boycott the more than 100 cities have passed leg- concerned that a large employer's products.7 9 In fact, some islation prohibiting discrimination number of people will apply 4 companies have reported the opposite based upon sexual orientation. for the benefits. To date, reaction. At Lotus, approximately 80 Providing domestic partnership there is no evidence to percent of the comments have been benefits may help public relations as support this fear. The supportive.80 An employer consider- well. In a Newsweek poll, 78 percent percentage of employees ing domestic partner coverage should of those polled believed homosexuals weigh these concerns and consider should have equal rights in job oppor- signing up for benefits tends what kind of education campaign tunities and 67 percent approved of to be less than five percent of might be in order. health insurance for gay spouses.8 an employer's work force. Occasionally, the issue is raised Offering domestic partnership ben- that the employer may be "aiding and efits sends a clear signal that a com- cials should at least make themselves abetting" under local laws prohibiting pany welcomes and values diversity aware of existing options, educate cohabitation among domestic part- within its work force. Moreover, if themselves on the philosophical, cul- ners.81 Local laws should be checked, companies earn a reputation for being tural, and practical issues, and recog- but it does not appear that any em- gay-positive, it may help them recruit nize differences in employees. ployer has been held liable under these on college campuses. Students enter- statutes to date. ing the job market after college have Vil. CASE STUDIES For unmarried partners, domestic turned down higher salaries to go with In September, 199 1, Lotus extended 8 6 partnership benefits is an equity is- companies that are not homophobic. medical, dental, vision, hearing, sue. In many companies, fringe ben- If the organization can fulfill its repu- parenting, and bereavement leave to efits can be as high as 40 percent of an tation, valued gay employees are more the "spousal equivalents" of lesbian employee's total salary.82 An em- likely to stay. and gay employees.89 Lotus is one of ployer who does not offer domestic As of 1992, domestic partnership the largest for-profit employers to of- partnership benefits is paying less in benefits were being offered by com- fer benefits to workers' non-married total compensation to non-married panies in the computer industry faster partners.90 The move toward domes- than in any other industry. Lotus tic partnership benefits was initiated became the first company to offer the The IRS has not yet in 1989 when three lesbian employees benefit. Other companies that followed requested that Lotus substitute the addressed the taxation of are Borland, AKS Ingress, Silicon phrase "spousal equivalent" for spouse 87 domestic partner health Graphics, Sybase, and others. These in the personnel policy manual. They benefits in its regulations, companies report that one of their also requested that Lotus extend its reasons for offering domestic partner- benefits coverage to all partners of revenue rulings, or other ship benefits stems from their fear of employees. Their argument was based publications of general losing talented gay and lesbian em- on equality - that long-term, com- application. ployees to competitors.88 Domestic mitted relationships deserved the same partnership benefits provide an incen- benefits as ones of their married col- employees who have partners. The tive for increasing employee loyalty leagues. 91 goal of domestic partnership benefits to the company. Lotus adopted the phrase "spousal is not increased compensation, but a Domestic partnerships are still an equivalent." But in an unusual move, fairer distribution of the compensa- emerging issue in the work place. the company limited coverage to same- tion that is paid. After Levi Strauss Employers have grave concerns about sex partners. Lotus decided against discovered that employees in com- offering these somewhat controver- covering heterosexual partners since mon-law marriage states were taking sial benefits. As the evidence contin- heterosexuals have the state-sanc- advantage of benefits, they decided ues to show, however, employer con- tioned option of marriage that gay and that in the interest of fairness and cerns can be alleviated through edu- lesbian employees do not have. 92 At equity, same-sex partners should also cation and through a careful study of first, heterosexual employees feared 83 receive benefits. those companies who have already the policy would attract more lesbians

Volume 6 Number 2 / Winter 1994 57 Lead Articles I and gays to the company and far.99 Levi Strauss employs more than son sharing a committed relationship strongly protested the new benefits 22,750 persons nationwide.' 0 Reese with the following characteristics: offering, but those fears were never Smith, director of employee benefits, living together, financially interde- borne out.93 originally made a domestic partner- pendent, jointly responsible for each In order to qualify for the benefit, other's common welfare, and consid- Lotus requires an affidavit of partner- Public opposition is another ering themselves as life partners."'0 7 ship. Under Lotus' domestic partner- possible drawback. An unmarried couple does not include roommates, , parents, or other ship plan, an employee can designate Employers may fear that one person to be cligible for benefits similar relationships. The couple must under the criteria of spousal equiva- shareholders would sell stock consist of two people who are not lent. Spousal equivalents must be the or that customers would legally married and who have the abil- same sex, cannot be blood relatives, boycott the employer's ity to enter into the relationship and must live in the same residence with products. In fact, some who have no similar relationship with the intent to reside together perma- companies have reported the another person. Couples must be free nently, and must be jointly respon- of previous relationships for at least opposite reaction. sible for the common welfare and fi- twelve months.' Levi Strauss does nancial obligations of both individu- not require a separate affidavit of do- als.94 If the employees break up, they ship benefit proposal to management mestic partnership.0 9 must wait one year before registering in 1982. His proposal was dismissed In addition to health benefits, Levi a new partner. 95 as being too costly. However, in 1985, Strauss offers employee assistance In the first six months of the pro- as a result of union bargaining, Levi program services, bereavement leave, gram, only twelve of an estimated Strauss offered their employees be- and a "Time Off With Pay Program" 310 gay employees (10 percent of reavement leave for the death of do- 01 the 3100-person work force) applied mestic partners.' Domestic partner- Employers should be aware of for the benefit. 96 Lotus is self-in- ship benefits were discussed again in the potential for sured and has a reinsurer for costs 1990 when a lesbian employee of- exceeding certain limits. Lotus has fered a proposal for extending medi- discrimination lawsuits. If a noted that "[f]ears that AIDS will cal benefits to domestic partners. company operates in a drive up costs have proven to be Management could not agree on how jurisdiction that bans unfounded." 97 to proceed and the issue was tabled for discrimination based upon 1 2 Of the first 300 letters Lotus re- six months. During that time, Levi sexual orientation, ceived about its domestic partnership Strauss learned that employees in circumstances may be ripe to policy, 80 percent were positive. Some Texas were receiving additional ben- efits because there was no waiting pursue an equal protection time for common-law marriage in that claim. Domestic partnership benefits state. 103 visibly demonstrate an As a result of this discovery, Levi to care for ill family members or other employer's commitment to its Strauss decided to offer benefits to persons of special significance." Levi changing work force and fair stay in line with their non-discrimina- Strauss welcomes unmarried couples employment practices. As tion policy on marital status. In Feb- at company-sponsored social events."' ruary, 1992, Levi Strauss provided companies become more Less than one percent of Levi medical, dental, and vision benefits Strauss employees have signed up for aware of their employees' for domestic partners of their employ- domestic partnership benefits." 2 Two- non-traditional families, they ees.'04 Their policy covers hetero- thirds of the enrollments are female will be more willing to provide sexual partners as well as homosexual employees enrolling their male part- incentives that provide partners. 05 Levi Strauss is self-in- ners. The second largest group is cohesion within these family sured through Aetna, which provides male-male partners, followed by male coverage for medical, dental, and vi- employees enrolling female partners, units. sion plans. Kaiser Permanente ex- and finally female-female enroll- tends HMO coverage to domestic part- ments." 3 writers even promised to buy more ners in the San Francisco Bay Area.'I The ice cream company, Ben & software.98 For the purposes of domestic part- Jerry's Homemade, Inc., which is Levi Strauss & Co. is the largest nership coverage, Levi Strauss de- based in Waterbury, Vermont, was organization to offer domestic part- fines an "unmarried couple" as "any one of the first private United States nership benefits to its employees thus eligible employee and one other per- employers to offer medical and dental

Loyola Consumer Law Reporter I Lead Articles insurance to their employees' domes- The Ben & Jerry's benefits office IX. CONCLUSION tic partners.I 4 Their "named partner" reports no significant increase in cov- Domestic partnership benefits vis- coverage is underwritten by Consum- erage costs. 24 Although there was ibly demonstrate an employer's com- ers United Insurance Co. of Washing- some concern about AIDS-related mitment to its changing work force 1 5 ton, D.C. 1 Approximately four per- costs, Ben & Jerry's officials state and fair employment practices. Many cent of the company's 360 employees that diseases such as heart disease, states and municipalities forbid dis- emphysema, diabetes, and long term crimination based upon sexual orien- diseases like cancer, statistically cost tation. Many more companies have 25 Levi Strauss & Co. is the more money. adopted such a policy on their own. largest organization to offer Last year, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley As companies become more aware of & domestic partnership benefits McCloy, a New York-based law their employees' non-traditional fami- firm, started providing health care lies, they will be more willing to pro- to its employees thus far. coverage to same-sex domestic part- vide incentives that provide cohesion 26 Levi Strauss decided to offer ners of the firm's employees. within these family units. benefits to stay in line with Milbank Tweed employs 1100 people Employees with non-traditional their non-discrimination in eight offices. 127 Medical coverage families must continue to lobby their policy on marital status. is administered by the Prudential In- employers for domestic partnership surance Company. 28 Milbank Tweed benefits in the interest of fairness and covers "qualified domestic partners" equity. Employees will push for rec- have enrolled a spouse/domestic part- of full-time employees. A "qualified ognition and equality as they become ner for benefits." 6 Employees are not domestic partner" is an unmarried aware of compensation differentials required to file an affidavit to qualify adult of the same sex who has cohab- based upon marital status. Wherever 17 for coverage.' ited with an employee for at least 12 one turns in society, protections and The company does not discrimi- months and is not otherwise a quali- benefits are afforded to traditional nate on the basis of race, age, sex, fied dependent. 29 Milbank Tweed families and denied to alternative fami- sexual orientation, or marital status." 8 requires two forms of proof of cohabi- lies. Once companies realize the mini- Ben & Jerry's offers these benefits tation, which can be a driver's license, mal cost of providing domestic part- without regard to whether the couple signed lease, billing statement, or tax nership benefits, they will be more is married, unmarried, opposite-sex, willing to extend benefits to non-tra- or same-sex. Additionally, couples' ditional families. :o dependents are covered under the For the purposes of domestic policy as well." 9 partnership ENDNOTES To qualify for coverage, employ- coverage, Levi ees must prove they have lived with Strauss defines an Martha Farnsworth Riche, The Future "unmarried their partners for at least three months. couple" as "any of the Family, AMERICAN DEMOGRAPHICS, Mar. 1991, at 44. Some estimates are For employees and their partners en- eligible employee and one as low as 15%. See Laurie Becklund, rolled in the medical and/or dental other person sharing a The Word "Family" Gains New Mean- plan, Ben & Jerry's pays the full pre- ing, L.A. TIMES, committed relationship with Dec. 13 1990, at A3. mium for salaried employees and their 2 Jan Larson & Brad Edmondson, Should partners. Hourly employees pay 25 the following characteristics: Unmarried Partners Get Married Ben- percent of their dependents' premi- living together, financially efits?, AMERICAN DEMOGRAPHICS, Mar. 2° 1991, at 47. ums. Health insurance coverage is interdependent, jointly 3 The debate rages in the gay and lesbian capped at one million dollars per in- responsible for each other's community over domestic partnership 2 sured lifetime.' ' Ben & Jerry's pays common welfare, and status or gay marriage. For further 80 percent and employees pay 20 per- information in this area, See Paula L. considering themselves as Ettelbrick & Thomas B. Stoddard, Gay cent, after employees meet the de- life partners." Marriage: A Must or A Bust?, OuT/LoOK, ductible. Employees may sign up for Fall 1989. the single-plus-one plan or opt for 4 BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, U.S. DEPT. 22 family coverage. OF LABOR, EMPLOYMENT COST INDEXES AND Each employee may take up to five filings. 30 An "Affidavit of Spousal LEVELS 1975-89, at 9 (1989). Some bereavement days per year for the 3 estimates range up to 40% of total com- Equivalency" is also required.1 ' Other pensation. death of a spouse or . law firms offering such benefits are 5 Id. Partners of employees who leave Ben Schiff Hardin & Waite of Chicago, 6 In July 1993, the Human Rights & Jerry's may continue health cover- and Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe of Commission ruled that any employer 123 age for up to 18 months. San Francisco. providing benefits for heterosexual must

Volume 6 Number 2/Winter 1994 I Lead Articles I also provide them for same-sex couples. riage, See Adams v. Howerton, 673 23, 1993. Kimberly Griffin, Mandates Part- F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982) (denying spou- 4 Levi Strauss reports that 50% of its ner Benefits, WINDY CITY TIMES, Aug. 12 sal immigration status to male couple domestic partnerships are heterosexual. 1993, at 1. In the U.S., Hawaii recently who were "married" by a minister), cert. Michelle Neely Martinez, Recognizing remanded a same-sex marriage case to denied, 458 U.S. 1111 (1982); DeSanto Sexual Orientation is FairandNot Costly, determine the constitutionality under the v. Barnsley, 476 A.2d 952 (Pa. Super. HRMAGAZINE, June 1993, at 70. Hawaii State Constitution. Baehr v. Ct. 1984) (holding common law mar- 45 Average total cost for treatment of four Lewin, 1993 WL 142682. riage between two men not valid). How- serious illnesses, according to U.S. 7 Ed Mickens, What Good Are Partner ever, the Hawaii Supreme Court has Public Health Service as reported in THE Benefits?, THE ADVOCATE, Feb. 22, 1994, remanded a same-sex marriage case to ADVOCATE, Sept. 7 1993, at 17. at 31. determine the constitutionality under the 46 Nathaniel E. Slavin, Out of the Closet 8 LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION Hawaii State Constitution. Baehr v. and Into the Insurance Policy, CORP. FUND, RECOGNITION OF DOMESTIC PARTNER- Lewin, 1993 WL 142682. LEGAL TIMES, June 1993, at 7-8. SHIP BENEFITS 1, (1991). Other defini- 20 Libby Post, The Question of Family: 47 LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION tions include "relationship resembling a Lesbians and Gay Men Reflecting On FUND, supra note 8, at 1. family or household with close coopera- Redefined Society, 19 FORDHAM URBAN 48 THE SEGAL COMPANY, 1 & 2 EXECUTIVE tion between the parties, each having L.J. 747, 748 (1992). LETTER 5 (1993). specified responsibilities; a committed 21 Braschi v. Stahl Ass'n, 543 N.E.2d 49 49 NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE non-platonic, family-type relationship of (N.Y. 1989). POLICY INSTITUTE, DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP two unrelated partners; two unrelated 22 Id. at 54. ORGANIZING MANUAL 17 (1992); Lisa individuals who share the necessities of 23 Id. at 54. Anderson, Gay or Straight, New York- life, live together and have an emotional 24 The Braschidefinition of family was not ers tie 'domestic partner' knot, CHICAGO and financial commitment to one an- extended when the New York Court of TRIBUNE, Apr. 16, 1993, at Ni. other; two individuals who have an inti- Appeals denied visitation rights to a 50 Laarman, supra note 10, at 248. mate and committed relationship and whose "live-in relationship" with 51 THE SEGAL COMPANY, supra note 48, at 6. are jointly responsible for basic living the child's mother had ended. In re 52 Id. expenses; cohabitation, significant oth- Alison D. v. Virginia M., 572 N.E.2d 27 53 Laarman, supra note 10, at 247. 54 AIh.,At r I hnr rl = W-^,, QT I ers, spousal equivalents, nontraditional (N.Y. 1991). l, . , 1 11/I W L V . ., dependents, live-in companions." 25 Hinman v. Department of Personnel Dec.29, 1992, at Al. HEWITT ASSOCIATES, DOMESTIC PARTNERS Admin.,167 Cal. App. 3d 516 (Ct. Ap. Laarman, supra note 9, at 570. AND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS (1991). 1985). Id. 9 Exceptions are THE VILLAGE VOICE news- 26 Id. at 523. NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE paper, which extended coverage to do- 27 Id. at 526. POLICY INSTITUTE, supra note 49, at 25. mestic partners in 1982, and the ACLU, 28 Id. at 527-28. Laarman, supra note 9, at 570. which extended coverage in 1983. Linda 29 Id. at 524. Slavin, supra note 46, at 7. M. Laarman, Employer Health Cover- 0 Rovira v. AT&T, (S.D.N.Y.) 90 Civ. 5486 Laarman, supra note 9, at 571. age for Domestic Partners -Identifying (RPP). Martha McDonald, Domestic Partner the Issues, 18 EMPLOYEE RELATIONS L.J. 31 Id. Benefits Changes, BUSINESS & HEALTH, 567, 579 (1993). 32 Gay Teachers Assoc. v. Board of Educ., Oct. 1990, at 18. 10 Linda M. Laarman, The Facts About No. 43069/88 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed May 2, Laarman, supra note 10, at 248. Domestic-Partner Benefits, EMPLOYMENT 1988). Cox, supra note 41, at 29. RELATIONS TODAY, Summer 1992, at 247- 33 Id., Brief for Plaintiffs-Respondents at LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION 48. 13. FUND, INSURANCE COMPANIES AND BENEFITS 11 LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION 3 Peter Freiberg, New York City Workers (1992). FUND, A NATIONAL OVERVIEW OF DOMESTIC and Retirees Get Equal Health Ben- 65 HEWITT ASSOCIATES, supra note 8, at 9. PARTNERSHIP LEGISLATION APRIL 1992 at 3, efits, THE LAMBDA UPDATE, Winter 1994, 66 WILLIAM M. MERCER, INC., (Feb. 1993). (1992). at 7. 67 Laarman, supra note 9, at 571. 12 Robed L. Eblin, Note, Domestic Part- 3 In re Guardianship of Kowalski, 478 68 Eblin, supra note 12, at 1085. nership Recognition in the Workplace: N.W.2d 790 (Minn. App. Ct. 1991). 69 Priv. Ltr. Rul. 9231062 (May 7, 1992). Equitable Employee Benefits for Gay SId. at 791. 70 Priv. Ltr. Rul. 9109060 (Dec. 6, 1990). Couples (and Others), 51 OHIO ST. L.J. 37 Id. at 794. 71 Laarman, supra note 9, at 575. 1067, 1072 (1990). 3 Id. at 797. 72 Laarman, supra note 9, at 569. 13 CITY OF BERKELY, DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP 3 George K. Kronenberger, Out of the 73 Id. INFORMATION SHEET. Closet, PERSONNEL JOURNAL, June 1991, 74 Id. 14 Id. at 42. 75 THE SEGAL COMPANY, supra note 48, at 7. 15 Id. 40 Id. 76 Id. 16 Id. The debate about the six-month 41 Barbara J. Cox, Alternative Families: 77 Martinez, supra note 44, at 70. waiting periods not required of married Obtaining Traditional Family Benefits 78 Id. employees is beyond the scope of this Through Litigation, Legislation, and 79 Laarman, supra note 9, at 571. article. Collective Bargaining, 2 Wis. WOMEN'S 80 WILLIAM M. MERCER, INC., supra note 66. 17 Walter Isaacson, Should Gays Have L.J. Spring 1986, at 32. 81 Laarman, supra note 9, at 578. Marriage Rights?, TIME, Nov. 20, 1989, 42 HEWITT ASSOCIATES, supra note 8, at 19. 82 LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION at 101. 43 Many of these ideas were developed by FUND, supra note 8. 18 Eblin, supra note 12, at 1077. Daniel Barcus, Chicago, for a Lesbian 8 Martinez, supra note 44, at 70. 19 For cases where couples have claimed and Association presentation a4 NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE that their relationship constituted a mar- on domestic partnership benefits, June POLICY INSTITUTE, supra note 49, at 17-

60 Loyola Consumer Law Reporter Lea Artcle I

46. 99 NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE 114 Laabs, supra note 92, at 62. 85 Bill Turque et. al., Gays Under Fire, POLICY INSTITUTE, supra note 49, at 48. 115 Joanne Wojcik, Newspaper First to Of- NEWSWEEK, Sept. 14, 1992, at 36 and 100 LEVI STRAUSS & Co., FACT SHEET, (1993). fer Domestic Partner Plan, BUSINESS 37. 101Wojcik, Few Offer Benefits to Unwed INSUR., Mar. 11, 1991, at 30. 88 Thomas A. Stewart, Gay in Corporate Couples, BUSINESS INSUR., Mar. 11, 1991, 116 Id. America, FORTUNE, Dec. 16, 1991, at at 30. 117 NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE 102 54. Martinez, supra note 44, at 70. POLICY INSTITUTE, supra note 49, at 47. 87 MICHELANGELO SIGNORILE, IN 103 Id. 118 Id. AMERICA 349 (1993). 104 NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE 119 Id. 8 Id. POLICY INSTITUTE, supra note 49, at 48. 120 HEWITT ASSOCIATES, supra note 8, at 19. 89 Keith H. Hammonds, Lotus Opens a 105 Slavin, supra note 46, at 8. 121 Laabs, supra note 92, at 64. Door for Gay Partners, BUSINESS WEEK, 106 Bev Beaudreault, Inter-Office Correspon- 122 Id. Nov. 4, 1991, at 80. dence, LEVI STRAUSS & Co., April 19, 1993, 123 Id. at 64-65. 90 Stewart, supra note 86, at 50. at 1. 121 NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE 91 NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE 107 Id. at 2 POLICY INSTITUTE, supra note 49, at 47. POLICY INSTITUTE, supra note 49, at 49. 108 Id. 125 Slavin, supra note 46, at 8. 92 Jennifer J. Laabs, Unmarried ... with 109 NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE 126 Deborah Shalowitz, Law Firm Extends Benefits, PERSONNEL JOURNAL, Dec. POLICY INSTITUTE, supra note 49, at 48. Cover, BUSINESS INSUR., Mar. 1, 1993, at 1991, at 65. 110 LEVI STRAUSS & Co., COMMONLY ASKED 6. 93 Post, supra note 20, at 752. QUESTIONS ABOUT LEVI STRAUSS & CO.'s 127 Id. 9 Laabs, supra note 92, at 65. EXTENSION OF HEALTH BENEFITS TO UNMAR- 128 MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY, & MCCLOY, 95 Hammonds, supra note 89, at 81. RIED COUPLES 1 (1992). HEALTH CARE BENEFITS FOR SAME SEX Do- 98 Id. at 80. 111 Id. MESTIC PARTNERS 1 (Dec. 1992). 97 NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE 112 Martinez, supra note 44, at 70. 129 Id. POLICY INSTITUTE, supra note 49, at 49. 113 Reese Smith, Remarks, Extending Our 130 Id. 98 Hammonds, supra note 89, at 81. Benefits, Oct. 19, 1992, at 6. 131 Id. at 3.

Announcements

the waste, which was buried 40 to 50 the implants are responsible for No Punitive Damages in years ago. health problems. Canal Considered one of the worst U.S. Under the terms of the settle- Contamination ecological disasters, the Love Canal ment, women who agree to it within contamination helped start the envi- the next few months would be eli- A federal judge ruled recently that ronmental movement by raising public gible to receive between $200,000 the corporate successor to the com- awareness about toxic chemicals. to $2 million apiece, depending on pany responsible for dumping toxic their illness. Women interested in waste at the Love Canal does not joining in the settlement can call a have to pay punitive damages. The nationwide hotline, 1-800-887- contamination forced hundreds of Possible Settlement 6828, for more information. people to abandon their homes in the 1970s and '80s. Reached in Silicone New York state sought up to $250 Breast Implant Cases million from Occidental Chemical Three of the companies that manu- Air Bags Save Lives Corp., the corporate successor to factured silicone breast implants have A study by the nation's largest au- Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp., agreed to provide almost $4 billion to tomobile insurer shows that air bags which dumped 22,000 tons of haz- pay for thousands of health claims from have had a dramatic effect on reduc- ardous waste at Love Canal. women who say they have sufferred ill ing highway deaths and injuries. The The judge in the case ruled that effects from the implants. study, commissioned by State Farm state prosecutors failed to prove that U.S. District Judge Sam Pointer is Insurance, studied 2,818 accident the company showed "reckless disre- presiding over more than 7,000 law- claims involving automobiles in which gard for the safety of others," but he suits involving the implants and will an air bag had inflated during a colli- did criticize the company for not decide whether to grant approval of sion. When an air bag inflates in a warning nearby residents about the the settlement, which was agreed to by frontal collision, the driver is 35 per- danger the chemicals posed. He also Dow Corning Corp., Bristol Myers- cent less likely to suffer moderate to noted that the company used accept- Squibb Co., and Baxter Healthcare serious injuries than a driver only able procedures at the time to dump Corp. However, the companies deny wearing a seat belt, the study showed.

Volume 6 Number 2/Winter 1994 61