A encouraging sign of leadership from corporate

[haapai]

Something very good happened yesterday and I have to share it. 

I work for a Fortune 500 company that has a record of treating its LGBT employees shabbily.  When the HRCF ranks companies we come in very low.  A decade ago, we were tied for last place in a ranking of how Fortune 500 companies treat their LGBT employees. 

I also live in a state that has a mini-DOMA and not a whole lot of reason to hope that, that will change soon.  The legal challenges to the statute aren't particularly developed and there doesn't appear to be any momentum for repealing the statute. 

So I was overjoyed to open a flyer from benefits and read the following.

Legally married same-gender spouses will be eligible for enrollment in the <company name> Group Health Plans.  A team member who was legally married in a state that recognizes that marriage and is eligible to add a spouse to their health care coverage will qualify for spouse enrollment.

In addition to health care coverage, same-gender spouse benefits will be extended to supplemental life insurance, team appreciation card benefits, adoption benefits, bereavement benefits and retirement benefits. 

In other words, my company decided not to drag their feet and hide behind the state of celebration standard for as long as possible.  They could have done this but they decided not to make employees sue them.  They decided not to force management to treat employees differently.  They decided that the money saved by discouraging folks from taking benefits for as long as possible wasn't worth the hassle and shame. 

I'm not used to my company being proactive in any way, so I am overjoyed. 

[raeoflyte]

That's great news haapai!

Most of the companies I worked for offered health insurance to domestic partners. It made a big difference in how I felt about corporate.

[haapai]

This is a company that decided to add sexual orientation to its non-discrimination policy in 2003 but not publicize the fact. 

They're just a little behind the times and they were going to have to make all these changes eventually but making them all at once and publicizing the changes is really unusual for them. 

This frees managers and the folks in benefits from the enormous burden of treating folks differently. 

The folks in benefits must be walking on air.  They can now ditch their aps and decision trees that tell them who gets what in which state. 

[Deleted]

I hate to sound cynical, but is this part of Obamacare regulations? Mine offers same-sex and domestic partner benefits, too, and explicitly mentioned it with the Open Enrollment materials for 2014.

[haapai]

Don't apologize for being cynical!  I'm pretty sure that the ACA has a lot to do with this.  They were going to lose that part of the battle. 

The miracle is that they had the good sense to throw in the towel on the rest of the fight. 

[Cookies Galore]

Awesome! Our company offers domestic partner benefits but also changed to allow LGBT couples who are married in states where it is legal will be recognized as legally married when it comes to benefits.
It's a tax issue because same-sex couples can amend previous years' taxes since domestic partner benefits are taken out after tax and not pre-tax. One of my coworkers and his partner got married in Iowa when it became legal there so he is amending his returns.

[thyme4change]

Legally married same-gender spouses will be eligible for enrollment in the <company name> Group Health Plans.

I am not sure they could NOT do this.  Right?  If someone is legally married, they are eligible for the same benefits of all the other legally married people.  This is a law, not some progressive corporate policy.  You should be proud if they extended full benefits to all domestic partnerships. But they didn't, so they are still being cheap assholes.

[Cookies Galore]

Oct 23, 2013 9:40:37 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Legally married same-gender spouses will be eligible for enrollment in the <company name> Group Health Plans.

I am not sure they could NOT do this.  Right?  If someone is legally married, they are eligible for the same benefits of all the other legally married people.  This is a law, not some progressive corporate policy.  You should be proud if they extended full benefits to all domestic partnerships. But they didn't, so they are still being cheap assholes.

That's exactly it. According to my work announcement, the IRS and Treasury Dept declared at the end of august that same sex couples who are legally married are recognized for federal tax purposes. Pre-tax benefits. Boom.

[haapai]

Hmmm, I can't help but notice that FMLA is conspicuously omitted in the laundry list of ways that people will no longer be treated differently.  Does anyone know which Federal Department handles enforcement of that one? 

[Deleted]

I believe it's the Department of Labor

[haapai]

Yup, it's Labor and they haven't spoken up on this yet. 

I'm not a complete Pollyanna.  I expect that if Labor does make an announcement of how they're going to interpret FMLA post-Windsor, they'll make that announcement on the Tuesday or Wednesday before Thanksgiving. 






 

[michelyn8]

Oct 23, 2013 8:06:29 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

I hate to sound cynical, but is this part of Obamacare regulations? Mine offers same-sex and domestic partner benefits, too, and explicitly mentioned it with the Open Enrollment materials for 2014.

My company did the same thing but only in States that recognize same sex marriage and I've been told it was because of Obamacare (keep in mind the source is a staunch Republican and believes any and everything anti-Obama/Democrat she hears off of Fox).  The kicker for us was that along with this change is a change that if you have an opposite sex domestic partner, you can no longer cover them unless you live in a state that recognizes common law marriages (Virginia does not recognize either).  Domestic partners currently covered will be dropped effective Jan 1 but can continue coverage via Cobra.

[973beachbum]

Oct 23, 2013 8:06:29 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

I hate to sound cynical, but is this part of Obamacare regulations? Mine offers same-sex and domestic partner benefits, too, and explicitly mentioned it with the Open Enrollment materials for 2014.

I know this is OT, but if Obamacare changed the law to require domestic partner benefits like they do for spouses, did they ever fix the tax problem? 

I thought if an employer provided health insurance to a domestic partner it was taxable to the Fed gov for income tax purposes and was counted as income. 

[haapai]

Oct 23, 2013 15:24:15 GMT -5 michelyn8 said:

My company did the same thing but only in States that recognize same sex marriage and I've been told it was because of Obamacare (keep in mind the source is a staunch Republican and believes any and everything anti-Obama/Democrat she hears off of Fox). 

I think that we have a few of those working for my company too.  It's entirely possible that some of them will read the statement that I quoted and somehow come to believe that it only applies to employees that live in states that recognize their marriages.  That is, they'll fixate on the words "legally married" in the first sentence and miss the implication in "were married in a state...."

I shudder to think of how high up some of those folks might be and how loudly they might broadcast their poor reading comprehension.  

[Deleted]

Oct 23, 2013 8:06:29 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

I hate to sound cynical, but is this part of Obamacare regulations? Mine offers same-sex and domestic partner benefits, too, and explicitly mentioned it with the Open Enrollment materials for 2014.

No, ACA does not change any provisions that would mandate employers to cover same sex partners.

ACA gets some press because it now provides an insurance option for many same sex partners that were not able to get benefits through their spouse/significant other.

[saveinla]

Oct 23, 2013 9:36:07 GMT -5 Cookies Galore said:

Awesome! Our company offers domestic partner benefits but also changed to allow LGBT couples who are married in states where it is legal will be recognized as legally married when it comes to benefits.

This is what has changed for us too. They always offered benefits for domestic partners, but added the tax benefit wording this year.

[Phoenix84]

Just curious, does "domestic partners" include people who are not married?  Meaning, can two adults of opposite or same sex who live together get health insurance through these employers?

[saveinla]

Oct 25, 2013 14:06:50 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Just curious, does "domestic partners" include people who are not married?  Meaning, can two adults of opposite or same sex who live together get health insurance through these employers?

Yes. These are the definitions that we have:

• Your spouse means your husband or wife (same or opposite sex) who is recognized under the laws in the state

or country in which you were married.

• Your qualifying domestic partner means the person of the same or opposite sex, who is at least age 18, who

is not related to you by blood (to the degree that you would be prohibited from marrying), and with whom you

share a committed relationship, a household, and living expenses.

[Phoenix84]

Interesting, so roomates could be considered domestic partners.  It also seems marriage is becoming more and more irrelevent in our society.

[Cookies Galore]

Oct 25, 2013 14:54:21 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Interesting, so roomates could be considered domestic partners.  It also seems marriage is becoming more and more irrelevent in our society.

Nope. Roommates are not a committed relationship. Usually to qualify for domestic partner benefits you need to submit paperwork and have things like a joint lease or mortgage, joint savings or checking account, joint bill(s), beneficiary on things like retirement or life insurance, and a lot of these joint accounts and lease / mortgage have to be open for a certain amount of time. My company uses 12 months as their timeline.

[Phoenix84]

I thought having separate finances was common though, even for married couples.

[haapai]

Oct 25, 2013 14:54:21 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Interesting, so roomates could be considered domestic partners.  It also seems marriage is becoming more and more irrelevent in our society.

I'd argue that it's domestic partnerships that are on the way out.  The status, which frequently meant very little, means even less now that marriage and favorable IRS treatment are an option.  The only use that I see for them now is to gain very limited rights conferred by state or municipal authorities in states where mini-DOMAs prevent authorities from recognizing an out-of-state marriage. 

 

[Phoenix84]

Oct 25, 2013 16:35:53 GMT -5 haapai said:

Oct 25, 2013 14:54:21 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Interesting, so roomates could be considered domestic partners.  It also seems marriage is becoming more and more irrelevent in our society.

I'd argue that it's domestic partnerships that are on the way out.  The status, which frequently meant very little, means even less now that marriage and favorable IRS treatment are an option.  The only use that I see for them now is to gain very limited rights conferred by state or municipal authorities in states where mini-DOMAs prevent authorities from recognizing an out-of-state marriage. 

 

Perhaps it's outside the scope of this thread, but I thought the opposite was true.  It was becoming more financially viable to remain single and in a domestic partnership, in order to qualify for federal benefits.  The reason I brought this up was because I have a cousin who is claiming she will not get married because she will qualify for more health insurance subsidies under the ACA if she doesn't.

[haapai]

Actually, Phoenix, I think that you might be right.  When we argue that marriage is a tax-advantaged status we're conveniently assuming a certain level of income. 

I haven't dug too far into the ACA and how the subsidy behaves.  I'm also pretty ignorant of the whole MFJ status, so I have no idea whether the ACA subsidy is greater than the tax savings that two presumably income-discordant folks would get by tying the knot.  I also know nothing about what employer-subsidized insurance might be available for those two. 

She might have crunched and considered everything and be absolutely correct in her conclusion. 

ETA:  I suspect that the subsidies available under the ACA affect quite a few folks who generally think of themselves as self-reliant and not receiving "aid".  

It might be accurate to argue that the income level at which the marriage penalty phases out is rising.  I really have to admit that I haven't done a whole lot of math on this one yet.