Posted on 08/05/2015 2:42:16 AM PDT by markomalley
Many employers may still refuse benefits to same-sex spouses, but those who do may be walking on thin ice.
While the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling in June required states to issue same-sex marriage licenses and recognize licenses issued elsewhere, the justices didn't say anything explicit about whether employers can treat same-sex spouses differently than opposite-sex spouses.
But the decision does mean states that require certain spousal benefits must now ensure the requirements extend to same-sex spouses, legal and policy experts say. That would affect health plans offered by smaller employers, since they're typically regulated by states.
"If you are in a state that gives employees a statutory entitlement to take time off to care for a spouse with a serious health condition, you must allow that employee to do so whether they're opposite-sex or same-sex," said Zara Santos, a principal at Mercer's Washington Resource Group.
Larger employers that offer self-insured plans aren't regulated by states. But a recent ruling by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency that enforces employment anti-discrimination laws, could help turn up the heat on them, too.
Whether employers can treat same-sex spouses differently has been a legal gray area. While Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act forbids discrimination on the job based on a person's race, color, religion, sex or national origin, it doesn't explicitly state sexual orientation as a category.
But now the EEOC has said sexual orientation is included in Title VII employment protections, agreeing with several federal courts that have taken the same interpretation. In a 3-2 vote in July, the commission ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation is the same thing as discriminating based on a person's sex.
So while the Supreme Court's Obergefell v. Hodges decision focused on states, legal experts are warning employers to reconsider whether they ought to grant benefits only to opposite-sex couples.
One example: Walmart is currently defending itself in a class-action lawsuit for denying health benefits to an employee's same-sex, legally married spouse. The company ended its ban on coverage for same-sex spouses in 2014, but the plaintiff is seeking compensation for damages due to the previously denied benefits.
"Although it's too soon to tell whether these claims will succeed, an employer that doesn't offer same-sex spouse coverage may need to defend themselves should similar lawsuits arise," said Cathy Stamm, a senior associate for Mercer's Washington Resource Group.
Under my presidency, EEOC would be demolished outright, or the requirement to work there be one of self-service - i.e., no pay for any of them.
I shut down my business, and it was clearly a good call. Freedom received a fatal blow on January 20, 2009, and we are watching the slow death from that self-inflicted wound.
Just don’t hire them in the itrst place. Use whatever excuse you need to but make it good.
This isn’t a racist comment, but, I’m beginning to think this is hurting the black community. Employers are scared to hire them because they play the race card. If they have to terminate them, then they get embroiled in lawsuits. I was friends with a black woman at college, and it didn’t last long, because I saw her use the race card to intimidate instructors and even threaten the university with lawsuits when she was found to have plagiarized her essays.
> This isn’t a racist comment, but, I’m beginning to think this is hurting the black community. Employers are scared to hire them because they play the race card. If they have to terminate them, then they get embroiled in lawsuits. I was friends with a black woman at college, and it didn’t last long, because I saw her use the race card to intimidate instructors and even threaten the university with lawsuits when she was found to have plagiarized her essays.
People are going to have to get honest about racism and throw PC out the door if theybreally wantnto put it to bed. Racism is making unwarranted judgments on an individual based upon racial stereotypes but what if those stereotypes are accurate representations of the majority of them and they engage in those negative behaviors? Are you asking me to throw my discernment to the wolves to excuse your bad behavior if I see you engage in the same type of activity? C’monfgolks we got to be real.
> This isn’t a racist comment, but, I’m beginning to think this is hurting the black community. Employers are scared to hire them because they play the race card. If they have to terminate them, then they get embroiled in lawsuits. I was friends with a black woman at college, and it didn’t last long, because I saw her use the race card to intimidate instructors and even threaten the university with lawsuits when she was found to have plagiarized her essays.
People are going to have to get honest about racism and throw PC out the door if they really want to put it to bed. Racism is making unwarranted judgments on an individual based upon racial stereotypes but what if those stereotypes are accurate representations of the majority of them and they engage in those negative behaviors? Are you asking me to throw my discernment to the wolves to excuse your bad behavior if I see you engage in the same type of activity? C’monfgolks we got to be real.
Here is a thought. For the corporations that were offering benefits to unmarried same sex partners, are they now going to restrict benefits to married couples only?
Over the years, I’ve been able to run my various businesses as a one-man show—Don’t need any employees other than myself and, if I get overwhelmed, I farm-out work on a contract basis. The government mandated BS is the chief reason for this.
My guess is that, as the depth of the BS pile increases, short-term, employers will stop offering spousal benefits. Longer term, employers will stop offering benefits altogether—Salary and done.
Either that or they had better offer the same benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.