My girlfriend and I are going to get married. We’re not engaged or anything, but it’s inevitable. We’ve talked about it. A lot. While I am gainfully employed, she’s fresh out of law school and studying for the bar exam and has only a part-time job that doesn’t come with benefits. (Today, she had some dental work done that required a hefty price tag that we put on a credit card.)
My company, however, does give benefits to “domestic partners.” This policy is clearly aimed at gay couples and I wholeheartedly support it. But I’m wondering, from a purely legal standpoint, could a man and a woman declare themselves domestic partners? After all, most states don’t even have civil unions, but plenty of companies provide benefits to domestic partners even if the state doesn’t recognize the union in some way.
Note, I have no real plans on exploiting my company’s policies in this way. Doing so would only hurt the cause of those trying to win full rights for gay couples. I’m just wondering about the question itself: Could a heterosexual couple have a domestic partnership recognized by an employer, and if the employer chose not to, would that be legal?
I was once in almost exactly in your same situation and in Washington, D.C. as well. For my company, it was possible for a heterosexual couple to establish themselves as domestic partners. There were a number of things required to establish the partnership, which escape me now, years later, but it was certainly possible.
The City of Cleveland Heights, Ohio offers domestic partnership registration for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. It’s largely symbolic, though.
I’ve had several employers extend benefits to unmarried partners of either sex. The place I remember best had a policy where if you lived together for more than a year and presented yourselves as married, they’d allow the employee to add the non-employee to their benefits. Very handy.
IANAL. Does the policy specifically state for gay couples only? Does your state have anti-discrimination laws that apply to same gender couples? If gay couples are a protected class under state laws, the opposite should also hold true.
The firm I work for offers domestic partner benefits, and the polices do not have any requirement that the partners be same-sex. Many opposite-sex partners like yours are covered. However, in most cases the benefit tax costs are higher because a domestic partner is not usually a tax dependent (regardless of the sex).
The OP is in Washington D.C. so no state laws apply. D.C. does has an anti-discrimination law in place that includes sexual orientation. Note that “gay” is not a protected class under such laws. “Sexual orientation” is, so discrimination based on sexual orientation (generally defined in the law as being homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual). I can’t speak to D.C. and I haven’t clicked through the reference above, but in Wisconsin the state supreme court has ruled that refusing to provide benefits to the non-married partner of an employee does not constitute employment discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or marital status.
My bro and his “perma-girlfriend” in Oregon have this, just required a trip to the courthouse. I don’t know what the exact terminology of the arrangement is, just that they are effectively married as far as benefits, decisions, taxes, etc but without being married-married/
My company offers similar options. My fiancee was switching jobs a few months ago, and due to how the new job’s benefits are handled (she wouldn’t be covered until working there for three months) and the timing of leaving her old job (she’d be staying on part-time for a month or so), there was a period where she wouldn’t have any medical coverage.
I found that my employer offers benefits for “spousal equivalent” that would’ve allowed me to add her to my coverage. The criteria were:[ul][li]In a commited relationship which has existed at least 3 months prior to adding to coverage.[/li][li] Both partners are at least 18 years of age[/li][li] Neither partner is already married, and neither are related by blood.[/li][li] Have lived together at the same residence for at least 3 months[/ul]No mention was made either way regarding the gender of the spousal equivalent. [/li]
So if we filled out some paperwork I could’ve added her to my various insurance policies (medical, dental, vision, etc). However, there is a tax burden associated with “spousal equivalents” that a full spouse doesn’t have. If we had gone this route, part of the company’s contribution towards my/our benefits would’ve been reported to the IRS as part of my taxable income
Really? That sounds to me that they got legally married by the state (rather than going through a full ceremony). Do you know if they filled out a marriage license? If so, they’re husband and wife (married-married), at least as far as the government is concerned. I didn’t think you could get any kind of spousal tax break (filing jointly, dependencies, etc) without a full marriage license.
And, it turns out, so does my employer. After much looking, I just found the phrasing in one of the many pieces of literature I was given upon my hire.
So now I guess the only question is whether I should sue my own company.
The company I work for, under the previous parent corporation, had benefits for domestic partners, but only same-sex. When we got bought out, the term “domestic partner” was used not as a euphemism for “gay couple,” but actually meant “domestic partner.” Thus, my Pelvic Affiliate and her two children, who had been living with me for two years, were allowed onto my insurance (a damn good thing, too…my P.A. was just diagnosed with Lyme Disease, and Medicare in this area isn’t too keen on helping out with treatment)
So that should mean an employer in DC cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation regardless of what that may be, as long as they meet the criteria for domestic partner.
Really? Exploiting? Hurting the cause for gay couples? * Really??*
My employer offers benefits for domestic partners and makes no mention whatsover regarding sex.
Before my husband and I were married we had the paperwork completed making us domestic partners, specifically so he could be included in my benefits package. Never once did I think we were exploiting the policy.
