Date: Wed, 09 Feb 94 08:51:07 EST From: Sarah Richardson Subject: Cross posting news article To: domestic@cs.cmu.edu X-Acknowledge-To: This was sent to Gaynet, but I don't think it got sent to the domestic list; if it did, please forgive me. It's an interesting enough article that I wanted to make sure it was widely read. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bottom Line Determines Tax Benefit for Married Partners By Michele Matassa Flores, The Seattle Times Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Feb. 7--As more and more employers begin offering health coverage to unmarried couples, they say they will no longer judge workers based on marital status, sexual orientation or anything else. But as true as their motives might be, bosses still have both eyes on the bottom line. Most didn't extend the benefits until similar plans worked elsewhere. And many have limited their offers to gay and lesbian couples, excluding the much larger population of unmarried heterosexuals. For businesses, it's a question of how fair they can afford to be. The Seattle Times announced last week it would begin paying health-care premiums for partners of gay and lesbian employees but not unmarried heterosexual couples. Microsoft and Starbucks announced similar policies last year. Other companies nationally have adopted such plans. Generally, the companies have said they can't afford to cover all partners, so they cover those who most need help: people who don't have the option of marrying to obtain benefits. Such decisions have prompted some employees to accuse their companies of discrimination and hypocrisy. Civil-rights lawyers generally agree with the accusations. But, they say, there isn't much anyone can do about it. The city of Seattle and King County have laws against discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or marital status. And those agencies offer benefits to all domestic partners. But those laws apply only to the public agencies themselves, said Nalani Askov, human services analyst with the city's Office for Women's Rights. Private companies, Askov said, are governed by a federal employee- benefits law - one that does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or marital status. Washington state does not recognize common-law marriages. Civil-rights lawyer Judith Lonnquist said a case against companies offering benefits to same-sex couples would be "a tough sell" in court regardless of legal citations. "Since there's good public policy behind what (the company has) done, I don't think the courts would be particularly sympathetic to that challenge," she said. Also, businesses historically have been allowed to use "business necessity" as a defense. If a company is economically unable to cover everyone, it can justify making a partial effort. Microsoft executives received some complaints when the company announced a same-sex-only policy last April. Mike Murray, vice president of human resources, would not say how many employees have enrolled for coverage. Before Microsoft would extend benefits to all unmarried partners, he said, "we would have to be assured that this would not create an inordinate financial liability for us. There are just too many unknowns." Seattle Times Publisher Frank Blethen said all benefits packages inherently favor some groups, such as the sickest workers and those parents who use subsidized child care when it is available. Fringe benefits, Blethen said, are a privilege, not a right. Phil Nudelman, president and chief executive of Group Health Cooperative, disagrees. Group Health announced in November that it would extend health benefits to all unmarried couples, a program that will be implemented later this year. "I think it's an ideological view," Nudelman said. "That is why this country is in such turmoil trying to figure out which way to go with health care. It's either a social right or, on the other hand, a commodity like food, shelter and other things that you can buy if you can afford it. "I look at health care as a social right." That's quite a turnaround for Group Health. Four years ago, Group Health was one of three insurance plans offered to city employees when the city extended benefits to domestic partners. Because of concern about the risk of such a program, Group Health levied a surcharge beyond standard premiums to cover the city employees' partners: $97,000 one year and $452,000 the next year. In 1992, after seeing the partners' claims were actually less than average, Group Health dropped its surcharge. Then came the decision last year to offer its own employees a similar program. "Its unfair," Nudelman said, "but you can focus more on what's right if issues of money are lessened." A local gay-rights advocate said employers are becoming more comfortable offering benefits because more gay employees are acknowledging they are gay. "When somebody is 'out,' that means that other people looking at them will have an idea about a real person and can no longer accept the myths that are quite prevalent about homosexuality," said Demian (his full legal name) of the Seattle-based Partners Task Force for Gay & Lesbian Couples. The task force, which collects names of employers who announce domestic-partner benefits, counts about 110 public and private employers nationwide, up from 20 a few years ago. Despite Demian's faith in changing attitudes, developments in domestic- partner benefits so far have been driven by money. The city of Seattle's plan has been widely used as a model, even though it includes all partners. Enrollment by homosexual employees has been fairly low, fitting a national pattern. Some attribute that to the fact that many gays and lesbians don't want their sexual orientation exposed, that the domestic-partner benefits are taxed as income by the Internal Revenue Service, and that many partners might already have benefits. Only 476 city employees have enrolled their partners for benefits, out of 10,000 employees who qualify for benefits. Two-thirds of those who have enrolled are heterosexual. ========================================================================= Sarah Richardson srich@vtvm1.bitnet srich@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire