Domestic Partnership

mpinnick · November 2007

We have recently implemented a domestic partnership option in our benefit program. This is strictly for same sex partners. One employee is complaining that this is discrimination against heterosexual partners. Our response is that heterosexual partners have the option of marrying whereas the same sex partners do not. Any thoughts????

Thanks

KLeede · November 2007

I know of several companies that have the same policy as yours. I've also read that when Massachusetts made same-sex marriage legal, some companies said they would only cover same-sex couples that were married because that legal option was available after the law passed.

erinkuntz · November 2007

I think you also need to be aware of what the state government
recognizes as common law marriage - because those people are recognized
as domestic partners. (States differ on what they recognize as
common law marriage relationships.)

Good luck!

srallen · November 2007

If you live in a state that recognizes Common Law marriage, then I would be sure that you allow that as well. We do reside in such a state. We have an Affidavit of Common Law Marriage that we require the employee and partner to complete and submit, along with appropriate documentation. I think as long as you offer both, you should be okay. I don't think it discriminates against hetro partners, unless you live in a state where same-sex marriage is legal. Hope this helps.

TXHRGuy · November 2007

Some companies have very liberal domestic partner policies on the benefits side, essentially extending benefits to domestic partners without regard to gender mix. In such cases, there is an affidavit requiring the employee to attest to the "seriousness" of the relationship. This policy casts a wider net of inclusion in your benefits plans but simplifies the legal terrain.

aharris1 · December 2007

I think all of the posts are correct to some extend but I would check with your state laws and make sure that any policy you draft does not conflict with the vendors that provide these benefits as well. Liberal policies are not just employer driven- may companies that provide these services have exclusions for domestic partners, same sex or not , while others allow it. Make sure company policy does not conflict with your third party service providers.

TXHRGuy · December 2007

[quote user="aharris1"]I think all of the posts are correct to some extend but I would check with your state laws and make sure that any policy you draft does not conflict with the vendors that provide these benefits as well. Liberal policies are not just employer driven- may companies that provide these services have exclusions for domestic partners, same sex or not , while others allow it. Make sure company policy does not conflict with your third party service providers.
[/quote]

This is an excellent and important point. Your current or planned vendor would be a good source to begin with. If your vendor does not offer benefits on a domestic partnership basis, it wouldn't be a good idea to make it the policy of the company to offer such benefits.

mzihc · January 2008

We are located in CA. We based our policy on the CA family code which actually requires that both people be of the same sex to qualify. (There's a little more to that but short answer.) I haven't looked into the common law aspect.

FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 297-297.5 <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

298-298.5

299-299.3

299.6

 297.  (a) Domestic partners are two adults who have chosen to share one another's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring.

   (b) A domestic partnership shall be established in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />California when both persons file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the Secretary of State pursuant to this division, and, at the time of filing, all of the following requirements are met:

   (1) Both persons have a common residence.

   (2) Neither person is married  to someone else or is a member of another domestic partnership with someone else that has not been terminated, dissolved, or adjudged a nullity.

   (3) The two persons are not related by blood in a way that would prevent them from being married to each other in this state.

   (4) Both persons are at least 18 years of age.

   (5) Either of the following:

   (A) Both persons are members of the same sex.

   (B) One or both of the persons meet the eligibility criteria under Title II of the Social Security Act as defined in 42 U.S.C. Section 402(a) for old-age insurance benefits or Title XVI of the Social Security Act as defined in 42 U.S.C. Section 1381 for aged individuals.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, persons of opposite sexes may not constitute a domestic partnership unless one or both of the persons are over the age of 62.

   (6) Both persons are capable of consenting to the domestic partnership.

   (c) "Have a common residence" means that both domestic partners share the same residence.  It is not necessary that the legal right to possess the common residence be in both of their names.  Two people have a common residence even if one or both have additional residences.  Domestic partners do not cease to have a common residence if one leaves the common residence but intends to return.

californian · January 2008

Definitely check state law, but if state law does not speak to this, I think that offering benefits to employees in committed relationships, regardless of their sex may be a great benefit and recruiting tool. Something to think about . . .

Domestic Partnership

Comments