The
Domestic
Partnership
Organizing
Manual
for employee benefits
by Sally Kohn
THE POLICY INSTITUTE
OF THE
NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE
Policy Institute
CONTENTS
Introduction ..............................................................................................i
Orientation to the Manual .........................................................................1
How Domestic Partnership Is Defined .......................................................2
Suggested Policy.........................................................................6
Who Supports Domestic Partnership ........................................................7
Arguing the Case for Domestic Partnership Benefits ..................................9
Special Issues ........................................................................................15
Insurance Coverage ..................................................................15
Benefits Taxation .......................................................................15
Organizing for Domestic Partnership Benefits .........................................17
Once You Win: Sustaining Change ..........................................................26
Endnotes ................................................................................................28
Appendix ................................................................................................31
Resource Groups and Contact Information .................................32
Sector by Sector Policies ..........................................................39
Public Sector Benefits ......................................................40
Private Sector Benefits .....................................................49
College and University Benefits ......................................103
List of Employers with Domestic Partnership Benefits ..............120
Sample Proposal for Domestic Partnership Benefits .................131
Sample Employee Information Sheet .......................................133
Key Court Cases Affecting the Rights of Domestic Partners ......137
INTRODUCTION
he traditionally defined nuclear family, consisting of a married, heterosexual couple with children under the age of 18, is no longer the
norm for United States families. According to the 1990 US Census,
75% of families now fall outside of those boundaries. 1 In that year
unmarried couples comprised approximately 4.5 million families,
and one-third of these unmarried couples were of the same-sex. This
growth in unmarried couples represents a 400% increase since 1970, and reflects the rapidly changing family unit.
T
Unfortunately, there are many institutions that are not keeping pace with
these changes. While adequate universal health care continues to be inaccessible to countless Americans, health care benefits systems have also long
failed to recognize the unmarried partners of legions of American
workers. Domestic partnership (DP) benefits are one way to inOne in ten employers offer
crease access to health care while recognizing the diversity of families
domestic partnership
and treating them with equality and fairness.
benefits. This manual is
The movement for domestic partnership benefits is rooted in the
designed to help persuade
democratic notion of equal pay for equal work. With benefits comthe other 90%.
prising approximately 40% of a worker’s compensation,2 employees
who can obtain benefits for their spouses are, in effect, paid higher
than employees in relationships which are not legally recognized. To avoid
this contradiction and to attract and retain qualified employees in a competitive market, many companies extend health care and other benefits to the domestic partners of employees. Domestic partnership benefits, then, are a
means of working toward greater economic justice in the workplace.
And while over 1000 companies have equal opportunity statements that bar
discrimination based on sexual orientation, 3 many companies that do grant
additional benefits to heterosexual, married employees do not accord those
same benefits to same-sex couples. This too must change if our nation’s
workforce is to remain competitive and equitable. Fortunately for many companies and workers, GLBT employee associations, unions, fair-minded corporate CEOs and managers are changing workplace policies to reflect the
changing realities of U.S. families. Recognition of domestic partnership is increasingly being shown to be a positive step for businesses, governments and
nonprofit employers.
A 1996 study by the Society of Human Resource Managers found that one in
ten employers offered domestic partnership benefits. 4 This manual is designed to help persuade the other 90%.
Urvashi Vaid, Director
The Policy Institute of the National Gay and
Lesbian Task Force
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
i
ORIENTATION TO THE MANUAL
his manual is designed as a resource for those interested in pursuing
inclusive benefits policies in an employment setting, including corporations, colleges and universities, government bodies, and other organizations. It is designed to help you understand domestic partnership benefits
and construct persuasive strategies for implementation, from starting an
employee group to drafting a business case. While this manual focuses on
policy changes rather than enacting these benefits through legal or legislative channels, all methods for implementation are addressed. Still, the models presented in
this manual are commonly corporate, as this is the arena in which the most rapid
change is occurring.
T
Each employer must decide what constitutes a “domestic partnership,” but, in general, a domestic partnership is an ongoing, committed relationship between two
adults of the same or opposite sex who are not otherwise legally married. By all accounts, enacting domestic partnership policies is a simThese rights are about
ple yet meaningful way for companies to acknowledge their diversity
fairness in the workplace
and set high standards for the fair treatment of all employees. Reacfor everyone.
tions to domestic partnership benefit plans are predominantly positive, with few adverse effects. Employee enrollment in these plans is
generally low (between 0.5% and 3%) and costs are minimal. While domestic partnership, or DP, benefits have historically been the organizing domain of gay, lesbian,
bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) activists, efforts to secure DP benefits should be
seen as the province of unmarried heterosexual couples and non-romantic domestic partners as well. These rights are about fairness in the workplace for everyone.
Despite the many obvious advantages for enacting DP benefits policies, companies
do not generally instigate action on their own. Rather, employees must usually organize to effectively persuade management to make change. Non-workplace benefits are, however, possible through some government DP policies. For example, in
the Village of Sherwood Hills, Wisconsin, registered domestic partners who are
residents of the Village qualify for family discounts at the public pool. The City of
New York’s DP policy requires that, among other things, city policies referring to
“spouses” must also include domestic partners. Several cities grant additional benefits to registered partners, such as hospital and prison visitation rights. While
such policies are important, they are generally less substantive than health care and
other costly benefits which can be provided through the workplace. Here again,
though, the strategies and ideas presented in this manual are applicable to nonworkplace DP organizing.
In many regards, the workplace is the leading edge of change for the GLBT community. Company CEOs and executives can often wield even more power than state
and local officials in creating significant changes that affect their employees’ lives.
They can enact new policies with the approval of a few board members rather than
thousands or even millions of voters. Moreover, the policies they create have a profound influence on us, since we spend a large part of our lives at work. Through the
enactment of DP benefits, employers send the message that all employees, including
GLBT workers, are valued and accepted as equal, which paves the way for more
employees to come out of the closet and fully contribute to their work and their
community. DP benefits are not the final step in the GLBT quest for equality, but
they are integral to its achievement. Equal protection for our relationships, whether
through marriage or DP benefits, is a key goal for millions of GLBT people.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
1
HOW DOMESTIC
PA RT N E R S H I P IS DEFINED
Just as the term “family” can be described in a variety of ways, the construct
“domestic partner” does not adhere to one, universal definition. Instead, each
company, university, state or local government must choose how to define the
concept in their benefits administration. While it may seem like a lot to tackle, DP benefits plans are actually rather simple to design and implement. The
information in this section is designed to assist employee organizers, managers and human resource specialists in establishing DP benefits.
DP or Not DP...
While “domestic partnership” is the most common term, companies have
demonstrated some creativity in generating substitute terminology, including:
Life partner
Spousal equivalent
Functional marriage equivalent
Alternative family
Family type unit
Yet terms are less important then the meanings behind them. What matters
most is that the domestic partnership be defined in a fair and inclusive manner so that the term becomes synonymous with fully valuing family diversity.
Core Definition
In general, “domestic partnership” has been defined as an ongoing relationship between two adults of the same–or opposite–sex who are:
(a) sharing a residence,
(b) over the age of 18,
(c) emotionally interdependent,
(d) and intend to reside together indefinitely.
Beyond this basic framework, however, employers have defined DP in a number of ways to determine which members of an employee’s family will qualify
to receive benefits.
Who Will Be
Included
SAME- AND OPPOSITE-SEX POLICIES
Ideally, employers include unmarried, opposite-sex partners as well as samesex partners in their DP benefits policies. The goal of DP benefits is to allow the
concept of family to include a diversity of relationships, including those that
are not formally recognized through marriage. Many heterosexuals have strong
personal, political, philosophical, economic, or religious reasons for not pursuing legal marriage. A benefits policy which includes unmarried, heterosexual
couples acknowledges these personal choices and expands the definition of
“domestic partnership” to better recognize the true diversity of families.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
2
SAME-SEX ONLY POLICIES
Many employers choose to extend benefits only to the same-sex domestic
partners of employees, excluding unmarried, opposite-sex couples.
Their rationale for doing so is that heterosexual employees have the FYI...
option of marriage, whereas GLBT employees do not have the same The State Labor Commissioner
legal ability. This logic is flawed in that it discriminates against em- of California ruled that the
ployees on the basis of marital status, and several same-sex-only poli- Oakland, CA, same-sex-only
cies have been legally challenged based on this argument. For benefits policy discriminates
example, Bell Atlantic is currently being sued by a heterosexual do- against heterosexuals in violation
mestic partner who is denied benefits by the company’s same-sex- of the labor code.5 Similarly,
only policy. Whether or not the courts deem such policies to be the University of California
discriminatory in the legal sense, same-sex only policies are clearly same-sex DP benefits policy
exclusionary. Today, more and more employers are opting for a has been criticized as highly
broader definition of “domestic partnership” that includes oppositediscriminatory.6
sex and same-sex partnerships.
ALL-INCLUSIVE POLICIES
A select number of employers have chosen to allow more flexibility in the definition of DP. Most notably, BankAmerica allows employees to designate any
member of their household as a recipient of their health benefits, whether the
person be a married spouse, unmarried domestic partner or relative, such as a
sibling or parent.7 While few employers have adopted this type of
policy, it is by far the most ideal, allowing for a wide variety of family reFYI...
lationships, intimate or otherwise, which exist and granting workers
The San Francisco-based Catholic
the security they need to meet their family obligations.
Still, this policy option often requires that the non-DP or non-spouse
beneficiary be a dependent of the employee under IRS regulations
(i.e., received more than 50% of financial support from the employee).
Ideally, companies would allow employees to designate any one
member of their household (and their dependent children) to receive
benefits, regardless of their dependent status.
DOMESTIC PARTNERS’ CHILDREN
Charities allows an employee to
“designate a legally domiciled
member of the employee’s
household as being eligible for
spousal equivalent benefits.”8
Catholic Charities adopted their
more-inclusive policy as a means
of offering domestic partnership
benefits without acknowledging
intimate same-sex or unmarried
opposite-sex relationships in
specific.
Whether adopting a same-sex or same- and opposite-sex definition
of DP, employers must decide if they will include the dependent
children of domestic partners in their coverage. Since traditional
benefits policies include the dependent children of an employee’s spouse,
even if the employee is not the natural or adoptive parent of the children, it is
most equitable for benefits to be extended to the dependent children of domestic partners as well.
AFFIDAVITS
Some employers ask employees to sign an affidavit verifying the existence of
the domestic partnership and attesting to certain conditions (e.g., financial interdependence, sharing a common residence). In the context of these affidavits, employers often require that employees provide additional documents
Verifying the
Domestic
Partnership
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
3
to back up the assertions in the affidavit such as proof of a joint checking account to ensure financial interdependence.
While we understand the importance of verification, we note that this is a
highly inequitable process, as married employees are rarely asked to show
their marriage certificate. Also, many partners or families, although residing
together in a committed fashion, maintain separateness in terms of personal
finances and property ownership. Generally, in considering what is required
to prove domestic partnership, an employer should consider what it requires
of married couples and try to be as equitable as possible in defining
An employer should
DP. It is discriminatory to require domestic partners to jump
through hoops that married couples are exempt from.
consider what it requires
of married couples and
try to be as equitable as
possible in defining
domestic partnership.
IBM has devised one practical solution for their DP policy: “You
do not have to submit the signed, notarized affidavit to IBM to enroll a domestic partner for benefit coverage. However, you must
keep the affidavit in a safe place, as the administrators of the IBM
benefit plans may, in their discretion, require submission of the affidavit of domestic partnership at some future time in determining
the eligibility for plan coverage or in deciding whether or not to pay/provide
benefits. For example, IBM may request that the signed, notarized affidavit
be made available for retirement benefits, death benefits, and so on, just as we
may request that a marriage certificate to prove the eligibility of a spouse.”9
Ho ll ywood Supports, an organization that lobbies for DP benefits plans in
the entertainment industry, has proposed another equitable alternative, by
drafting an affidavit which asks that all employees declare their marriage,
common law marriage, or spousal equivalent relationship. While the Hollywood Supports model requires domestic partners to provide proof of financial interdependence and mutual residence, it also requires that an employee
registering a spouse for benefits provide a marriage certificate. Hence, their
policy model is very equitable.10
Employers are often concerned that employees will drive up health care costs
by falsifying a partnership in order to obtain health care for a sick friend.
Hence, many employers require that the DP exist for some length of time —
usually six months — and require some proof of the relationship before the
partner can receive benefits. Yet this also sets a higher hurdle for domestic
partners than for married couples: Under most benefit policies, an employee
can marry a sick friend and, one day later, cover him/her under the company
health plan. In either situation, it is unlikely that an employee would try to
obtain benefits for an ailing acquaintance as many health insurance programs
have complex guidelines for covering pre-existing conditions. Moreover, to
date, there have been no reports of fraud involving DP registration. Yet if the
employer feels the need to create waiting periods, it is most equitable for the
same waiting periods to be imposed on married employees’ relationships.
If an affidavit is used, employees should be aware that such affidavits may result in unintended legal consequences—such as support payment or assertion
of rights to community property—in the event of termination of the relationship. Employees should also note that signing an affidavit to designate a domestic partner to receive health benefits, for instance, does not necessarily
mean that the domestic partner is automatically the recipient of life insurance
or retirement plan funds.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
4
REGISTRIES
Alternatively, some employers in jurisdictions with domestic partnership registries may require that employees register their domestic partnership officially in order to qualify for DP benefits. This is often the case for government
employees in municipalities with DP registries, where the government may
require that employees register their relationships with the city in order to
claim DP benefits. Here too, though, inequities exist. Some companies require
that employees with registered domestic partnerships provide proof of registration, although married couples do not have to provide their marriage certificates. Moreover, some employers ask for documentation of financial
interdependence or mutual residence in addition to proof of DP registration.
TERMINATION OF PARTNERSHIP FORMS
Often, employers who require that partners complete affidavits to obtain benefits create complementary documents in the event of the termination of the
partnership. The forms are generally uniform, requiring that the employee attest that he/she and his/her partner no longer meet the criteria of domestic
partners. Genera ll y, the employee is expected to provide a copy of the completed termination to his/her domestic partner if the partner is still living.
Workplace benefits can be broken down into two categories, often referred to
as “soft” and “hard.”
SOFT BENEFITS are lower cost, non-health benefits that may include, among
other benefits:
Types of
Benefits
Offered
Bereavement and sick leave
Adoption assistance
Relocation benefits
Child resource and referral services
Access to employer recreational facilities
Participation in employee assistance programs
Inclusion in employee discount policies
HARD BENEFITS are generally insurance benefits that may include:
Medical benefits
Dental and vision care
Dependent life insurance
Accidental death and dismemberment benefits
Tuition assistance
Long-term care
Day care
Flexible spending accounts
It should be noted that, beyond this list, there are over 400 benefits in the public and private sector that are extended on the basis of marital status from
which domestic partners are excluded.11
According to federal regulations, only dependent children and spouses can
qualify for COBRA (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
5
1995 which provides for continuation of benefits). However, many employers
choose to formulate COBRA-like policies to cover domestic partners and
their dependent children upon termination of employment or the DP itself.
It is most desirable to offer the full-range of benefits to domestic partners that
are offered to employee spouses. Yet many employers offer only a few soft
benefits to domestic partners, generally for cost-related reasons (for more on
this, see the “Arguing the Case” section of this manual on page 9). Acquiring
soft benefits is an important step toward full and equal treatment, but companies should carefully consider the repercussions and implications of ruling
out the extension of comprehensive benefits. Wherever possible, employers
should extend the same benefits to domestic partners as they extend to spouses.
This is the most fair and equitable thing to do.
Suggested
Policy
The best policy is the broadest and most equitable policy. That is, the ideal DP
policy covers the widest range of family types while keeping definitions and
registration requirements comparable to those imposed on married couples.
If the employer wishes to request a signed affidavit from unmarried couples,
then a marriage license or similar affidavit should be requested from married
couples. If a spouse’s children are provided health insurance even if they are
not legally related to the employee, then the domestic partners’ children
should also be covered. And, to the fullest extent possible, whatever benefits
are offered to spouses should be available to domestic partners. If the goal of
DP benefits is truly equity, then the best policy is one which is as equitable as
possible in all its dimensions.
Moreover, an ideal DP policy covers a wide range of family types. If possible,
an employer should offer benefits to same- and opposite-sex couples, both romantic and non-romantic, as well as partners’ children. By crafting an inclusive policy such as this, the employer allows the employee to define his or her
own family and responds to that family’s needs. Moreover, an inclusive policy is more flexible and can adapt to employee family structures as they continue to change.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
6
WHO SUPPORTS DOMESTIC
PA RT N E R S H I P
Over 790 employers offer domestic partnership benefits, including
approximately:
Employers
• 570 companies, foundations and nonprofit organization such as
Microsoft; BankAmerica; The United Way; Fox Inc.; Intel; and the
San Francisco Giants
• 87 cities, counties and states such as Atlanta, GA; New York, NY;
Pima County, AZ; the State of Oregon; and the State of Vermont
• 141 universities and colleges such as Iowa State University; Harvard
University; College of Charleston; and University of California
According to From Rights to Wrongs: Public Opinion On Gays& Lesbian
Americans Moves Toward Equality, a report written by Alan Yang for the
Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in 1998, national
surveys conducted by the Princeton Survey Research Associates (PSRA) indicate growing support for benefits for “gay spouses.” For instance, in 1997,
62% of PSRA respondents indicated support for gay partners receiving equal
access to inheritance benefits. 12
Religious organizations belonging to a host of faith traditions have affirmed
domestic partnership benefits by offering them to their members and/or employees.13 Organizations representing several faiths have extended these benefits, including:
The Public
Religious
Groups
Episcopalian (Episcopal Church of the United States)
Unitarian Universalist (National Headquarters)
Jewish (Union of American Hebrew Congregations)
Quaker (American Friends Service Committee)
Catholic (Archdiocese of San Francisco)
In 1997, in support of a proposed DP bill in the State legislature, the California
branch of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) and its legislative chair, Jack Philp, expressed the following views:
Senior Citizen
Organizations
“This bill would aid, strengthen, protect, and promote committed family relationships by extending, to unmarried couples, a limited number
of rights and privileges enjoyed by married couples...This is an issue of
importance to the senior community due to the large number of senior
citizens who gain companionship, security, and independence by living
with a partner, but choose not to marry due to laws and regulations governing Social Security benefits, pensions, and family obligations.”
People such as senior citizens who receive government benefits are subject to
a cut in benefits upon marriage. Hence, many groups of people in this posi-
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
7
tion support domestic partnership as a means of recognizing their relationships while keeping much needed benefits.
Unions
In 1991, the AFL-CIO (American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial
Organizations) issued the following policy resolution on “Benefits for Changing Families”:
Whereas, Employer provided health-care coverage, sick and
family responsibility leaves, and bereavement leaves for spouses of
employees are important elements of of any benefit package; and
Whereas, Fewer than 30 percent of American families fit the
traditional definition of family —two parents living with children; and
Whereas, Eligibility for fringe benefits is often based upon a
definition of family which fails to recognize changes in family
composition in the United States, resulting in a lack of coverage for many
individuals;
and
Whereas, These fringe benefits are, on average, equivalent to 40
percent of total compensation; and
Whereas, The United States has not enacted legislation to create
universal access to health insurance or family leave; and
Whereas, Jurisdictions have begun to offer fringe benefits to
unmarried employees and there partners; therefore, be it
RESOLVED: That AFL-CIO will work as appropriate to insure
that fringe benefits are extended to all persons living in a household as a
family.29
Several other labor organizations offer DP benefits, such as:
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
Council 57, 67, 82, 829
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees Local 16
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 18
Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union
Professional Musicians Union Council #47
Teamsters Local 70
Women’s
Groups
The National Organization for Women and its president, Patricia Ireland,
have endorsed DP legislation, and DP benefits are offered to the partners of
NOW employees. In one letter regarding the issue of DP benefits, Ireland
called for “employers to eliminate all discrimination in the workplace — including discrimination based on marital or family status.”
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
8
ARGUING THE CASE FOR
DOMESTIC PA RT N E R S H I P BENEFITS
Many arguments have been advanced to support or derail the enactment of
DP benefits. This section summarizes the primary rationales on both sides of
the issue. Years of experience prove that the fears surrounding DP policy
enactment are baseless—rooted more in prejudice than solid fact.
IT IS A MATTER OF FAIRNESS
Arguments For
Domestic
Partnership
Over 1,00014 companies currently include sexual orientation in the list of
protected categories in their non-discrimination policies. Increasingly, employers have realized that failing to provide equal benefits to employee’s partners, regardless of sexual orientation, violates the nature
FYI...
of these policies. Additionally, many employers have extended benefits to same- and opposite-sex partners of employees, in accordance “The Importance of Diversity”
with policies barring discrimination based on marital status. In
other words, with benefits comprising about 40% of the average em- Like many organizations, Schwab
ployee’s compensation, an employee who does not receive benefits is a team of diverse individuals
for his/her partner due to his/her marital status and/or sexual orien- working together to meet the
needs of a varied and dynamic
tation is at a significant disadvantage.
Also, allowing employees to designate any member of their household family, including non-romantic domestic partners, contributes
more to even greater fairness and equity in the workplace. Through
this option, more employees have the opportunity to participate in
benefits compensation programs and receive the added salary component to which coupled employees have access.
IT MAKES COMPANIES MORE COMPETITIVE AND PRODUCTIVE
In an increasingly competitive workplace, it is getting harder and
harder for employers to find talented and qualified employees. Comprehensive benefits packages are highly enticing in the hiring
process, and benefits packages that do not address the full range of
our families exclude many qualified applicants. The issue also affects
the rising population of women and young people in the workplace,
who typically hold more progressive attitudes and value a workplace that appreciates diversity. The fair and open recognition of diversity in the workplace contributes to employee satisfaction and
performance: an employee who is able to be open about his/her sexual orientation and family life will be more productive at work and
better able to participate fully in team projects. Conversely, if a company does not offer DP benefits, current employees may be lured
away by those employers who do.
IT IS A MAINSTREAM BUSINESS PRACTICE
Included in this manual’s “Appendix” page 120 is a listing of companies which currently offer benefits to the domestic partners of their
employees. Within that list, there are some noticeable industry
groupings. Entertainment and technology companies, financial and
market. But we’re also different in
a significant way: we believe that
fostering the strengths of a
diverse work force has distinct
strategic business advantages.
Diversity brings to Schwab:
• Innovative Business Solutions:
Employees from varied
backgrounds offer different
perspectives and innovative
solutions.
• A Competitive Advantage: Striving
to employ a work force that reflects
the diversity of the Company’s
customer base offers many
advantages, including a better
ability to understand customers’
needs, giving Schwab a competitive
edge in the marketplace.
• Productivity: Striving to provide
a work environment that enables
diversity to flourish and
encourages each employee to
contribute his or her own form of
creativity and innovation.
Charles Schwab, Co.
Diversity Literature
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
9
legal firms, and hospitals lead the pack. They are also among the most successful industries in the country (accounting for over 30% of the gross domestic product).15 In 1997, KPMG Peat Marwick released a survey of 1,502
companies with 200 or more employees. The study found that 13% of respondents provide health benefits to non-traditional partners. Among companies
with more than 5000 employees, the number jumped to one in four.16
Some companies are bold pioneers in all of their pursuits, including DP
benefits. Others prefer to blend in with their competitors where workplace
policies are concerned. As one strategy of making the process easier, Outfront in Minneapolis gathered human resources (HR) presidents from several companies in the Twin Cities area to learn about and discuss DP
benefits. Eventually, when the companies decided to enact DP benefits policies, they did so as a group.
FYI...
In 1996, Lafayette College
surveyed 23 of their comparison
institutions (including Amherst,
Oberlin and Vassar) and found
that 95% offer domestic
partnership benefits.
In considering the extension of DP benefits, many HR executives and
employee organizers often find it useful to network with other companies in their industry or geographical region to learn about their DP
benefits plans. For instance, most colleges and universities have a set
block of institutions—similar in size, location, or applicant population—
to whom they compare themselves, and schools are often compelled to
enact DP benefits policies upon learning that a majority of their comparison group has done so. Overall, the number of employers offering
DP benefits is steadily increasing, and, in most cases, there is no fanfare involved.
IT ATTRACTS CONSUMERS AND SUPPORT FOR THE COMPANY
Increasingly, the GLBT community’s potential as a market has become apparent to corporate leaders. Mainstream gay magazines are filled with advertisements from major corporations, and many companies, including Bell Atlantic
and Aetna, have retained consultants specializing in GLBT marketing. Yet
consumers are savvy, and companies are too. Both parties realize that it is
contradictory for a company to try and market to the GLBT community
without demonstrating that the community is valued in the company’s
workforce. These values are reflected in their benefits policies as well.
Consumers are often faced with choices in purchasing products and services.
GLBT consumers look more favorably on those companies that include DP
benefits in their workplace policies and companies often use this to their advantage. A recent advertising campaign launched by Levi Strauss and Co.—
one of the first companies to offer DP benefits—features a spread of GLBT
activists and community members wearing Levi’s Dockers pants. The ad is
being run in national GLBT magazines and is based on Levi’s experience that
the GLBT market is highly loyal to their products. In other words, GLBT
people are a product-loyal market that many companies would like to tap.
Companies such as IBM, Microsoft, and American Express have recognized
the value of the GLBT community for quite some time through their advertising and hiring campaigns.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
10
IT WILL COST TOO MUCH
The most common reason cited by companies who do not implement DP
benefits is the perception that to do so would be cost prohibitive. However, evidence compiled from employers who have made the change indicates these concerns are baseless. In the survey of 20 public sector policies
presented in the “Appendix,” on page 40 only five governments reported
t ra c ki ng DP benefits costs. Among these five, costs fell between 0.96 and
1.06 percent of total health care costs. This low cost stems from low participation: a 1993 report found that, on average, less than five percent of employees enroll for DP benefits, and, commonly, less than two percent
enroll.17 Another report, published in 1992 by the Stanford University Subcommittee on Domestic Partners’ Benefits, argued that same- and opposite-sex DP enrollment ranges between 0.5 and 2.5 percent.18 Enrollment is
low for three primary reasons.
Arguments
Used Against
Domestic
Partnership
1. Many GLBT employees fear that by coming out of the closet to enroll
for DP benefits, they will face workplace discrimination.
2. While spousal benefits are tax exempt, DP benefits are considered
taxable income according to the IRS, making employees less likely to
opt for DP coverage because it increases tax liability.
3. Many domestic partners already obtain health care benefits from their
own employers.
Regardless of the low enrollment numbers, many employers fear that domestic partners will have more expensive health needs than married couples. Speci f i ca ll y, many employers unfairly associate FYI...
same-sex partners, particularly gay men, with HIV/AIDS and pre“You don’t manage medical
sume that their needs will adversely affect insurance costs. Yet this
benefit costs by excluding a
fear, rooted in prejudice, is baseless. For instance, the lifetime cost
community of people.”
of HIV treatment averages $119,000, which is equal to or less than
the cost of cancer care or an organ transplant. A premature birth
Russ Campanello,
can cost $1,000,000.19
Despite rationales to the contrary, some HMOs and insurance
providers add surcharges to the premium base when asked to include DP benefits in their coverage, usually ranging from 0.5 to 5.0% of the
premium rate. However, in most cases, the surcharge is eventually reduced or
eliminated based on experience. For example, Stanford University challenged
their insurance carrier for levying a “rate load,” and the surcharge was ultimately dropped. Similarly, the City of Berkeley in California was levied a 2%
loading charge by Kaiser Permanente when Berkeley first began offering DP
benefits. The charge, to cover expected additional claims and costs, was eventually dropped after experience failed to justify it.20
Lotus Development
Corporation.21
The final point to stress is that employers cannot exclude GLBT employees in
order to reduce their health care costs. Employers don’t bar employees from
getting married or having kids, both of which raise health plan costs. If a company cares about its employees and about the values of fairness and nondiscrimination, it should treat all employees equitably, no matter the pricetag.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
11
IT WILL LEAD TO FRAUD AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS
Sometimes, employers are concerned that DP benefits will be difficult to administer, but in reality there is little administrative difference between DP
benefits and spousal benefits. The primary administrative factors involve
informing the employee population when the DP benefits are adopted and
providing enrollment information. Some policies may also require that an
additional form be created and filed, but these added documents can be
avoided by establishing a policy that does not require an affidavit or any
proof of relationship. (Beyond these points, other administrative obstacles
and related solutions are outlined in the “Special Issues” section of this manual on page 15.)
Employers also worry that employees will falsify domestic partnerships
in order to receive insurance for sick friends. Their fears are countered by
the facts:
1. Gay and straight employees are no more likely to falsify domestic partnerships than they are marriages. In fact, to date, no cases of domestic
partnership fraud have been reported.
2. Especially for GLBT employees, the serious consequence of coming
out in the workplace tends to dissuade falsehood in order to claim DP
benefits.
3. Affidavits, if required, are legal documents which carry consequences
for falsehood.
4. Employees could just as easily marry a sick friend in order to obtain
health coverage for him/her. However, given the complex guidelines for
pre-existing conditions noted earlier, this too is highly unlikely.
Hence, if an employer trusts its employees with the operations of the company, they should trust them in this regard as well. Creating a domestic partnership policy with minimal requirements in terms of documentation fosters a
more trustworthy and equitable environment and alleviates most concerns
about ongoing administrative details.
IT WILL PROVOKE A BACKLASH
Many companies refrain from enacting DP policies because they fear backlash
from customers and/or employees. While public and employee reaction is a
factor managers must consider, experience shows the positive reactions to DP
benefits far outweigh the negative. According to the National Lesbian and Gay
Journalists Association (NLGJA), executives at Time Warner were so pleased
by the positive publicity they received after covering domestic partners that
they considered DP benefits to have been a “smart business move.”22
Occasionally, boycotts are threatened, but they rarely have lasting results.
After the Walt Disney Company adopted DP benefits in 1996, the Southern
Baptist Convention announced a boycott of Disney for deviating from traditional family values. However, the boycott failed; 70% of Americans rejected
the idea flat out.23 Even fewer actually participated.
Generally, employees react most negatively to same-sex only DP benefits,
charging that the policy excludes unmarried heterosexual couples. Of course,
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
12
employers are easily buffered from this charge by adopting a broad definition
of DP in their benefits policy. Occasionally there is still an uproar; an executive from one company noted that when their DP benefits policy was passed,
they received 16,000 pieces of mail, half good, half bad. “People
threatened to stop buying our products, and some people quit. But FYI...
those who quit obviously didn’t support any aspect of the diversity
A few employees have cited
that we have always tried to promote.”
It is also important to note that, though a company may lose consumers by enacting DP benefits, they may also gain consumers as
well. In most cases, though, DP benefits are enacted and any negative
response from the public is minimal.
IT IS MORALLY WRONG
instances where they approached
management and asked, “Why
doesn’t the company offer
domestic partnership benefits?”
and the managers simply shook
their heads, said “I don’t know,”
and the next day, changed the
policy. It’s not usually that simple,
but often the most obvious things
can be overlooked.
A number of employers deny DP benefits since they do not want to
be viewed as endorsing choices they find morally wrong, whether
same-sex relationships or unmarried cohabitating heterosexual relationships. One top-level manager with these views can single-handedly
prevent DP benefits from being enacted. However, these employers should
be reminded that a full diversity of ideas and values, including their own,
can be allowed in the workplace. Also, it is important to note that DP benefits are not “special” rights. After all, heterosexual spouses already receive
the same benefits. Rather, DP benefits are a means to equality for all members of the workplace.
MARRIAGE REMOVES THE NEED FOR DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP
Many employers think that the possibility of legalizing same sex marriage
precludes the need for DP benefits policies. This argument is flawed in
three regards:
1. Gay marriage is not yet legal, and significant obstacles to its recognition exist. In 1996, Congress passed and the President signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which among other things defines
marriage to be between a man and woman only for the purposes of
Federal law. Subsequently, 30 states have passed laws banning same-sex
marriage 24. Hence, even if same-sex marriage become legal in a few
states, same-sex relationships will by no means be universally recognized nor equated with heterosexual marriages in the eyes of the law
for years to come.
2. Even if same-sex marriage were to become legal in some locations,
not all same-sex couples would wish to marry, just as not all heterosexual couples opt to marry. Many individuals have moral, religious,
political or otherwise personal objections to the institution of marriage and prefer define their intimate relationships outside of the marital framework.
3. There are still many partnerships of a familial yet non-romantic nature
that deserve to and can benefit from DP policies.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
13
WE HAVE NO GAY PEOPLE HERE
Simple as it may sound, many employers don’t offer DP benefits because they
don’t think they need to. Many employers fail to recognize that there are
GLBT people in their workplace, a problem helped in no small measure by
the vastness of the corporate closet. Other companies look into DP benefits
but wait for employees to request them before they consider changing policy.
One manager said, “I don’t foresee DP benefits happening right now because
no one has really even started talking about it. I think once employees start to
request it, then we will take a look at it.” 25 In other words, sometimes employers just need to be asked.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
14
SPECIAL ISSUES
Even after employers decide to offer full DP benefits, they are often faced with
additional obstacles when administering the benefits. Soft benefits are easily
extended to domestic partners since the regulation of sick leave and the use of
employer facilities fall completely under the purview of the employer.
Insurance
Coverage
Hard benefits, however, require employers to closely examine their benefits
administration as well as the process whereby it can be changed. Larger companies with self-funded insurance plans can fairly easily add recipients however they choose. Employers that are not self-funded generally contract their
policies through insurance providers and must negotiate the specific addition
of DP coverage with the insurance company.
This listing presents those insurance companies which have, in some instances in certain regions of the country, included domestic partners in their
policies. Even if not listed, your insurance provider may be willing to include
domestic partners in their coverage if persuaded or asked to do so:
AETNA
Blue Cross / Blue Shield
Consumers United
Harvard Community Health Plan
Mass Mutual
PacifiCare
U.S. Healthcare
Ameritas
CIGNA
Great West
Kaiser Permanente
NY Life
Prudential
Vision Service Plan
In certain regions of the country, state regulations limit the extent or circumstances under which employers can provide DP coverage. These regulations
generally apply to certain types of coverage (i.e., small group coverage, for under
50 people) or types of policy (i.e., HMOs may be excluded). These regulations
are most stringent in Georgia and Virginia, where the state has prohibited any
insurance provider within the regions from covering domestic partners. Virginia employers have the option of contracting with out-of-state providers;
Georgia employers do not. Information on insurance regulations in these states
and others can be obtained by contacting the state insurance commission.
Rarely are these regulations written in stone, however. They are subject to
change through reinterpretations of existing code language to allow for the inclusion of domestic partners (rather than implying their exclusion). This is
yet another realm in which citizen activism can bring about change.
In situations where the insurance provider does not cover DP benefits, employers may provide employees with funds to cover the cost of individual insurance policies for domestic partners and their children. In still other, less
desirable situations, companies allow partners to join a group plan but ask the
employee to make the copayment.
A significant tax burden exists on employees who participate in DP benefits
plans. For the most part, health care and other benefits extended to the spouse
and/or children of an employee are exempt from taxes. However, the same
contributions made to any other individual — including registered domestic
Benefits
Taxation
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
15
partners and dependents of domestic partners — are not exempt from taxes,
unless those receiving benefits meet the definition of “dependent” under the
Internal Revenue Code (IRC).
IRC Section 152 defines a “dependent” as one who:
a) receives half of his/her support from the taxpayer and
b) is a member of the taxpayer’s residence, which is the dependent’s
principle place of residence.
All benefits extended to a taxpayer’s non-dependent, non-spousal family
members are, therefore, taxable.
While the policy regarding the taxability of domestic partnership benefits is
not explicitly stated in the IRC, several private letter rulings from the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) have affirmed this interpretation of the code (see PLR
971708, PLR 9603011, PLR 9431017, PLR 9231062, PLR 9109060, PLR 9034048).
In order to compute the income attributable to domestic partner coverage, the
organization Hollywood Supports suggests the following formula (in a twotier benefits structure):
I=F–S–C
where I = imputed income to employee with respect to nondependent(s)
coverage.
F = applicable COBRA rate (less 2% administrative fee) or premium
or premium equivalent for family coverage
S = applicable COBRA rate (less 2% administrative fee) or premium or
premium equivalent for single coverage
C = additional after-tax contribution to cover nondependent(s)
This formula suggests that the standard cost for single co verage be subtracted from the cost for domestic partner-inclusive family coverage. The
employer contribution for single coverage should also be subtracted, resulting in a final total of imputed income. This formula could easily be modified for a three (or more) tier structure, although specific types of benefits policies, such as c afeteria plans or pension plans, may have altogether
different tax ramifications.
FYI...
To obtain copies of these private
letter rulings and/or applicable
sections of the Internal Revenue
Code, contact the American
Institute of Certified Public
Accountants (AICPA):
Main Office
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Tel. 212/596-6200
Fax 212/596-6213
Website: http://www.aicpa.org/
Employees should contact a tax professional to fully understand
the financial implications of electing DP coverage. In extending
DP benefits, employers may wish to create an informational
sheet that explains how DP benefits taxation will apply to the
company’s specific benefits option(s).
Because of these tax laws, DP benefits are still unequal to spousal benefits since they cost the employee more. Here too, though, the employer
can advance the cause of fairness by “grossing up” the benefits compensation to cover the amount taxed. While this option makes DP benefits
more costly, it also makes the benefits more accessible to employees.
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is not authorized to issue tax
or legal advice. This summary of information is intended as an informational primer only. Please consult an accountant and/or attorney for additional information.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
16
ORGANIZING FOR DOMESTIC
PA RT N E R S H I P BENEFITS
n 1982, The Village Voice newspaper became the first company to offer DP
benefits. The Cities of Berkeley and West Hollywood in California extended domestic partnership benefits in 1985. Currently, more than 790
employers offer benefits to domestic partners of employees. Rarely have
employers decided to offer these benefits on their own. More often, employees in organized groups approach management and/or HR with a formulated strategy and proposal. In some cases, DP policies are quickly
adopted. In other situations, a concerted, long-term lobbying effort is required by an employee network.
I
It is important to assess your particular situation before proceeding to organize
for DP benefits. You should find out how things get done at your company and
what role employees are best equipped to play. You must decide whether your
cause will be best served through quiet conversations with management versus
a highly publicized challenge to the company—after all, many companies find
it easier to pass DP benefits if no one knows they are doing it.
Another factor to consider is that some employers do not allow companyfunded groups to be openly critical of the company. Even if you can go public
with your cause, you may severely handicap your chances from the outset. In
considering your situation, it will become evident when you should approach
management and how forceful your request should be. Talk with other employee organizations in your company to find out what strategies and avenues
they took to get their concerns addressed, and talk with GLBT organizations
at companies with DP benefits to get their suggestions as well. A listing of
GLBT employee organizations is provided in the “Appendix” on page 34.
This section offers a rough guideline for how to proceed, but it is an outline
that should be altered as needed to fit your particular circumstances. Please
note that in this section the term “company” is used for the purpose of brevity, although it refers to government, corporate, and university employers.
Researcher Nicole Raeburn’s study on GLBT organizing in Fortune 1000 companies indicates that GLBT employee networks play a crucial role in securing
DP benefits.26 Before starting to work on specific issues in the workplace, it is
important to form an employee organization to identify needs, operate with
common cause, and link employees who are interested in working for change.
Even if it is not possible to form an official group of GLBT employees, it is
valuable create an informal, unofficial group from which the organizing efforts can be launched. When starting an employee group, be sure to seek advice and help from other such groups in your company.
Forming a GLBT
Employee Group
The organizing efforts of your employee group will in large part be determined by the climate at your company. Initial efforts might consist of getting
the company simply to recognize that there are GLBT people in the workplace. Visibility within the company should be a primary goal for your group,
as your company won’t pass GLBT-friendly policies if they don’t think that
GLBT employees exist.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
17
Once formed, a GLBT employee group can be a useful vehicle for creating
change within the workplace, so, although it may be a difficult task at times,
don’t give up. Many employees may feel that taking on an organizing project
within their company is somehow unprofessional. They are not used to having to advocate on their own behalf. It is important to overcome these issues
in order to have DP organizing move forward.
First Thing
First...
Before attempting to get DP benefits from your employer, it is imperative that
the company’s non-discrimination policy include sexual orientation. This is
for two reasons:
1. A common rationale for establishing DP benefits is that the failure to
do so is contradictory to a non-discrimination clause that includes sexual
orientation (and/or marital status). Hence, a sexual orientation nondiscrimination clause is an important tool in trying to get DP benefits.
2. Also, without a sexual orientation non-discrimination clause, GLBT
employees will be reluctant to come out in support of DP benefits for
fear that they will be fired or otherwise discriminated against.
It is, however, important to note that, in some areas, there are local or state ordinances which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.28 In
these situations, companies may feel that they do not need to take the additional step. But it is critical that the enforcement of these laws start within the
company and not with an external, legislative body; this makes redress a simpler, internal process rather than a public matter and a bureaucratic nightmare. Inclusion in a company’s employment equal opportunity (EEO)
policies also implies inclusion in any of its diversity programs, which provide
many opportunities for educational work and involvement in policy-making
decisions. Lastly, such policies establish that discrimination in the company is
not acceptable, which is key to creating a workplace environment in which all
employees are treated fairly and equally.
Do Your
Homework
COMPARISON COMPANIES
Talk to GLBT employee organizations and/or human resource representatives from companies in your industry and geographical region that offer DP
benefits. Ask for copies of their policies, affidavits, and any other relatFYI...
ed documents to help you decide what your company’s policy could
look like. You may wish to pick one existing policy to hold up for your
“Once a company says no, we
company to model. Or, if no such ideal policy exists—which is generalwon’t discriminate, then you
ly the case —you can argue that enacting a more progressive and incluhave to say, my goodness, here
sive policy would give your company an edge over regional and
we have some interesting
industry competitors. Still, most companies want to feel that they are
discrimination in benefits. If
not the first ones when it comes to enacting DP benefits; they want to
they agree on the first point,
feel
that they are part of a crowd, even if set apart within it.
then they absolutely have to look
at the second.”
Demain, Co-editor of Partners
Magazine 27
Also, you may wish to collect enrollment and cost figures and, if possible, general statements on the effect of passing DP benefits policies
on business and the workplace. Management may be interested in this
information when considering DP policies.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
18
CURRENT POLICY
Look at your employer’s current benefits plan and make a list of those
spousal benefits which could be extended to domestic partners as well. Devise suggestions for how your company’s policy could be changed to include domestic partners. It may be enough for your company to simply state
that the term “spouse,” where used in benefits policies, includes domestic
partners. You should develop a list of suggestions for how your company
could amend its policy to include a broader range of families.
PROCESS
Investigate who in your company is responsible for making changes to the
benefits policy and which parties must approve changes. Also consider who
has the ability to say “no” and thereby put an end to the entire process. For example, some individuals (CEOs or company presidents, for instance) can hold
staunchly conservative attitudes which prevent any change whatsoever. Yet
they may still be superseded by a board of directors or at least heavily influenced by vice presidents or other upper-level managers. It is useful to know
these chains of command, both along formal and informal lines, to learn who
can influence whom in your organizing process.
STRATEGY
In talking with other employee groups in and outside of your company, find
out which strategies have worked to get DP benefits or similar employee-initiated diversity policies. Consider how their organizing experiences might fit
with your goals. Were they vocal? Quiet and behind the scenes? Forceful?
How did they educate management on the issues involved? How much opposition did they encounter and how did they deal with it? Reviewing the
strategies of others will help you determine how to best formulate your own
strategy for getting DP benefits.
The above points must be considered as part of formulating a comprehensive
organizing plan for DP benefits. The information you gather from other companies with DP benefits should be merged with the contents of this manual to
formulate a DP benefits proposal or business case. Issues of process and strategy will factor into the overall tone of your proposal, how you phrase your arguments, and how you pose suggestions for change.
Write a
Proposal
The best advice for drafting a proposal is to make it personal. A generic proposal isn’t as compelling as one that portrays DP benefits in the context of real
employees whose needs are unmet. Your company will only be convinced by
a proposal that is tailored to their interests and concerns. In composing your
proposal, consider the six following questions:
Who..........at our company would benefit from a DP policy?
What ........would we like that policy to look like?
When........do we think management/HR would feel comfortable changing
the current policy (i.e., what would make them change)?
Where ......does our company stand on other issues of diversity?
Why..........should our company adopt DP benefits?
How..........can we best persuade our company to do so?
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
19
The company will want to hear about their employees and their competition,
and they want their specific concerns addressed. Why is this something that
your company should do?
The following is a loose outline for a DP benefits proposal. You will find
much of the material in this manual useful for certain sections. You may also
wish to look at the proposals that other employee groups in your field or region have prepared. Tailor your proposal to your company, industry, or organization’s specific strategies.
Introduction: What are DP benefits and why are they important for your
company?
Definition: Give a general overview of DP benefits, how DP can be defined,
and what benefits can be included.
Outline the arguments for and against DP benefits: Diversity and fairness vs.
cost concerns. Also discuss any additional issues which might be of concern to the employer (e.g., taxation of benefits, administrating benefits).
Comparison companies: Talk about other employers in your company’s
industry or region which offer DP benefits and explain their policies and
reasons for enactment. Also, how much did the policies end up costing,
and what was the reaction from employees and the community. If possible, provide contact persons with whom management/HR can further discuss these issues.
Suggestions: Make your suggestions for how the company’s policy should
change, who should be covered, what benefits can be included, how DP
should be certified, etc.
Support: Finish with letters of support from GLBT employees and allies.
Appendix: Include any copies of policies, affidavits, or other documents
received from comparison companies. Also include newsclips or other
information that you find relevant to your case and the names of benefits
consultants who might assist the company in drafting their plan.
The proposal does not need to be long, it just needs to include all of the relevant material. For example, the proposal done by the GLBT employee organization at the Seattle Times only took up two pages (see proposal in the
“Appendix” on page 131).
Talk With the
Higher Powers
Having already identified the appropriate change-makers in your company
and preparing a proposal to spark change, you are now ready to contact
whomever is in charge and pitch your idea for DP benefits. The point at
which you contact management and/or human resources department will
depend heavily on the climate within your company. If the company is very
change-friendly and you think they would easily accept your suggestion,
contacting the corporate powers at the very beginning could be a good strategy. They might simply take the idea and run with it. In other cases, you
may feel that the company is very hostile to progressive change and want to
network with other organizations and allies to gain support before bringing
the idea to management.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
20
Most cases fall somewhere in the middle: You go to management with all your
research done and solid suggestions for change and give the company an opportunity to consider your proposal. If that doesn’t work, then momentum
builds for a larger organizing effort, networking with employee groups, managers, and other companies or outside organizations to further encourage the
company to adopt DP benefits.
UNIONS
The Lesbian and Gay Labor Network of New York and Pride at Work, GLBT
union organizations, have specific materials on DP organizing, from which
this section has been created.30
Most union organizing is done through collective bargaining, in which a
union negotiates for DP coverage through it’s employer. In preparing for collective bargaining around this issue, union members should:
1. Establish a committee on DP issues.
2. Put DP on the agenda of whatever committee deals with family issues.
3. Make a list of the union benefits that are available to families of union
members.
4. Divide the list into those benefits that would be easiest to win from
management (those which are cheaper and mainly symbolic) versus
those which are the most important to union members (such as health
care), similar to the division between soft and hard benefits outlined in
the “Types of Benefits Offered” section of “Defining Domestic Partnership” on page 5.
5. If your union does member surveys, make sure that “domestic partner” is one option in the marital status demographic section. Also, in
asking members which issues they support, one option should be
“Equal family benefits for domestic partners – committed couples who
are not married.”
6. GLBT members should volunteer or run for posts within the union.
7. Decide how the union will frame it’s demands for DP benefits,
including a definition for “domestic partner.”
Aside from collective bargaining, some unions have trust funds, which
employers pay into but trustees control. Hence, the union can sometimes
make changes to its benefits policy independent of management.
POLITICAL LOBBYING
Although local, state or federal employees seeking DP benefits from their employers can do so using many of the strategies already outlined, there are organizing strategies that are unique to obtaining public sector benefits.
Constituents play a significant role in getting DP registries and/or benefits
policies in their region. Elected officials serve their constituents, and they
often set their agenda based on what they hear about from their districts. (See
lobbying tips on the next page).
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
21
Lobbying Tips
NGLTF has more extensive materials on lobbying elected officials; here are the nuts and bolts. There are two primary ways to influence a legislator: meetings and letters.
• Prior to contacting your legislator, though, be sure that you have collected as much information on DP benefits
as possible, including listings of other local or state governments with DP benefits policies and the history of DPrelated legislation in your region. Also, if there is a specific proposed piece of legislation that you wish to address,
know as much about it as possible about it (e.g., bill number, sponsors, text). Most government bodies have clerks
offices which can provide you with this information.
Meeting with your elected official
• You must usually make an appointment by calling his/her office. (Some government bodies, like city councils,
also have public forums or open meetings at which citizens can raise issues.)
• Be clear about why you are calling. Do you want to support or condemn the representative’s stance on a certain issue? Do you want him/her to endorse a specific idea? Or do you just want to educate the representative
on the general topic of domestic partnership?
• At the meeting, dress appropriately and be very respectful of constraints on the official’s time. Be as brief as
possible, using auxiliary handouts that the representative and his/her staff can reference at a later point.
• Speak about the issues; don’t attack the representative. Make logical arguments for your case backed up by
factual evidence, letters of support, press articles, etc.
• After the visit, send a follow-up letter to the representative summarizing your discussion and thanking the
him/her for their time.
Writing to your elected official (via regular mail or electronic mail)
• Identify yourself as a constituent, including your name and address and e-mail address if you have one.
• Address only one subject in each letter, and be brief and concise. State the purpose of your letter very clearly
within your first paragraph. For example, “I am writing to urge you to consider extending DP benefits to the partners of city employees.”
• If referencing a specific piece of legislation or proposed legislation, reference as much information as possible to
show the legislator that you are serious about the issue and know what you are talking about.
• Use facts and figures to back up your letter. But do not rule out personal appeals as well. If you have experienced hardship from being denied DP benefits, talk about that in your letter. Or if you work for a company in the
region which does offer DP benefits, discuss your experiences there as a model for the government to change to.
• At the end of you letter, request a reply from the representative, stating his/her opinion on the issue. If s/he
agrees with your position, write back and express your thanks. If the elected official expresses opposition to your
opinion, keep writing to further explain your position. Don’t let him/her off the hook!
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
22
NETWORK
Sometimes a good proposal and a high-level meeting are not enough to convince a company to adopt DP benefits. In effective organizing efforts, a broad
base of support is tremendously useful. Work with members of your GLBT
employee group, other progressive employee organizations, and any other allies you have at your company to mobilize support for DP benefits. There are
many constituencies— not just GLBT employees—who stand to benefit from
DP policies, whether directly or indirectly. Potential coalition groups include:
Union organizations
Community GLBT organizations
Progressive or minority employee groups within your company
GLBT employee groups at companies in region
GLBT student groups
Senior citizen organizations
Women’s groups
Single parent associations
Other civil rights groups in the community
When working within coalitions, do not expect other employee groups to automatically adopt your issue and do the work for you. You must also be prepared to advocate for their issues as well. For more information on coalition
groups, see the “Who Supports Domestic Partnership” section on page 7.
LETTER WRITING
It is helpful to have supporters write letters to company executives explaining who they are and why they are in favor of DP benefits. Letter writing
should not be limited to GLBT employees. Anyone who supports DP benefits can write a letter, including married employees and employees living
alone. Personal letters are very powerful as they remind employers that they
are dealing with the real needs of real people. Customers or clients of the
company might also be very useful in this process, if you are able to approach them for support.
Personal letters are often most effective, where the author discusses how
his/her family has been hurt by the absence of DP benefits, or—in the case of
married employees or community members— how access to such benefits has
been important and useful in their lives. A sample letter used in one company’s DP benefits organizing work, is presented on page 24; the writer’s name
and company name are changed.
When you approach management, these letters will be useful in demonstrating that there is employee support for DP benefits. They personalize the issue
and put a face on the discrimination and inequity. Some companies have compiled employee letters and photos in a packet for management. AT&T called
their packet “A Family Album.”31 At Hewlett-Packard, employees have developed a “Reader’s Theater” in which personal letters crafted to address specific
issues are read by employees in conjunction with a scripted presentation of
general information on workplace discrimination, DP benefits, or whatever
topic they are addressing.32 As mentioned above, supporters can also write
letters to their elected officials and representatives to persuade government
bodies to extend DP benefits.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
23
Sample Letter to Management
Dear President Smith:
I have worked at XYZ for almost 26 years. I work on the research and development team as a systems operations manager. My career at XYZ is very important to me. I consider my co-workers to be part of my family and
XYZ to be part of my home. Within this family, I have always been open about my identity as a gay man. XYZ,
through its diversity initiatives and non-discrimination policy, has always encouraged me to be so. My family is
made up of myself, my partner of 11 years, John, our daughter Suzie, and our family dog Tiger. We attend company picnics as a family and I have pictures up all over my office. In many ways, I feel that XYZ fully appreciates
my family. With one exception...
XYZ does not provide benefits for my partner John nor our daughter Suzie, to whom only John has legal rights.
My married co-workers receive health care, sick leave, and other benefits for their spouses and their spouses’
children. I do not. Companies which compete with XYZ have chosen to offer domestic partnership benefits,
and as XYZ vows that it will not discriminate against employees on the basis of sexual orientation, I believe that
it, too, should offer benefits to the domestic partners of employees. It’s the fair thing to do. My relationship is
very important in my life, and unless I am not as important to the company as my heterosexual, married coworkers, I think that my relationship should be treated with equality.
I love John and Suzie very dearly, and I hate fearing that, were an accident to occur, they would not be provided
for by my death benefits or the pension I have accrued. I would rather that the company officially recognize my
family so that Suzie could attend the company’s day care facility and John could finally go back to school knowing that his tuition and health care would be covered by XYZ. As I said, I have always thought of XYZ as a part of
my family. I only hope that XYZ can recognize John and Suzie as a part of their family as well.
Sincerely,
John Doe
Employee, Widget Division
XYZ Corporation
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
24
RECRUITING
Once you’ve found some allies, get them to find more. Suggest that all the
members of your GLBT employee group talk to a straight co-worker about
the importance of DP benefits. If possible, have everyone talk to their managers about DP benefits. And have those managers talk to their managers, and
so forth. When looking at the chain of decision-making for implementing DP
benefits, find out who you know that might be connected to those decisionmakers. Get them to network, too.
It is a good idea to try and find at least one high-level manager, whether GLBT
or straight, to help push DP benefits through the company. Most successful
DP organizing efforts have had this factor in common. High-level managers
often have personal relationships with those connected to benefits policy
change. Moreover, they’re in a better position to exercise influence over other
high-level managers to get change made.
If you feel that it is appropriate for your lobbying efforts, and if your company
allows employees to be vocal in their policy challenges, you may wish to further publicize your call for DP benefits. There are several methods for publicizing your cause, ranging from writing an editorial in the company newsletter
to holding a press conference and gaining national media attention. In considering what path you will chose, it is imperative to think about the level of opposition you have already encountered in your company and the extent to
which publicizing the issue will alienate the company to your cause.
Publicizing
Your Cause
Most employers prefer to pass DP benefits without significant outside attention. Hence, small scale efforts aimed at publicizing the issue within the company and mobilizing co-worker support are generally the most advisable
strategies. In addition to the organizing ideas already given, most employee
organizers have found it useful to:
1. Write letters to the company newsletter
2. Post flyers on DP benefits on the company bulletin board.
3. Host company forums on topics related to DP benefits.
4. Create an internal website for your employee organization with a section on DP benefits.
5. Distribute e-mails on DP benefits to friends and internal listservs
within the company.
6. Organize a campaign where supporters wear buttons or a certain
color of clothing on a given day, perhaps corresponding with a meeting
set upwith management.
However, if you decide that more public organizing efforts are appropriate,
NGLTF can provide you with information on writing press releases, hosting
a press conference, and interacting with the media.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
25
ONCE YOU WIN:
SUSTAINING CHANGE
It is important to educate the wider employee body about the changes. If you
had to overcome misconceptions from management, management will likely
hear the same concerns from employees. The company should be prepared to
educate employees and explain the rationale for moving forward with inclusive, progressive policies.
Information
Packets
Provide Forum
to Address
Concerns
Educate!
Educate!
Educate!
With effective organizing, your company will probably eventually offer DP
benefits. In doing so, many companies create informational packets to explain the new policy and address any concerns that employees might have.
Explaining the rationale behind DP benefits and the advantages is one way to
minimize backlash from within the company. Levi Strauss & Co. created an
informational handout with this in mind, which follows in the “Appendix”
on page 133.
Many companies find it useful to establish some official forum within which
employees can express their concerns over DP benefits and employers can respond. Smaller companies have held employee auditorium gatherings with a
panel of representatives from HR and management, including the company
president, to explain the new policy and the reasons that it was adopted.
Larger companies have established an internal mailbox or e-mail address
through which employees can ask questions, extend praise, or voice criticism.
Companies should clearly express to employees, consumers, and the community that DP benefits are not special rights; they are equal rights. By enacting DP benefits, the company is not promoting homosexuality or
non-traditional living arrangements. Rather, the company is recognizing diversity and acknowledging the needs of all its employees within that framework: all of its employees are equal, and therefore their relationships are also
equal. By explaining that they are not trying to make political statements but
are instead recognizing the needs of their employees, companies can minimize the basis for attacks.
Most companies experience little negative reaction to their DP policies. However, occasionally, employees and/or members of the community voice opposition to extending benefits to domestic partners. Most criticism is levied
against same-sex only policies for discriminating against heterosexuals, so
companies can often avoid controversy by enacting more inclusive policies
from the start. There are several other strategies for minimizing opposition to
DP benefits and controlling backlash.
Handling
Backlash
BOYCOTTS
Some companies that choose to implement DP benefits policies may face
threats of boycotts from conservative organizations. Few companies have
been boycotted. Instead, they have found that offering DP benefits opens the
company up to a whole new market of supportive consumers. In those cases
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
26
where boycotts have been called, they are rarely successful. The most high-profile boycott in recent years, over the Walt Disney Company’s decision to extend
DP benefits, was largely denounced by the public. To control boycotts, companies must promote their policy changes as fair and inclusive acknowledgments
of the diversity that exists within companies and American society.
BALLOT MEASURES AND REFERENDA
Well organized opposing constituencies can, however, prevent a government
body from passing DP policies. Contrary to private sector situations, community opponents have much more power in the context of municipal and state policy. And when DP benefits are enacted, conservative community members can
challenge them. For example, in 1991 after San Francisco’s ordinance providing
DP benefits for city and county employees was passed by the Board of Supervisors, opponents of the measure collected signatures to instigate a voter referendum. The policy was overturned, although a second referendum eventually
reinstated DP benefits.
In regions where ballot measures and referenda are allowed, there is little that organizers can do to ward them off. However, organizers can work to get the referenda question worded favorably and slated during an election that voters usually
turn out for (e.g., gubernatorial elections attract more voters than run-off elections for city controller). Beyond that, organizers must mobilize citizens to get to
the polls and vote favorably. NGLTF can provide assistance in ballot measure
and referenda challenges.33
LEGAL CHALLENGES
A few governments and employers that have chosen to extend DP benefits to
same-sex partners only have faced legal challenges. For instance, the City of Oakland, California’s same-sex only DP policy has been challenged by the State Labor
Commission as discriminatory against heterosexuals and therefore in violation of
the state labor code. The simplest way for employers to avoid these sorts of legal
challenges is to pass same- and opposite-sex inclusive DP benefits policies or
amend their current policies to include opposite-sex couples.
The City of Minneapolis, Minnesota’s DP ordinance was invalidated by a court
ruling that stated that granting health benefits to domestic partners of municipal
employees is without legal force and ultra vires, or outside the city’s domain of
power.34 However, a ruling by the Georgia State Supreme Court supported the
City of Atlanta’s right to establish a domestic partnership registry.35
There have been several recent legal challenges in the private sector. For instance,
in Foray v. Bell Atlantic, a heterosexual partner of a Bell Atlantic employee is
suing the company because, under its same-sex only DP policy, she cannot receive benefits. Yet this case and most other private sector suits aim to change or
expand the DP policies at issue rather than eliminate them altogether.
The most influential legal cases relating to DP are outlined in the “Appendix”
on page 137.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
27
ENDNOTES
1
This quote, and all of the other quotes and figures presented in this
section are taken from the original NGLTF Domestic Partnership
Organizing Manual (1992) written by Ivy Young.
2
“Domestic Partnership Benefits.” Employee Benefits Practices. Fourth
Quarter 1994: 4.
3
Information provided by the Human Rights Campaign. Contact
information for the Human Rights Campaign is provided in the
“Appendix” on page 32.
4
Domestic Partnership Benefits Mini Survey (1996). Society of Human
Resource Managers: Washington, DC.
5
According to the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund’s
(LLDEF) information on domestic partnership benefits offerings in
state and municipal governments. Contact information for LLDEF is
provided in “Appendix” on page 32.
6
Coleman, Tom. “Domestic Dispute.” Los Angeles Daily Journal. 12 Jan
1998: 6.
7
Gordon, Rachel. “Bank of America to Offer Partnership Benefits.” San
Francisco Examiner. 11 Mar 1997: A1.
8
Minton, Tori. “S.F. Archbishop Agrees to Discuss Partners Policy.”
San Francisco Examiner. 7 Feb 1997: A21.
9
Excerpted directly from IBM’s domestic partner benefits statement.
10
Contact information for Ho ll ywood Supports is provided in the
“Appendix” on page 32.
11
General Accounting Office of the United States (1997). “Defense of
Marriage Act” Report. OGC-97-16: 58.
12
From Wrongs to Rights: Public Opinion on Gay and Lesbian
Americans Moves Toward Equality and other Policy Institute
publications are available by contacting the National Gay and Lesbian
Task Force.Contact information for NGLTF is provided in
“Appendix” on page 32.
13
Except where noted, all information in this section is taken from
materials from the Spectrum Institute under the auspices of executive
director Thomas Coleman. Contact information for the Spectrum
Institute is provided in “Appendix” on page 32.
14
Information provided by the Human Rights Campaign. Contact
information for the Human Rights Campaign is provided in the
“Appendix” on page 32.
15
According to national accounts data from the Bureau of Economic
Analysis.
16
Health Benefits in 1997 (1997). KPMG Peat Marwick: Arlington, VA.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
28
17
"Report of the Domestic Partnership Study Group for the City
University of New York" (Oct. 1993). Cited in Christopher Diagle
(1997). White Paper re: Domestic Partnership Benefits. Tulane
University.
18
"Report of the Subcommittee on Domestic Partners’ Benefits”
(1992). University Committee on Faculty and Staff Benefits, Stanford University.
19
“Domestic Partnership Benefits.” Employee Benefits Practices. Fourth
Quarter 1994: 4.
20
Domestic Partners and Employee Benefits (1991). Hewitt Associates:
Lincolnshire, IL.
21
Laabs, Jennifer J. “Unmarried... with Benefits.” Personnel Journal. Dec
1991: 64.
22
“Domestic Partner Benefits: A Trend Toward Fairness” (1997). National
Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association: Washington, DC.
23
Poll conducted and reported by Newsweek, 30 June 1997.
24
As of January, 1999, the 30 states with laws banning same sex
marriages are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington.
25
Laabs, op. cit.
26
Raeburn, Nicole. “The Rise of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Rights in
the Workplace.” In progress (used by author’s permission). For more
information, contact Nicole Raeburn at [email protected].
27
Laabs, op. cit.
28
NGLTF maintains a listing of jurisdictions throughout the that which
bar sexual orientation discrimination. To obtain a copy of this listing,
please contact NGLTF via the contact information provided in
“Appendix” on page 32.
29
Taken from the 1992 Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
(NGLTF).
30
Union members interested in more advice on organizing for DP
benefits should contact Pride at Work. Contact information for
Pride at Work is provided in “Appendix” on page 32.
31
For more information on the “Family Album,” contact AT&T
LEAGUE at (703)713-7820 or [email protected].
32
For more information on scripting your own “Reader’s Theater,” call
Kim Harris at (650)857-7771 or e-mail him at [email protected]
33
Contact information for NGLTF is provided in “Appendix” on page 32.
34
Lilly v. City of Minneapolis, 527 N.W.2d 107 (Minn., rev. denied, 1995)
35
Atlanta et. al v. McKinney, 454 S.E.2d 517 (Ga. 1995)
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
29
APPENDIX
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 31
RESOURCE GROUPS AND
CONTACT INFORMATION
National Organizations
NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE
ALTERNATIVES TO MARRIAGE PROJECT
1700 Kalorama Road, NW
Washington, DC 20009-2624
Tel (202) 332-6483
Fax (202) 332-0207
[email protected]
http://www.ngltf.org
P.O. Box 991010
Boston, MA 02199
Tel & Fax (781) 793-9911
[email protected]
http://www.netspace.org/atmp
THE POLICY INSTITUTE OF THE NATIONAL GAY
AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE
121 West 27th Street, Suite 501
New York, NY 10001
Tel (212) 604-9830
Fax (212) 604-9831
FEDERATION OF LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND
TRANSGENDER POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS
Contact Dan Hawes, NGLTF Field Organizer
[email protected]
Tel (202) 332-6483
FEDERAL GLOBE (Federal GLBT employees and
organizations)
PO Box 45237
Washington, DC 20026-5237
Tel (202) 986-1101
http://www.fedglobe.org
PRIDE AT WORK (Unions)
PO Box 65983
Washington, DC 20035-5893
Tel (202) 667-8237
COLLEAGUES (Organization for GLBT employee
groups with annual conference)
P.O. Box 20506
Rochester, NY. 14602
Tel (716) 234-4646 or (888) 924-4646
[email protected]
http://www.outnequal.org
SPECTRUM INSTITUTE
Thomas Coleman, Executive Director
P.O. Box 65756
Los Angeles, CA 90065
Tel (213) 258-8955
Fax (505) 258-8099
[email protected]
PARTNERS TASK FORCE FOR GAY & LESBIAN
COUPLES
Box 9685
Seattle, WA 98109-0685
Tel (206) 935-1206
[email protected]
http://www.buddybuddy.com
LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND
120 Wall Street, Suite 1500
New York, NY 10005-3904
Tel (212) 809-8585
Fax (212) 809-0055
http://www.lambdalegal.org
HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN
919 18th Street, NW #800
Washington, DC 20006
Tel (202) 628-4160
Fax (202) 347-5323
[email protected]
http://www.hrcusa.org
GAY & LESBIAN ALLIANCE AGAINST DEFAMATION
150 West 26th Street, #503
New York, NY 10001
Tel (212) 807-1700
Fax (212) 807-1806
[email protected]
http://www.glaad.org
HOLLYWOOD SUPPORTS (Entertainment
Industry)
6922 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 1015
Los Angeles, CA 90028
Tel (213) 468-1270
Fax (213) 962-6203
http://www.hsupports.org
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
32 A P P E N D I X
NATIONAL LESBIAN & GAY JOURNALISTS
ASSOCIATION (Media/Journalism)
1718 M Street, NW #245
Washington, DC 20036
Tel (202) 588-9888
Fax (202) 588-1818
[email protected]
http://www.nlgja.org
THE WORKING GROUP ON FUNDING LESBIAN AND
GAY ISSUES (Philanthropy)
116 E 16th Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10003
Tel (212) 475-2930
Fax (212) 982-3321
DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP BENEFITS
CONSULTANTS
Andrew Sherman, The Segal Company
Tel (617) 424-7337
Ilse de Veer, William Mercer
Tel (203) 973-2118
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
APPENDIX
33
Employee Organizations
As there are many employee g roups throughout the country, this listing is intended as a sampling
only. To make additions or corrections to this list, contact NGLTF at [email protected] or via
the information provided on page 32 of this “Appendix.” This list is distributed to facilitate networking among groups. Please do not use it for fundraising or other solicitation.
* = Group is official recognized by employer
Private Sector
3M
AT&T
3M PLUS (People Like Us) *
Tel (612) 236-9706
Lesbian, Bisexual, and Gay United Employees
(LEAGUE) *
Tel (703) 713-7820
[email protected]
http://www.league-att.org
Adolph Coors Company
Lesbian And Gay Employee Resource (LAGER) *
(303) 277-2146
Elaine Ellison
Benefits Administration Supervisor
Tel (303) 277-3507
AETNA Life
AETNA Network of Gay & Lesbian Employees
(ANGLE) *
Rick Balmer
Mailcode MA3D
151 Farmington Avenue
Hartford, CT 06156
Tel (860) 363-4691
Air Products & Chemicals
Gay & Lesbian Empowered Employees (GLEE) *
Charlie Versaggi
7201 Hamilton Boulevard
Allentown, PA 18195
Tel (610) 481-8402
AMR (American Airlines & affiliate cos.)
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender
Employees at AMR Corp. (GLEAM) *
Tel (214) 521-5342 ext. 812
[email protected]
htpp:// www.webris.net/gleam
Ameritech
Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Employees of
Ameritech (GLEAM)
P.O. Box 3625
Chicago, IL 60654
Tel (312) 409-4523
[email protected]
Also: Larry Spencer
Tel (248) 424-5928
Bank Of Boston Corp.
Gay and Lesbian Employee Resource Group*
Adam Cardinal
Asst. VP, Information Security Specialist
100 Federal Street, MA-BOS 01-13-05
Boston, MA 02110
Tel (617) 434-3246
[email protected]
Bausch & Lomb
Gay Employees Group
Tom Carlock
1400 North Goodman Street, Area 6
Rochester, NY 14609
Tel (716) 338-6544
Bell Atlantic/NYNEX
Gays & Lesbians Working for Cultural Diversity
(GLCD) *
New York Tel: (800) 232-0069 ext. 6887
New England Tel: (800) 755-5428 ext. 1165
http://soho.ios.com/~msmigels/glcd/glcd.html
Bellcore
Outreach
Jack Zatz
331 Newman Springs Road
Redbank, NJ 07701
Tel (732) 758-5044
[email protected]
Boeing Company
Boeing Employee Association of Gays, Lesbians,
and Friends (BEAGLES)
Ed Gentzler
1122 East Pike Street, #787
Seattle, WA 98057
Tel (206) 781-3587
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
34 A P P E N D I X
Charles Schwab & Co.
First Chicago
Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Employees at
Schwab (GLOBES) *
Glen Mathison
Tel (415) 627-7151
Employee Alliance for Gay & Lesbian Equality
(First EAGLE) *
P.O. Box 1171
Chicago, IL 60690
Tel (773) 784-6067
Chevron Corporation
Chevron Lesbian and Gay Employee
Association (CLGEA) *
1654 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94115
[email protected]
http://members.aol.com/clgea/index.html
Also: Kirk Nass (Chair)
Tel (510) 242-3932
[email protected]
CNA Financial Corp.
People Like Us (PLUS)
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.lvic.com/plus/
Fannie Mae
Fannie Mae Lesbian and Gay Employees *
Pam Jarvis
Tel (202) 752-4164
Ford Motor Company
Ford Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual Employees (Ford
GLOBE) *
23814 Michigan Avenue, #187
Dearborn, MI 48124
Tel (313) 438-1970
[email protected]
http://people.delphi.com/fordglobe
Freddie Mack
Digital Corp.
DECPLUS
http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus
DuPont
Bisexuals, Gays, Lesbians and Allies at DuPont
(BGLAD) *
P.O. Box 2192
Wilmington, DE 19899
[email protected]
http://www.duponbglad.com
Eastman Kodak
LAMBDA Network at Kodak
PO Box 14067
Rochester, NY 14614
Tel (716) 234-4388
[email protected]
EDS
Gay and Lesbian Employees at EDS (GLEE)
PO Box 260752
Plano, TX 75026-0752
http://www.cyberramp.net
Lambda Group
Thomas Antignani
8100 Jones Branch Drive, Mailstop B39
McClean, VA 22102
[email protected]
General Mills
Betty's Family
1 General Mills Boulevard
Minneapolis, MN 55426
Also: Daniel Duty
Tel (612) 540-3227
E-mail: [email protected]
General Motors
GM PLUS (People Like Us) *
P.O. Box 446
Ferndale, MI 48068
Tel (248) 358-9818
[email protected]
Hewlett Packard
HP Gay and Lesbian Employee Network
Kim Harris
Tel (650) 857-7771
Exxon
Exxon Gay and Lesbian Employees (EGLE)
Alan Eyler (Co-Chair)
[email protected]
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 35
IBM
Mass Mutual Life
Employee Alliance for Gay & Lesbian
Empowerment (EAGLE) *
http://www.mindspring.com/~morpheus/eagle
Rick Partridge (HR Representative for Gay and
Lesbian Concerns)
411 Northside Parkway
Atlanta, GA 30327
Tel (404) 238-7512
[email protected]
Also: Sharon J. Lane (EAGLE External Comm.)
Tel (404) 373-2343
[email protected]
Gay and Lesbian Alliance (GALA) *
Bill Conley
1295 State St.
Springfield, Mass 01111
Tel (413) 744-4927
[email protected]
Intel
Intel Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual Employees
(IGLOBE) *
Tel (503) 696-4000
[email protected]
http://www.glyphic.com/iglobe/index.html
JC Penney Co.
Employee Association of Gays & Lesbians
(EAGLe)
[email protected]
http://home1.gte.net/djone2/eagl/
Jet Propulsion Lab
Gay Lesbian and Bisexual Support Group
Randy Herrera
4800 Oak Grove Drive
Pasadena, CA 91109
Tel (818) 393-0664
[email protected]
Medtronic
Gay and Lesbian Employees of Medtronic
(GEM)
Deborah Ashton (Workforce Diversity Project)
7000 Central Avenue, NE
Mailstop #240
Minneapolis, MN 55432
Tel (612) 514-3115
[email protected]
NCR
League@NCR *
Tel (937) 445-0962
http://members.aol.com/leaguencr
Netopia, Inc.
Out There at Netopia
Lezlie Lee
2470 Mariner Square Loop
Alameda, CA 94501
Tel (510) 814-5288
[email protected]
Northern States Power
SAGE
Tel (612) 330-5522
Kaiser Permanente
Pacific Telesis
Association of Lesbians and Gays (KPALG) *
PO Box 1031
Pasadena, CA 91102
Tel (626) 405-5600
[email protected]
PO Box 2711
San Ramon, CA 94583
Tel (800) 747-9880
http://www.webcom.com/bunny/spectrum/
The Seattle Times
Levi Strauss Associates
Lesbian and Gay Employee Association *
Michelle Dryden
1155 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel (415) 544-7103
Gay and Lesbian Association at the Times
(GALA-Times) *
Ana deGive
P.O. Box 70
Seattle, WA 98111
The Northern Trust Corporation
Lucent Technologies
EQUAL! at Lucent *
Tel (500) 346-5324
http://www.equal.org
Kathleen Dermody (Co-President)
Tel (732) 957-7494
[email protected]
The Northern Trust Pride (TNT Pride)
Sue Connolly
50 South LaSalle Street, B2
Chicago, IL 60675
Tel (312) 444-7188
[email protected]
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
36 A P P E N D I X
United Airlines
XEROX
United With Pride
P.O. Box 423284
San Francisco, CA 94142-3284
Tel (415) 908-6776
[email protected]
http://www.unitedpride.org
GALAXe
[email protected]
U.S. WEST, Inc.
Employee Association of Gays and Lesbians
(EAGLE) *
P.O. Box 22958
Seattle, WA 98112
Tel (206) 689-6988
http://www.eaglefund.org
Also: John Trautman
Tel (425) 451-6371
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
APPENDIX
37
Government
See also contact information for Federal GLOBE in
“National Organizations” section above.
Federal Aviation Administration
FAA GLOBE
http://www.faa-globe.org
U. S. Department of Justice
DOJ Pride
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/7095
Robert Moossy (President)
Tel (202) 514-6247
U. S. Department of the Treasury
Library of Congress
Library of Congress GLOBE
c/o Employee Assistance Division
Library of Congress
Washington, D. C. 20540
Financial Management Service Gay, Lesbian or
Bisexual Employees (FMS GLOBE)
PO Box 34704
Kansas City, MS 64116-1104
U. S. Foreign Affairs Agencies
National Institutes of Health
NIH Gay and Lesbians Employees Forum
(NIHGLEF)
PO Box 30767
Bethesda, MD 20814-9998
[email protected]
http://www.recgov.org/r%26w/glef.html
Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs (GLIFFA)
PO Box 18774
Washington, DC 20036-8774
Tel (202) 797-3310
U. S. Internal Revenue Service
Pacific Region Federal Agencies
IRS GLOBE
PO Box 7644
Washington, DC 20044
Pacific Federal GLOBE
http://www.wolfe.com/globe/
U. S. Navy
U. S. Department of Agriculture
Navy GLOBE
[email protected]
USDA GLOBE
http://www.lambda.net/~aglobe/
Peter Wood (President)
Tel (703) 330-7826
[email protected]
U. S. Patent and Trademark Office
Lambda PTO
[email protected]
http://members.aol.com/lambdapto/index.html
U. S. Department of Energy
DOE GLOBE
Tel (301) 903-7658
[email protected]
http://www.oha.doe.gov/doeglobe/info.htm
U. S. Department of Labor
U. S. Postal Service
Gay & Lesbian Postal Employees' Network (G/L
PEN)
PO Box 580397
Minneapolis, MN 55458-0397
http://www.jump.net/~kaos/
Labor GLOBE
[email protected]
http://www.laborglobe.org
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
38 A P P E N D I X
SECTOR BY SECTOR POLICIES
The following three sections outline specific policy issues relating to DP benefits in the public, private and academic settings, touching upon the various
obstacles and advantages to organizing in these areas.
The first section deals with public sector policies and charts the responses of
several local and state governments to a recent (1998) survey of DP benefits
policies conducted for this manual. The responses document policy issues
such as who is covered, what benefits are offered and how much do DP benefits cost. From the surveys collected, data are summarized to make generalizations about the policies under consideration. The chart provides an overview
of DP benefits in the public sector to give organizers an idea of where policies
have been enacted, what those policies look like and what discrepancies exist
where improvements can be made.
The second and third sections present sample policies from various private sector companies as well as colleges and universities.
Since the ideal policy is not
These samples are not intended as models to be followed. Rather,
always possible to enact,
the policies provide a landscape of DP in these sectors, outlining
what major industry competitors, small firms, unions and public these sample policies may
and private colleges offer in terms of DP benefits. The ideal policy,
provide guidance for viable
according to this text, is one which covers both same- and oppositalternatives.
e sex partners, both romantic and non-romantic in nature, as well
as their dependent children. No proof of relationship should be
requested (i.e., joint lease, proof of municipal DP registration, etc.), and no
waiting period imposed, unless such requirements are made of spouses.
Also, domestic partners should receive all benefits which are extended to the
spouses of employees to the extent possible.
However, since the ideal policy is not always possible to enact, these sample
policies may provide guidance for viable alternatives. Yet those crafting DP
policies should still strive to be as equitable and just as possible; and those with
DP policies already in existence should examine how their own policies might
be improved.
It is important to note that the information in these sections was obtained directly from the corporations, governments or schools themselves. Any incorrect information most likely reflect errors in the employer’s materials or
methods of dissemination.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 39
PUBLIC SECTOR BENEFITS
While the main front in DP organizing has been the corporate workplace, DP
benefits can also be offered to public sector employees. In fact, over 60 state
and local governments offer benefits to the domestic partners of employees,
and a bill was proposed in the House of Representatives and the Senate in 1997
to make all domestic partners of federal employees eligible for workplace benefits. Compared to companies which are fairly autonomous in their decisionmaking abilities, governments must deal with bureaucracy and constituents
when considering DP policies. Hence, the organizing strategies in this arena
are somewhat different from private sector organizing. DP benefits in the
public sector require a vocal, well-organized constituency which can, in turn,
persuade legislators to affect change.
The information presented here elucidates the issues and organizing realms
specific to the public sector. Overall, the strategies provided in the larger organizing section of this manual can be applied to organizing for DP benefits in
the public sector. In general, DP recognition in the public sector is available in
two forms: registration and benefits for government employees.
Government
Registries
Via a public DP registry, couples can certify their domestic partnerships with
the government (much like a marriage registry). While these registries are
largely symbolic in nature, they often carry associated benefits for registered
citizens or are linked the the provision of workplace benefits. For instance,
several public and private sector employers require that employees register
their domestic partnerships with the local or state government in order to
qualify their partners for benefits. Or DP registration can include certain government benefits for registered couples, such as hospital and prison visitation
rights for domestic partners (which is otherwise restricted to blood relatives,
spouses or children). However, it should be noted that registered domestic
partners do not automatically have the rights of inheritance, joint property accumulation, spousal support in the event of divorce, or powers of attorney.
As noted, the DP benefits and registries are often intertwined: most of the
states and municipalities with DP benefits for government employees have
DP registries as well. However, not all regions with DP registries offer employee benefits.
DP Benefits for
Government
Employees
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
The federal government has yet to extend DP benefits to all Federal workers.
Some branches of the governments, as the result of lobbying by the Federal
GLBT employees organization Federal GLOBE, do recognize domestic partnerships in bereavement leave policies (including the US Civil Service, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Office of
Personnel Management), and in 1998, President Clinton signed an executive
order banning sexual orientation discrimination in the Federal civil service
workforce. Still, the Federal government has not extended DP benefits to any
of its employees.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
40 A P P E N D I X
A bill was introduced into the US House of Representatives and the Senate in
the 105th Congress to provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees. In all likelihood, the bill will be reintroduced in the 106th Congress. For
more information, contact your Congressional representative or one of the bill’s
main sponsors:
Representative Barney Frank
US House of Representatives
2210 RHOB
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-5931
Senator Paul Wellstone
US Senate
SH-136 HSOB
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-5641
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
As has been the focus of this manual, employers have the option of extending
the same benefits to domestic partners as offered to spouses. Public sector DP
benefits can be granted through the passage of a law or ordinance, or via an
executive order issues by the governor or mayor. Government employees can
work with community members to encourage their states or cities to adopt
DP benefits. Organizing strategies which can be applied to this end are detailed in the "Organizing for Domestic Partnership Benefits" section of this
manual on page 17.
Following is an outline of 20 state and local government benefits policies,
with information gathered from a survey conducted for this manual. The
survey was conducted in June of 1998 by sending a two page survey to all of
the localities in the US that offer domestic partnership. After two follow-up
calls, a total of 20 (approximately 33%) regions responded.
The following information is intended to give you a synopsis of public sector
domestic partnership benefits policies as they are implemented in large cities
and small ones, towns and states. A quick analysis of the list reveals that all
but one government provide benefits to same and opposite sex partners, and
11 offer the same benefits to domestic partners as they extend to spouses.
Most governments did not track the specific costs associated with providing
DP benefits. Of the five cities and states surveyed which do track costs, domestic partner coverage occupies approximately 0.96-1.06 percent of total
benefits costs. On average, 2.06% of employees enroll.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 41
Berkeley, CA
Population
Number of employees
Date DP benefits enacted
Covers same and opposite sex partners?
Enrollment process
105,000
1,465
Dec 4, 1984
Yes
Complete affidavit
Benefits offered: bereavement and sick leave, medical and dental benefits,
COBRA
Benefits not offered: none
No. enrolled
% of employees
% same sex
% of benefits costs
Los Angeles,
CA
120
8.19%
16%
2.8%
Contact:
Population
Number of employees
Date DP benefits enacted
Covers same and opposite sex partners?
Enrollment process
Nancy Adler
Benefits Specialist
(510) 644-695 1
3 million
40,000
March 1994
Yes
Complete affidavit
Benefits offered: bereavement and sick leave, medical and dental benefits,
EAP, catastrophic illness leave program, COBRA
Benefits not offered: none
No. enrolled
% of employees
% same sex
% of benefits costs
Marin County,
CA
925
2.31%
16%
1.2%
Contact:
Population
Number of employees
Date DP benefits enacted
Covers same and opposite sex partners?
Enrollment process
Henry Hurd
Benefits Director
(213) 485-2048
239,530
1,900
Jan 1997
Yes
Complete affidavit and
register with county
Benefits offered: bereavement and sick leave, child resource and referral,
EAP, employee discounts, medical benefits, pension benefits
Benefits not offered: vision and dental benefits (currently negotiating)
No. enrolled
% of employees
% same sex
% of benefits costs
15
Contact:
0.79%
Not tracked
Not tracked
Katie Gaier
Personnel Analyst
(415) 499-6104
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
42 A P P E N D I X
Population
Number of employees
Date DP benefits enacted
Covers same and opposite sex partners?
Enrollment process
60,000
976
1996
Yes
Complete affidavit
Palo Alto,
CA
Benefits offered: bereavement and sick leave, child resource recreational
facility use, EAP, emplo yee discounts, medical and dental benefits, pension benefits
Benefits not offered: spousal pension benefits (state regulated)
No. enrolled
% of employees
% same sex
% of benefits costs
45
Contact:
4.61%
Not tracked
Not tracked
Population
Number of employees
Date DP benefits enacted
Covers same and opposite sex partners?
Enrollment process
Alana Forest
HR Lieutenant
(650) 329-2408
388,725
4,750
Oct. 1992
Yes
Register with cit y
Sacramento,
CA
Benefits offered: bereavement and sick leave, EAP, medical benefits,
COBRA
Benefits not offered: dental care, life insurance, pension benefits
No. enrolled
% of employees
% same sex
% of benefits costs
14
Contact:
0.47%
43%
Not tracked
Population
Number of employees
Date DP benefits enacted
Covers same and opposite sex partners?
Enrollment process
Barbara Lehman
Human Rights Office
(916) 444-6903
1.2 million
10,500
June 1994
Yes
Complete affidavit
San Diego,
CA
Benefits offered: bereavement and sick leave, medical, dental and vision
benefits, dependent life insurance, pension benefits, death and disability
benefits
Benefits not offered: COBRA, Family Leave Act benefits
No. enrolled
% of employees
% same sex
% of benefits costs
80
Contact:
0.76%
12%
Not tracked
Valerie VanDeweghe
Benefits Administrator
(619) 236-6785
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 43
San Mateo
County, CA
Population
Number of employees
Date DP benefits enacted
Covers same and opposite sex partners?
Enrollment process
800,000
4,500
Aug 1992
Yes
Complete affidavit
Benefits offered: bereavement and sick leave, EAP, recreational facility
use, employee discounts, medical, dental and vision benefits, catastrophic
leave
Benefits not offered: retiree pension, disability benefits, life insurance
benefits
No. enrolled
% of employees
% same sex
% of benefits costs
Santa Monica,
CA
120
Contact:
2.67%
15%
Not tracked
Population
Number of employees
Date DP benefits enacted
Covers same and opposite sex partners?
Enrollment process
Paul Hackleman
Benefits Manager
(650) 363-4330
90,000
1,500
Jan 1, 1994
Yes
Complete affidavit
Benefits offered: bereavement and sick leave, EAP, medical benefits, limited COBRA
Benefits not offered: dental benefits
No. enrolled
% of employees
% same sex
% of benefits costs
Oak Park, IL
41
Contact:
2.73%
8%
Not tracked
Population
Number of employees
Date DP benefits enacted
Covers same and opposite sex partners?
Enrollment process
Martha Zamora
Benefits Technician
(310) 458-2234
53,500
500
April 18, 199 4
No
Complete affidavit
Benefits offered: bereavement and sick leave, EAP, medical, dental and
vision benefits (if otherwise without coverage), COBRA
Benefits not offered: None
No. enrolled
% of employees
% same sex
% of benefits costs
0
Contact:
0%
Not tracked
Not tracked
Colleen Temesvari
Employee Relations
(708) 445-3 340 ext. 2328
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
44 A P P E N D I X
Population
Number of employees
Date DP benefits enacted
Covers same and opposite sex partners?
Enrollment process
17,500
140
July 1, 1995
Yes
Register with the city
Takoma
Park, MD
Benefits offered: bereavement and sick leave, medical benefits
Benefits not offered: None
No. enrolled
% of employees
% same sex
% of benefits costs
3
Contact:
2.14%
0%
Not tracked
Population
Number of employees
Date DP benefits enacted
Covers same and opposite sex partners?
Enrollment process
Karen Hampton
HR Assistant
(301) 270-1700
42,000
570
May 1995
Yes
Register with the town or
complete affidavit
Chapel Hill,
NC
Benefits offered: bereavement and sick leave, EAP, medical and vision
benefits, COBRA
Benefits not offered: some health plans are not available
No. enrolled
% of employees
% same sex
% of benefits costs
3
Contact:
0.53%
0%
0.16 - 0.24%
Population
Number of employees
Date DP benefits enacted
Covers same and opposite sex partners?
Enrollment process
Bunny Spadero
Sr. Personnel Analyst
(919) 968-2888
29,540
440
Aug. 1, 1990
Yes
Register with the city
Ithaca, NY
Benefits offered: bereavement and sick leave, medical, dental and vision
benefits, dependent life insurance, COBRA
Benefits not offered: none
No. enrolled
% of employees
% same sex
% of benefits costs
7
Contact:
1.59%
43%
Not tracked
Valerie Saul
HR Deputy Director
(607) 274-6539
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 45
New York, NY
Population
Number of employees
Date DP benefits enacted
Covers same and opposite sex partners?
Enrollment process
7 million
209,279
Jan. 1994, expanded 1998
Yes
Register with the city
Benefits offered: bereavement and sick leave, medical, dental and vision
benefits, death and disability benefits, COBRA, “Good Samaritan Awards”
for partners of city employees killed in line of duty
Benefits not offered: pension benefits, dependent life insurance
No. enrolled
% of employees
% same sex
% of benefits costs
Corvalis, OR
No response Contact:
N/A
45%
Not tracked
Population
Number of employees
Date DP benefits enacted
Covers same and opposite sex partners?
Enrollment process
Joseph De Marco
Dept. of Citywide Admin.
(212) 669-2244
57,000
372
1990
Yes
Complete affidavit
Benefits offered: bereavement and sick leave, adoption assistance, child
resource, recreational facility use, EAP, medical, dental and vision benefits,
dependent life insurance, COBRA
Benefits not offered: none
No. enrolled
% of employees
% same sex
% of benefits costs
Multnomah
County, OR
9
2.45%
33%
0.82%
Contact:
Population
Number of employees
Date DP benefits enacted
Covers same and opposite sex partners?
Enrollment process
Marta Strahan
HR Administrator
(541) 757-6902
636,000
4,000
July 1, 1993
Yes
Complete affidavit
Benefits offered: child resource, recreational facility use, EAP, medical,
dental and vision benefits, COBRA
Benefits not offered: no response
No. enrolled
% of employees
% same sex
% of benefits costs
No response Contact:
N/A
Not tracked
Not tracked
Debbie Juul
Benefits Manager
(503) 248-5015 ext. 26477
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
46 A P P E N D I X
Population
Number of employees
Date DP benefits enacted
Covers same and opposite sex partners?
Enrollment process
1.5 million
28,000
expanded May 1998
Yes
Register with the city
Philadelphia,
PA
Benefits offered: bereavement and sick leave, medical, dental and vision
benefits, pension benefits, death and disability benefits, COBRA, partners
also receive housing tax break previously reserved for married couples
Benefits not offered: dependent life and survivor’s life insurance
No. enrolled
% of employees
% same sex
% of benefits costs
8
Contact:
0.03%
100%
Not tracked
Population
Number of employees
Date DP benefits enacted
Covers same and opposite sex partners?
Enrollment process
Kevin Vaugn
Human Relations Comm.
(215) 686-4670
693,606
3,500
Oct. 1995
Yes
Complete affidavit
Travis
County, TX
Benefits offered: EAP, medical and dental benefits, COBRA
Benefits not offered: life insurance
No. enrolled
% of employees
% same sex
% of benefits costs
No response Contact:
N/A
Not tracked
Not tracked
Population
Number of employees
Date DP benefits enacted
Covers same and opposite sex partners?
Enrollment process
Carlotta Valdez
Comp. & Benefits Mgr.
(512) 473-9167
12,130
135
May 1996
Yes
Register with the city
Tumwater,
WA
Benefits offered: bereavement and sick leave, EAP, medical, dental and
vision benefits
Benefits not offered: some health plans are not available
No. enrolled
% of employees
% same sex
% of benefits costs
1
Contact:
0.74%
100%
Not tracked
Eric Trimble
General Services Director
(360) 754-4132
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 47
State of New
York Health
Insurance
Program
Population
Number of employees
Date DP benefits enacted
Covers same and opposite sex partners?
Enrollment process
18 million
195,000
Jan. 1995
Yes
Complete affidavit
Benefits offered: medical, dental and vision benefits, COBRA
Benefits not offered: none (in terms of health insurance program policies)
No. enrolled
% of employees
% same sex
% of benefits costs
State of
Vermont
1,842
0.94%
22%
0.24%
Contact:
Population
Number of employees
Date DP benefits enacted
Covers same and opposite sex partners?
Enrollment process
Christine Averill
Senior Insurance Rep.
(518) 485-5957
560,000
7,200
Aug. 1994
Yes
Complete affidavit
Benefits offered: medical, dental and vision benefits
Benefits not offered: none (in terms of health insurance benefits)
No. enrolled
% of employees
% same sex
% of benefits costs
288
Contact:
4.0%
12%
Not tracked
Jerry Fry
Benefits Administrator
(802) 828-3455
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
48 A P P E N D I X
PRIVATE SECTOR BENEFITS
It is no surprise that there are more companies which offer DP benefits than
municipalities or universities. Corporate change is a quick process relatively
speaking. Within each industry, companies are competing for customers’ dollars and market share. Moreover, companies compete for talented employees
and strive to keep the employees they have happy. Within this climate, strategic trends beneficial to a company’s productivity and bottom line catch on
quickly. As one company enacts a DP policy which attracts employees and
improves efficiency, other companies within the industry are likely to do the
same. This is best illustrated in the technology industry, in which 20% of companies offer DP benefits. This trend has been influenced by several industry
leaders’ adoption of DP benefits, including Microsoft, Apple, and IBM.
This accelerated policy making process is also related to the corpoIt is no surprise that there
rate decision making structure. Corporate changes can often be
made by a sole human resources director or the company president.
are more companies which
In some cases, the approval of the board of directors is required, but
offer DP benefits than
that is still a much smaller body than an entire electorate to which
municipalities or
public sector leaders are beholden to in policy making. As is, corporate employees can disagree with their employer’s decisions, and
universities. Corporate
they can even terminate their employment, but employees cannot
change is a quick process
usually oust corporate leaders from their posts through elections.
relatively speaking.
In fact, compared to public sector policy making which is mandatorily conducted in the public eye, private sector change is often
covertly enacted without employee input or awareness. Corporations must
still answer to shareholders as well as consumers, but their interests are more
often focused on financial decisions or product quality. Very rarely do these
stakeholders raise a big storm over seemingly trivial internal management
decisions such as personnel policies.
In sum, corporations generally have more autonomy and flexibility than their
public sector and non-corporate counterparts. Therefore, within this context, organizing efforts also take on a different form. Again, these changes are
also linked to money: companies will enact DP policies if they are convinced
that recognizing DP will contribute favorably to their bottom lines. To persuade a company to adopt DP benefits, employee organizers must argue that
the policy change will aid in employee recruitment and retention, and portray the company as favorable in the eyes of most consumers. Additionally,
concerns about negative financial impacts must be argued away. DP benefits
do not cost the company when compared to the gains, and potentially negative reactions from consumers have had little impact and are usually outweighed by positive community response. Only when convinced that DP
benefits are fiscally reasonable will the company agree that policy change is
the right thing to do.
Organizing
Issues
Beyond the bottom line, companies also genuinely value diversity and want
their policies to reflect that conviction. Many employee organizers have cited
open-minded company presidents as one of the most integral components to
successfully negotiating for DP benefits. In fact, the right corporate climate
can facilitate the process dramatically. If a company has a sexual orientation
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
APPENDIX
49
non-discrimination policy and claims to value workplace diversity yet is hesitant to solidify that commitment through offering DP benefits, a sustained
campaign of internal lobbying pointing out the hypocracy of the situation may
be needed.
Sample
Policies
This section examines DP benefits in the corporate setting, presenting sample
policies from a host of companies and other private sector employers around
the US. The policies presented were collected by requests to HR departments
in organizations selected to represent a broad range of industries, sizes and regions.
The policies are divided into industries, so that employers can examine the
policies of their industry peers when crafting or analyzing their own DP
plans. Within each industry section, the policies are briefly described and
rated (as described in the introduction to this section), and the corresponding
policy documents follow.
FYI...
When we organized the first meeting of the Gay and
Lesbian Association (GALA) at the Seattle Times,
about 50 employees attended. The group was
unanimous in their agreement that domestic
partnership benefits should be one of our main
objectives, so we set up a meeting with the company
president to let him know we would be submitting a
proposal. During this meeting, we emphasized the
company’s commitment to non-discrimination and
valuing diversity in the workplace, and the president
responded that he was looking forward to reading the
proposal. GALA then formed a subcommittee to
research and draft the proposal, which the entire
group (especially newsroom editors) reviewed. We
presented the proposal, and the company executives
came through with flying colors and revised their
policy to include DP benefits, demonstrating that
they were indeed committed to diversity. The
support from upper management really helped us
achieve our goals.
Ana de Give, The Seattle Times
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
50 A P P E N D I X
TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES
Same and opposite sex partnerships?
Children of domestic partner covered?
Employer requires signed affidavit?
Partners required to show proof of relationship?
Waiting period or required length of DP?
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Apple
Computer
Benefits offered: medical/dental/vision benefits, mental health plans, prescription dr ug plan, employee assistance program, family leave, bereavement and sick leave, adoption assistance, child care resource and referral,
fitness center, relocation benefits
Benefits not offered: life insurance
Summary: Apple’s policy covers many health and non-health benefits, and
the company does not require that enrollees provide proof of their relation, such as documentation of financial interdependence or mutual residence. However, the policy covers same-sex domestic partners only, and
a waiting period of six months is mandated between partnerships. And
the children of domestic partners are only covered if they are dependents
of the employee.
Same and opposite sex partnerships?
Children of domestic partner covered?
Employer requires signed affidavit?
Partners required to show proof of relationship?
Waiting period or required length of DP?
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Lotus
Development
Corporation
Benefits offered: bereavement and sick leave, relocation benefits, expatriate
assignments, medical benefits, dental care, vision and hearing coverage
Benefits not offered: unknown
Summary: Lotus’ policy, one of the first in the private sector, includes a
variety of company benefits and does not require proof of relationship.
However, only same-sex partners are covered, and there is an extensive,
twelve month waiting period between domestic partnerships.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 51
Oracle
Same and opposite sex partnerships?
Children of domestic partner covered?
Employer requires signed affidavit?
Partners required to show proof of relationship?
Waiting period or required length of DP?
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Benefits offered: medical, dental and vision plans
Benefits not offered: life insurance, disability coverage, or any other ORACLE
flex plan benefits
Summary: Oracle’s DP policy includes same-sex partners only. A six to twelve
month waiting period is required between DPs (depending on insurance
plans). The affidavit requires that partners swear that they would marry if the
option became available, and that DP benefits would be revoked if same-sex
marriage became legal. Hence, the policy explicitly establishes marriage as the
most desirable family structure. Lastly, domestic partners cannot access certain benefits.
Sun
Microsystems
Same and opposite sex partnerships?
Children of domestic partner covered?
Employer requires signed affidavit?
Partners required to show proof of relationship?
Waiting period or required length of DP?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Benefits offered: health care benefits, f lexible spending accounts for health
care, non-health benefits, COBRA coverage
Benefits not offered: unknown
Summary: Sun Microsystems’ policy includes same- and opposite-sex partners
and does not require proof of relationship. The benefits offered seem extensive
and equivocal as well. Yet, while other employees can enroll new spouses for
benefits between company enrollment periods, domestic partners can only be
added during these designated enrollment times.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
52 A P P E N D I X
Apple Computer
Domestic Partner Affidavit
Employee Name
Div. No.
Dept. No.
Date
Employee Number
Social Security No.
Mail Stop
Telephone Number
E-mail Address
Before enrolling your Domestic Partner on the AppleWeb, complete this form and
send it to the Benefits Department.
Your Domestic Partner’s children can be covered as dependents under the Apple
plans if you claim them as dependents on your federal income tax. To enroll them,
use the AppleWeb.
I certify that the person named below is my domestic partner of the same sex with whom I live in
an exclusive committed relationship.
Partner’s Name
Partner’s Social Security Number
Partner’s Birthdate
Effective Date of Partnership
We are both at least 18 years of age and mentally competent to enter into a contract. Neither
of us is married to another person, nor are we related in any way which would prevent a
marriage in the state in which we reside. We are financially interdependent; each has agreed
to be responsible for the expenses and financial obligations of the other.
We agree to notify Apple Benefits if this partnership terminates within thirty-one (31) days
of the event by making a Family Status Change form on the Apple Web.
For benefit purposes, no new partnership can be declared for a period of six months after
termination of a prior domestic partnership, unless the prior domestic partnership
terminated by reason of death.
I understand that falsely certifying eligibility or failing to notify Apple if we dissolve our
status as domestic partners could result in disciplinary action, up to and including
termination. I also understand that the cost of providing benefits to my partner is considered
taxable to me.
Employee Signature
Date
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
APPENDIX
53
Lotus Development Corporation
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
54 A P P E N D I X
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 55
Oracle
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
56 A P P E N D I X
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 57
Sun Microsystems
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
58 A P P E N D I X
FINANCE & INSURANCE
COMPANIES
Same and opposite sex partnerships?
Children of domestic partner covered?
Employer requires signed affidavit?
Partners required to show proof of relationship?
Waiting period or required length of DP?
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
American
Express
Benefits offered: medical benefits, dental care, vision plan, other non-health
benefits
Benefits not offered: some HMOs, COBR A
Summary: The American Express policy covers same-sex partners only and requires that the partnership exist for six months before benefits can be accrued.
Also, proof of mutual residence and financial interdependence is required
along with the affidavit. Moreover, to obtain coverage for a domestic partner’s
dependent child(ren), proof of parental status and residence must be provided.
The company has not chosen to extend COBRA-like benefits to domestic partners, and not all health plans are available.
Same and opposite sex partnerships?
Children of domestic partner covered?
Employer requires signed affidavit?
Partners required to show proof of relationship?
Waiting period or required length of DP?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Bank
America
Benefits offered: medical benefits, dental care, vision plan, other non-health
benefits
Benefits not offered: unknown
Summary: Bank America’s policy was one of the first to expand the domestic
partner definition to include other non-romantic adults. However, Bank
America requires that these adults qualify as employee dependents (according to the IRS) and not be over 65 years of age. An affidavit is required, but no
proof of relationship is necessary. There is also a six month length of relationship mandate. Still, the policy, with its expanded definition and therefore
coverage, receives high marks.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 59
Hartford
Insurance
Company
Same and opposite sex partnerships?
Depends
Children of domestic partner covered?
Yes
Employer requires signed affidavit?
Yes
Partners required to show proof of relationship?
No
Waiting period or required length of DP?
Yes
Benefits offered: medical benefits, dental care, spouse or child life benefits,
accidental death and dismemberment dependent coverage
Benefits not offered: unknown
Summary: Hartford Fire Insurance Company offers benefits to same-sex domestic partners only, whereas Hartford Life Insurance Company covers
same- and opposite-sex partners. Proof is not required in conjunction with
the affidavit. There is a required waiting period of six months between registered domestic partnerships.
John
Hancock
Same and opposite sex partnerships?
Children of domestic partner covered?
Employer requires signed affidavit?
Partners required to show proof of relationship?
Waiting period or required length of DP?
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Benefits offered: medical benefits, dental care, vision care, long-term care,
COBRA, child care benefits, personal leave, bereavement le ave, adoption
benefits
Benefits not offered: flexible spending account reimbursement, pension benefits, others unknown
Summary: John Hancock’s policy has several quirks. For instance, if dental
care is not selected upon initial benefits registration, the domestic partner and
his/her children must wait three calendar years before being able to elect
these benefits. The policy covers same-sex partners only, and the relationship
must have existed for six months prior to filing for benefits. And employees
must wait twelve months after terminating a partnership before they can file
another.
Merrill Lynch
Same and opposite sex partnerships?
Children of domestic partner covered?
Employer requires signed affidavit?
Partners required to show proof of relationship?
Waiting period or required length of DP?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Benefits offered: medical benefits, dental plan, some HMOs, bereavement,
medical and family leave, relocation services
Benefits not offered: unknown
Summary: Merrill Lynch’s policy, like Bank America’s, includes adult dependents (according to IRS definitions) as well as domestic partners. However,
the Merrill Lynch policy requires that the employee and partner or adult dependent reside together for at least one year prior to receiving benefits.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
60 A P P E N D I X
American Express
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 61
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
62 A P P E N D I X
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 63
Bank America
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
64 A P P E N D I X
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 65
Hartford Insurance Company
AFFIDAVIT OF DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP
We,
and
(employee - print name)
(domestic partner - print name)
each certify and declare that we are domestic partners in accordance with the following criteria:
•
We affirm that this domestic partnership began on or about
/
/
.
•
We are each other ’s sole domestic partner, and we intend to remain so indefinitely.
•
Neither of us is married to or legally separated from anyone else.
•
We are both at least eighteen (18) years of age and mentally competent to consent to a
contract.
•
We are not related by blood to a degree of closeness that would prohibit legal marriage in the
state in which we legally reside.
•
We cohabit and reside together in the same residence and intend to do so indefinitely.
•
We are engaged in a committed relationship of mutual caring and support and are jointly
responsible for our common welfare and living expenses.
•
We are not in this relationship solely for the purpose of obtaining benefits coverage.
We attest to the following:
•
We have an obligation to notify The Hartford by filing a Declaration of Termination of
Domestic Partnership if there is any change in our domestic partnership status as attested to
in this Declaration that would terminate Declaration (e.g., due to the death of a partner, a
change in residence of one partner, termination of the relationship, etc.).
•
We understand that termination of this coverage (obtained as a result of completion of this
Declaration) will be effective on the last day of the month following the month in which the
domestic partnership terminated, providing coverage has not otherwise terminated due to
standard policy provisions.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
66 A P P E N D I X
•
We understand that any person or company who suffers any loss due to any false statement
contained in this Declaration may bring civil action against either or both of us to recover
their losses, including reasonable attorney’s fees.
•
We have provided the information in this Declaration for use by The Hartford’s Employee
Benefits Department for the sole purpose of determining our eligibility for domestic partner
benefits. No third parties shall have any rights under this declaration.
•
We affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the assertions in this Declaration are true to the best
of our knowledge.
Potential Property Implications: Please be advised that some courts have recognized non-marriage
relationships as the equivalent of marriage for the purposes of establishing and dividing joint property, income and assets.
Tax Implications: Under current law, health benefits provided to an employee’s domestic partner
(or to a dependent(s) of the employee’s domestic partner), who does not qualify as a spouse or
dependent in accordance with IRS rules, are taxable to the employee as wages and subject to
applicable tax withholding. The taxable amount is excess of the fair market value of the medical
and dental plan coverage over the amount paid by the employee.
Employee Signature
Date
Domestic Partner Signature
Date
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 67
John Hancock
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
68 A P P E N D I X
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
APPENDIX
69
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
70 A P P E N D I X
Merrill Lynch
Questions & Answers on Qualified Adult Health Coverage
(For U.S. Employees Only)
The attached letter announces an enhancement to the Merrill Lynch Health Care Program, which
expands dependent eligibility under most available plans, including the Merrill Lynch Medical
Plan, the Merrill Lynch Dental Plan, and most HMOs. Beginning January 1, 1999, eligible
employees can cover either their spouse or one other qualified adult member of their household.
Qualified adult means a domestic partner of the same or opposite sex, or an extended family member who lives with you and who meets the definition of a dependent under the Internal Revenue
Code. This change means you can cover up to one adult (your spouse or a qualified adult) in
addition to yourself.
The following questions and answers were developed to held you better understand this new coverage. If eligible, you can enroll a qualified adult under most of the Medical Program options and
the Dental Plan during the annual enrollment period in October 1998. You will receive more
information at that time.
Q: What does Merrill Lynch mean by a qualified adult?
A: For the purposes of coverage under the Merrill Lynch Health Care Program, a qualified adult
may either be a domestic partner(same or opposite sex) or an extended family member.
Q: What is Merrill Lynch’s definition of a domestic partner?
A: To meet eligibility requirements as a same- or opposite-sex domestic partner under the
Merrill Lynch Health Care Program, you and your domestic partner must:
• Be age 18 or older;
• Have lived together for at least one year, and have an exclusive, committed relationship;
• Be mutually responsible for each other’s welfare on a continuing basis;
• Not be related to each other; and
• Not be legally married to anyone else.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
APPENDIX
71
Q: What is Merrill Lynch’s definition of an extended family member?
A: To meet eligibility requirements as an extended family member under the Merrill Lynch
Health Care Program, the person must:
• Be at least 18 and under age 65;
• Meet the definition of a tax dependent as defined by the Internal Revenue Code;
• Be related to you as a:
- child, stepchild, grandchild, great-grandchild.
- son-in-law, daughter-in-law.
- parent, stepparent, parent-in-law.
- brother, sister, half brother/sister, stepbrother/sister, brother/sister-in-law.
- aunt, uncle, nephew, niece, if related by blood.
• Have lived with you as a dependent for all of the current year and remain a member of
your household during the period covered. This means to be eligible for coverage in
1999, your extended family member must have lived with you during all of 1998.
Q: Why is there a distinction between a domestic partner and an extended family member?
A: This distinction exists because of the way current tax law requires Merrill Lynch to treat the
value of benefits provided by the company to a domestic partner. For example, if you cover your
spouse, an extended family member, or a domestic partner who satisfied the definition of a tax
dependent, there is no additional taxable income. However, if your domestic partner does not satisfy the definition of a tax dependent under the Internal Revenue Code, the company is required to
report the value of your domestic partner’s health care coverage which is paid by Merrill Lynch as
taxable income to you.
Q: How do I know if a qualified adult satisfies the definition of a tax dependent under the
Internal Revenue Code?
A: The eligibility requirements can be very complex, and we recommend that you consult a tax
professional for advice on your personal situation. However, in general, a qualified adult (domestic partner or extended family member) may satisfy the eligibility requirements of a tax dependent
under the Internal Revenue Code if all of the following criteria are met:
• You provide more than 50% of the financial support for this individual;
• The individual lives with you for the entire calendar year (for tax purposes, this
requirement only applies to domestic partners);
• The individual is a citizen or resident of the United States; and
• Your relationship is not in violation of any local laws.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
72 A P P E N D I X
Q: What will be the cost of medical and dental coverage for a qualified adult?
A: You will pay the same amount for coverage as you would pay for other eligible dependents.
However, if your domestic partner does not satisfy the definition of tax dependent under the
Internal Revenue Code, monthly contributions will be deducted from your pay on an after-tax
basis. Additionally, Merrill Lynch is required to report the value of the company-paid portion of
any medical and dental coverage as taxable income to you.
Q: When can I enroll a qualified adult for coverage?
A: Eligible employees can enroll a qualified adult as a dependent during the annual enrollment
period, which will be held during October 1998. Coverage for a qualified adult enrolled during
this period will begin on January 1, 1999.
Q: Can I enroll myself, my spouse, and a qualified adult under the plan?
A: You can elect coverage for only one adult in addition to yourself and any eligible dependent
children. So, if you are married, you can elect adult coverage for either you plus your spouse or
you plus a qualified adult.
Q: Can I select from all Medical Program options for qualified adult coverage?
A: You will generally be eligible to enroll a qualified adult (domestic partner or extended family
member) under the Medical Program options available to you. However, at this time, certain
HMOs do not provide coverage for a qualified adult. More information on the specific coverage
options will be available during the annual enrollment period in October.
Q: Why is Merrill Lynch enhancing the definition of eligible dependents under the health
care program?
A: Merrill Lynch believes it is important to meet the different needs and cultures within our
organization and build an environment that is inclusive, fair, and respectful. We are committed to
making Merrill Lynch the best place to work, and as a result we review our human resources policies and programs on an ongoing basis to ensure they are competitive, consistent with our
Principles, and meet the needs of our employees.
Q: Why can’t I enroll an extended family member who is 65 or older?
A: This enhancement which expands dependent eligibility is being introduced to provide coverage to individuals who otherwise would not have the opportunity to enroll for health care coverage. Individuals who are 65 and older generally are eligible for Medicare.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
APPENDIX
73
ENTERTAINMENT &
MEDIA COMPANIES
Fox Inc.
Same and opposite sex partnerships?
Children of domestic partner covered?
Employer requires signed affidavit?
Partners required to show proof of relationship?
Waiting period or required length of DP?
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Benefits offered: health insurance, COBRA
Benefits not offered: unknown
Summary: Fox’s policy, based on the Hollywood Supports DP model, includes
the children of domestic partners and COBRA-like benefits continuation.
And while Fox imposes a six month waiting period between DPs, the same
waiting period is required for marriages. Also, proof of relationship is requested from domestic partners as well as spouses.
Los Angeles
Philharmonic
Same and opposite sex partnerships?
Children of domestic partner covered?
Employer requires signed affidavit?
Partners required to show proof of relationship?
Waiting period or required length of DP?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Benefits offered: health insurance
Benefits not offered: COBRA, others unkno wn
Summary: The LA Philharmonic’s DP policy covers same- and opposite-sex
partners as well as dependent children. However, proof of financial interdependence, mutual residency and municipal registration are required with the
signed affidavit. Also, the partnership must be registered with the Philharmonic for one year before benefits can be granted. The Philharmonic does
not choose to extend benefits continuation to domestic partners and their
children.
National
Public Radio
Same and opposite sex partnerships?
Children of domestic partner covered?
Employer requires signed affidavit?
Partners required to show proof of relationship?
Waiting period or required length of DP?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Benefits offered: health insurance
Benefits not offered: COBRA (reportedly under consideration), others
unknown
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
74 A P P E N D I X
Summary: NPR’s policy does include same- and opposite-sex partners as
well as their children. However, NPR requires that domestic partner present proof of the relationship as well as documentation of DP registration
where possible. Moreover, NPR states that partnerships must exist for six
months prior to qualifying for benefits enrollment.
Same and opposite sex partnerships?
Children of domestic partner covered?
Employer requires signed affidavit?
Partners required to show proof of relationship?
Waiting period or required length of DP?
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
The New
York Times
Benefits offered: bereavement, sick and medical leave, health insurance
Benefits not offered: unknown
Summary: The New York Times’ policy does not require that partners provide
proof of financial interdependence or residency upon completing the affidavit. However, the policy covers only same-sex couples and requires that
partnerships exist for at least twelve months before benefits can be accrued.
Also, a twelve month waiting period is imposed between termination of one
partnership and registration of another.
Same and opposite sex partnerships?
Children of domestic partner covered?
Employer requires signed affidavit?
Partners required to show proof of relationship?
Waiting period or required length of DP?
Yes
No
Optional
No
Optional
The Village
Voice
Benefits offered: medical, dental and hospitalization benefits
Benefits not offered: unknown
Summary: The Village Voice gives domestic partners two options when enrolling for benefits coverage: they may either register their partnership with
the City of New York or complete The Village Voice’s affidavit, which requires the relationship to have existed for one year but does not require
proof. Hence the waiting period can be avoided. The policy overall is quite
good, yet it does not cover the dependent children of domestic partners and
is therefore not perfect.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 75
Fox Inc.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
76 A P P E N D I X
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 77
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
78 A P P E N D I X
Los Angeles Philharmonic
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
APPENDIX
79
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
80 A P P E N D I X
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
APPENDIX
81
National Public Radio
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
82 A P P E N D I X
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
APPENDIX
83
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
84 A P P E N D I X
The New York Times
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
APPENDIX
85
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
86 A P P E N D I X
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 87
The Village Voice
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
88 A P P E N D I X
UNION OR MEMBERSHIP
ORGANIZATIONS
Same and opposite sex partnerships?
Children of domestic partner covered?
Employer requires signed affidavit?
Partners required to show proof of relationship?
Waiting period or required length of DP?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
AFL-CIO
Benefits offered: medical expense coverage, bereavement and sick leave
Benefits not offered: COBRA or other extension of benefits provisions
Summary: The American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) groups insurance rider for DP benefits is rather restrictive. The policy requires that (a) the partnership exist for at least one year
prior to benefits registration, (b) six months pass before the registered partner
can obtain benefits, and (c) one year pass between the termination of one
partnership and the registration of another. Beyond these limitations, the policy also requires that employees submit proof of in accordance with the affidavit. Still, the policy does include same- and opposite-sex partners as well as
their dependent children.
Same and opposite sex partnerships?
Children of domestic partner covered?
Employer requires signed affidavit?
Partners required to show proof of relationship?
Waiting period or required length of DP?
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
AFSCME
Local 57
Benefits offered: all health care benefits plans available to spouses and dependent children except for life insurance benefits
Benefits not offered: life insurance benefits
Summary: The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
UCSF Stanford Health Care agreement includes only same-sex partnerships
and requires that the relationship be in existence for six months prior to qualifying for benefits. However, children of the domestic partner are covered, and the
benefits are offered to domestic partners and their children are almost equal to
those offered to spouses and employee children.
Same and opposite sex partnerships?
Children of domestic partner covered?
Employer requires signed affidavit?
Partners required to show proof of relationship?
Waiting period or required length of DP?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
American
Association
of University
Professors
Benefits offered: annual subsidy of $2800 [“the difference between health insurance coverage for single employees and coverage for two parties (husband-wife)”
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 89
Benefits not offered: unknown
Summary: The AAUP has found a viable way of providing DP benefits without an insurance provider’s assistance; their policy provides $2,800 for DPs
to cover the cost of individual insurance. While not ideal, the policy is a fair
and reasonable one for smaller employers or employers who cannot get insurance which will cover DPs. Beyond this, while same- and opposite-sex
partners are included and no proof is required with the affidavit, partners’
children are not included, and there is a one year waiting period imposed
between registering DPs.
American
Psychological
Association
Same and opposite sex partnerships?
Children of domestic partner covered?
Employer requires signed affidavit?
Partners required to show proof of relationship?
Waiting period or required length of DP?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Benefits offered: medical benefits, dental coverage, dependent life insurance,
COBRA, outpatient mental health care, family and bereavement leave
Benefits not offered: unknown
Summary: The APA covers same- and opposite-sex partners and their children and does not require proof or relationship. However, employees must
wait one year between DPs. The APA is noteworthy for having revised it’s
outpatient mental health benefits policy; while a six month waiting period
was originally required before registered partners could participate in the
mental health program, the policy was revised and the waiting period abolished. This illustrates the ability of employers to review their policies and
eliminate discrimination or disparity where it exists.
EquityLeague
Same and opposite sex partnerships?
Children of domestic partner covered?
Employer requires signed affidavit?
Partners required to show proof of relationship?
Waiting period or required length of DP?
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Benefits offered: eligibility for self-pay health coverage on the same basis as
current dependent coverage
Benefits not offered: unknown
Summary: Under the Actor’s Equity-League policy, a partnership must be in
existence for six months in order to qualify for benefits registration. While
same- and opposite-sex partners are covered, the affidavit requires proof of relationship. Also, children of partners are not covered. If possible, partners
must also register with a municipality.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
90 A P P E N D I X
AFL-CIO
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 91
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
92 A P P E N D I X
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 93
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
94 A P P E N D I X
AFSCME Local 57
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
APPENDIX
95
American Association of University Professors
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
96 A P P E N D I X
American Psychological Association
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 97
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
98 A P P E N D I X
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 99
Equity-League
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
100 A P P E N D I X
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 101
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
102 A P P E N D I X
COLLEGE & UNIVERSITY BENEFITS
Academia and DP benefits have long been intertwined in the organizing
arena. From a legal standpoint, many DP gains have been made in classrooms
and on campuses. For instance, in the landmark 1995 case Tumeo v. University of Alaska, two employees of the university sued their employer to obtain
benefits for their respective same sex partners. Because “marital status discrimination may be proved by showing that a person was denied benefits
available only to employees who are of a different marital status,” the fact that
the plaintiff same sex couples could not obtain a marriage license in Alaska
was irrelevant. The court held “Discrimination against unmarried couples,
even when they are of the same-sex, constitutes discrimination based on marital status.” Same sex partners of University of Alaska employees were therefore entitled to benefits if their married counterparts receive them.*
Currently, about 100 colleges and universities now offer some version of these
DP benefits to their campus populations. As in other arenas, the momentum
for DP benefits on campuses is steadily growing.
PUBLIC SCHOOLS VS. PRIVATE SCHOOLS
Organizing
Issues
Colleges and universities are split into two categories: public and private.
While their educational endgoals are similar, public and private schools are
often organized quite differently. To some extent, those organizing for DP
benefits in public colleges or universities should focus on the Public Sector
Benefits section to strategize on working within the governmental structures
which often control decision making and funding issues at these institutions
(see page 40). Conversely, those organizing in private schools would be wise
to look to the “Private Sector Benefits” section (see page 49), as private educational institutions often operate under a corporate structure.
Public universities often have boards of directors or trustees which are appointed by the state governor or otherwise attached to the political arm of the
government. Private universities are linked to the government primarily
through the acceptance of federal or state funding as well as necessarily adhering to the tax and legal codes with which all businesses must comply, but
the extent to which the government actively controls private universities is
much more minimal. Beyond this delineation, both public and private
schools are beholden to market the image of the education which they can
provide, similar to a private corporation marketing its products. Additionally, both private and public schools desire to recruit and retain talented students, staff and faculty; and like companies in industries where job applicant
pools are drying up, colleges often compete for the attention of students and
teachers who consider a multitude of options for their academic futures. The
arguments outlined in the “Organizing for Domestic Partnership Benefits”
section of this manual relate to persuading employers, whether public universities or private colleges, that the adoption of DP benefits is both good for
their images and good for business (see page 17).
* From Daigle, Christopher (1997). White Paper in re: Domestic
Partnership Benefits. Tulane University.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 103
STUDENTS, FACULTY & STAFF: WORKING TOGETHER
FYI...
Intensive work in educating
union leaders and University
administrators was instrumental
to the success of this endeavor.
Over the course of six years,
many meetings, skillful
negotiations, campus activism,
and an arbitration hearing
ensued. In the end, the faculty
union, an NEA affiliate,
successfully negotiated the
domestic partner benefits and
the language was crafted as part
of the Associated Faculties of the
University of Maine contract.
Shortly afterwards, the University
extended DP benefits to all of its
employees, surprisingly with very
little negative response by the
public.
Maggie Fournier
University of Southern Maine
Sample
Policies
On college campuses, employees are not the only people involved in
lobbying for DP benefits. Students are often involved in the process as
well. Students have a vested interest in these benefits; they can take advantage of DP policies to enroll their partners in student health plans
or live with their partners in student housing. At colleges and universities, the domestic partners of students, faculty and staff can use the
campus library, enjoy recreational facilities, participate in special
events, or benefit from tuition or bookstore discounts. The intersection of faculty, staff and student interests relating to DP benefits provides a unique intergenerational opportunity for these groups to work
together outside of the classroom setting.
UNION INVOLVEMENT
It is important to note that university faculty and/or staff are often
unionized and that union groups can often be instrumental in obtaining DP benefits for the larger employee population.
For further information on union organizing and DP benefits, see the
“Organizing for Domestic Partnership Benefits” section on page 17.
Also, additional information on campus organizing can be found in
NGLTF’s “Campus Organizing Manual.” The manual is available
from NGLTF using the contact information provided on page 32 of
this “Appendix.”
This section examines DP benefits in the context of campuses, presenting sample policies from six universities and colleges around the US. They were collected by contacting universities and colleges of varying sizes and affiliations around
the country. When crafting your own campus DP policy, you may wish to consider aspects of these models as guidelines or at least familiarize yourself with
what schools comparable to yours have done.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
104 A P P E N D I X
Same and opposite sex partnerships?
Children of domestic partner covered?
Employer requires signed affidavit?
Partners required to show proof of relationship?
Waiting period or required length of DP?
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Carleton
College
Benefits offered: bereavement and sick leave, employee assistance program,
bookstore discounts, use of facilities, attendance at school events, life insurance and retirement benefits recipient designation, health insurance (through
cash equivalents)
Benefits not offered: COBRA, tuition benefits
Summary: Carleton College’s plan includes same- and opposite-sex couples,
does not require domestic partners to prove their financial interdependence,
and does not enforce a length of relationship requirement. However, the policy does not cover the children of domestic partners and does not include
COBRA or tuition benefits.
Same and opposite sex partnerships?
Children of domestic partner covered?
Employer requires signed affidavit?
Partners required to show proof of relationship?
Waiting period or required length of DP?
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Middlebury
College
Benefits offered: all benefits offered to employee spouses and children are offered to domestic partners and their dependents
Summary: Middlebury College has one enrollment form through which employees can designate spouses or domestic partners to receive benefits. While
their definition for DP is still more stringent than for marriage, domestic partners can avoid the length of relationship requirement by attesting to financial
interdependence. Proof of that interdependence is not required. Children of
the domestic partner are covered, yet there is a six month waiting period imposed between partnerships.
Same and opposite sex partnerships?
Children of domestic partner covered?
Employer requires signed affidavit?
Partners required to show proof of relationship?
Waiting period or required length of DP?
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Northwestern
University
Benefits offered: bereavement and sick leave, health benefits, dental benefits,
accidental death and dismemberment coverage, tuition benefits, flexible benefits reimbursement account for DP cost coverage, use of university facilities,
listing in spouse section of university directory
Benefits not offered: unknown
Summary: Northwestern’s policy includes the children of domestic partners
and a host of benefits are offered. However, the affidavit requires proof of relationship. Also, the policy covers same-sex partners only and requires a
twelve month waiting period between DPs. Lastly, the policy requires partners to affirm that they would legally marry if that option became available to
them, which many couples are opposed to doing.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 105
Smith
College
Same and opposite sex partnerships?
Children of domestic partner covered?
Employer requires signed affidavit?
Partners required to show proof of relationship?
Waiting period or required length of DP?
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Benefits offered: all benefits offered to spouses are available to domestic partners
Summary: Smith College does not require a special affidavit for DP registration, nor is any proof of relationship required. Also, the benefits offered are
extensive. However, only same-sex partners are recognized, and a DP must
exist for at least one year prior to benefits enrollment.
University of
Minnesota
Same and opposite sex partnerships?
Children of domestic partner covered?
Employer requires signed affidavit?
Partners required to show proof of relationship?
Waiting period or required length of DP?
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Benefits offered: bereavement and sick leave, health care insurance, event attendance, credit union membership, library access, use of facilities, child care,
tuition benefits, married student housing access
Benefits not offered: unknown
Summary: The University of Minnesota does not mandate a waiting period or
proof of relationship to obtain DP benefits, and the children domestic partners are covered. However, only same-sex partners are included in the policy.
University of
New Mexico
Same and opposite sex partnerships?
Children of domestic partner covered?
Employer requires signed affidavit?
Partners required to show proof of relationship?
Waiting period or required length of DP?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Benefits offered: bereavement and sick leave, health benefits, dental benefits,
accidental death and dismemberment coverage, tuition reimbursement
Benefits not offered: COBRA (due to state definitions/regulations)
Summary: The University of New Mexico’s policy includes same- and opposite-sex domestic partners as well as their children, and partners are offered a
wide range of benefits. However, the University of New Mexico policy requires a twelve month waiting period before benefits can be accrued. Additionally, partners must provide the University with a signed affidavit
including proof of financial interdependence.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
106 A P P E N D I X
Carleton College
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 107
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
108 A P P E N D I X
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 109
Middlebury College
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
110 A P P E N D I X
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 111
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
112 A P P E N D I X
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 113
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
114 A P P E N D I X
Northwestern University
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 115
Smith College
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
116 A P P E N D I X
University of Minnesota
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 117
University of New Mexico
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
118 A P P E N D I X
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 119
PRIVATE EMPLOYERS OFFERING
DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP BENEFITS
INCLUDING COMPANIES, NONPROFITS, AND UNIONS
As the number of domestic partner benefits programs skyrockets, this list changes. The following list of
private sector companies, nonprofits and unions with domestic partnership benefits policies is compiled
from lists provided by other organizations, original research and company contacts. For additions or updates, please contact NGLTF at [email protected] or via the information provided on page 32 of
this “Appendix.”
Those employers marked with an asterisk (*) offer only non-health benefits, such as bereavement leave, to
the domestic partners of eligible employees.
Employer, Headquarters Location - Date Implemented
Actor’s Equity Association, New York, NY
Actor’s Fund of America
Adamation Inc., Oakland, CA
Adobe Systems, Sunnyvale, CA
Advanced Micro Devices, CA/TX - July 1994
Advocate/Greenwich Times (Times Mirror) - 1998
Aetna Life Insurance Company, Hartford, CT - January 1,
1998
AFL-CIO, Washington, DC
AFSCME, Councils 57, 82 & 829, Local 146
Allen Communication (Times Mirror) - 1998
Allina Health Systems
Amalgamated Workers Union, Local 88
AMD
American Association of University Professors
American Automobile Association
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) - 1983
American Cyanamid*
American Express, New York, NY - August 1996
American Federation of Government Employees, Local
476/HUD
American Federation of Teachers Staff Union - 1995
American Federation of Television & Radio Artists
American Friends Service Committee, PA
American Institutes for Research, Washington, DC
American Lawyer Media
American Library Association
American Motors
American President Lines - January 1996
American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC - 1984
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association,
Washington, DC - August 1996
American States Insurance, Indianapolis, IN
Amherst H. Wilder Foundation
Amoco Corp., Chicago, IL
Amtrak
Anderson, Kill, Olick & Oshinsky, NY
Total: 570
Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA - 1993
Archdiocese of San Francisco, CA
Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, DC - 1995
Arizona Cable
Arizona Public Service
Ask/Ingress, San Mateo, CA
Association for the Help of Retarded Children
Atlantic Pictures, New York, NY - 1994
Atlantic Records, New York, NY - 1994
AT&T, Basking Ridge, NJ - May 1998
Autodesk, Inc., Sausalito, CA
Avon Products
B. Dalton (Barnes & Noble)
Babbages (Barnes & Noble)
Baltimore Sun (Times Mirror) - 1998
BankAmerica, San Francisco, CA - January 1, 1998
Bank of Hawaii, HI
Bank Boston, MA
Bankers Trust
Barnes & Noble Booksellers - September 1995
Banyan Systems, Westboro, MA
BARRA Inc., Berkeley, CA - 1995
Bay Area Quality Management District, San Francisco, CA
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), CA - 1993
Bay Area Typographical Union
Bay Networks
BBN Advanced Computers, Inc.
Beacon Journal, OH - June 1994
Bell Atlantic, NY - April 1998
Bell Canada
Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada
Ben and Jerry’s Homemade, Inc., Waterbury, VT - 1989
Berkeley Systems
Bergdorf Goodman - November 1998
Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, NY
Black & Veatch
Bloom, Hergott, Cook, Diemer & Klein
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
120 A P P E N D I X
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massacusetts, Boston, MA 1994
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Hampshire, NH
Blue Cross HealthNet
Bolt, Beranek & Newman, MA - 1996
Bon Marche, Seattle, WA
Bookstar (Barnes & Noble)
Bookstop (Barnes & Noble)
Borders Books, Ann Arbor, MI
Borland International, Scotts Valley, CA - 1992
Bose
Boston Consulting Group, MA
Boston Foundation, Boston, MA
Boston Globe, MA
Bostrom/Cybul Design
Boston Hotel Worker’s Union, MA
Bristol-Myers Squibb
Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon
Bureau of National Affairs, Washington, DC - May 1994
Business for Social Responsibility
Cadence, San Jose, CA
California Appellate Project, CA
California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, CA
California State Bar, CA - July 1995
Callaway Golf
Cambridge Technology Partners, Inc., MA - 1994
Canada Post, Canada
Canada Press, Canada
Canadian Broadcasting System, Canada
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 932, Ontario,
Canada
Capsoft (Times Mirror) - 1998
CareerPath (Times Mirror) - 1998
Catholic Charities
Catholic Charities
Celestial Seasonings, CO
Centigram, Silicon Valley, CA
Central Massachusetts Health Care, MA
Charles Schwab & Co.
Chevron Oil Company, San Francisco, CA - 1997
Children’s Hospital of Boston, MA - 1992
Chiron Corp., Emeryville, CA
Chubb Corp.
Cisco Systems
City of Hope National Medical Center
CMP Media Inc., Manhasset, NY
Columbia University Clerical Workers, New York, NY
Committee of Interns and Residents Staff, New York, NY
Communications Management, Inc.
Compaq Computer Corp.
Computer Association International
Computer Graphics, Inc.
Conde Nast Publications
Consumers Union, San Francisco, CA - 1995
Consumers United Insurance Company, Washington, DC
Contra Consta Newspapers, Oakland, CA
Cooley, Godword, Castro, Huddleson & Tatum Attorneys,
San Francisco, CA
Coors Brewing Company, Golden, CO - 1995
Coudert Brothers
Council 82 (prison guards), NY
Council on Foundations, Washington, DC
Counseling Service of Addison County, VT
Covington & Burlington, DC
Crate & Barrel, Chicago, IL
Cray Research*
Creative Artist Agency
Crum & Forster Insurance Co.
Culinary Workers Union, Local 226, Las Vegas, NV
CUNA Mutual Insurance Group, WI
CWA Local 1085*, Gloucester County, NJ
Dade Human Rights Foundation, FL
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA - 1995
David Sarnoff Research Center - 1995
Davis, Polk & Wardwell
Dayton Hudson
DC Nurses’ Association*, Washington, DC
DEC-Belgium
Debevoise & Plimpton, New York, NY - 1995
Democratic National Committee - July 1997
Dewey Ballantine, New York, NY - January 1996
Digital Credit Union, Maynard, MA
Digital Equipment Corporation - July 1997
Director’s Guild of America Industry Health Fund
Discovery Channel
Disney/ABC, Inc. - October 1994
Donna Karan
Dow Chemical*
Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, DC - 1995
DreamWorks SKG, Los Angeles, CA - January 1996
DuPont*, DE
E! Entertainment Television
Eastern Mountain Sports*, Petersborough, NH
Eastman Kodak, Rochester, NY - January 1997
Edison International
Eddie Bauer Inc., Redmond, WA
Egghead Software
Electronic Data Systems
Entertainment Radio Network
Entex
Episcopal Church of the United States
Episcopal Diocese of Newark*, NJ - 1992
Episcopal Diocese of California, CA
Estee Lauder Companies
Fannie Mae, Washington, DC
Farella, Braun & MArtel
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, NY
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, CA
Federal National Mortgage Association, Washington, DC
Field & Stream (Times Mirror) - 1998
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 121
Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner,
Washington, DC - 1995
First Bank System*
First Chicago Corporation*, Chicago, IL
First-Tech Computer
Focus Homes Incorporated
Ford Foundation, New York, NY
Forte Software
Fox Inc., Los Angeles, CA - April 1996
Frame Technology, Boston, MA
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research, Seattle, WA
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, New York, NY 1994
Gap, Inc., San Francisco, CA
Gardener’s Supply Co., Burlington, VT - 1991
Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), Boston,
MA
Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD),New
York, NY
Gay & Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA)
Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, Washington, DC
Genetech, San Francisco, CA
Geocities
George Meany Center
Getty Grant Program, CA
Gill Foundation, Denver, CO
Glaxo Wellcome - 1995
Golden Rule, Indianapolis, IN
Golf Magazine (Times Mirror) - 1998
Golston and Storrs, Boston, MA
Greenberg, Glusker, Fields, Claman & Machtinger, CA February 1996
Greenpeace International, DC - 1989
Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, WA - 1994
Group Health, Inc.
Gupta Corporation
Harcourt Brace - November 1998
Harley-Davidson*
Hartford Courant (Times Mirror) - 1998
Hartford Insurance Company
Harvard Community Health Plans
Hawaiin Electric Industries, Inc.
Health Systems DesignCorp., Oakland, CA
Health Partners, Bloomington, MN
Hearst Corp.
Hedges & Caldwell
Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe
Hewitt Associates
Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Palo Alto, CA - 1997
Hibernia
Hill & Knowlton
Hoechst-Celanese
Holland & Knight National Law Firm, Tampa, FL - 1995
Hollywood Online (Times Mirror) - 1998
Home Shopping Network, St. Petersburg, FL
Honeywell, Minneapolis, MN
Hope National Medical Center
Home Box Office (HBO), New York, NY - 1993
Horizons Foundation, CA
Hotel and Restaurants Employees Union, Local 2, San
Francisco, CA
Howard, Rice, Canady, Nemerovski, Robertson & Falk, San
Francisco, CA - 1993
Howrey & Simon, Washington, DC - 1995
Hubbard Farms
Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Washington, DC - 1987
IATSE Local 16
IBM, New York, NY - September 1996
ICM Mortgage Corporation
IDS Financial Services
Imation Corporation
Immunex, Madison, OH
Informix, Menlo Park, CA - 1995
Innosoft International, Inc.
Insurance Company of the West
Intel, Santa Clara, CA - January 1997
Interleaf Inc., Boston, MA - 1993
InterMedia Partners
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 18,
Los Angeles, CA
International Data Corporation
International Data Group (IDG), Framington, MA - 1993
Irell & Manella
ICIS Pharmaceutical Group
Itron Inc., Spokane, WA
ITT Hartford, CT - 1997
Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, ME
James Irvine Foundation for the People of California, CA
Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc. (Times Mirror) - 1998
Jerome Foundation, MN
Jet Propulsion Laboratory - 1995
Jewish Board of Family and Children’s Services, NY - 1994
Jewish Communities Centers Association
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, IL
John Hancock
Joyce Mertz-Gilmore Foundation, New York, NY
JP Morgan & Co., New York, NY - December 1, 1997
Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA
Kansas City Star, Kansas City, MO - 1995
Kaset International (Times Mirror) - 1998
Keynote Systems Inc.
King & Spalding
KQED/San Francisco, CA - 1994
Knight-Ridder - 1998
Kofax Image Products
Krum & Forster Commercial Insurance
Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund - 1988
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
122 A P P E N D I X
Latham & Watkins
Law School Admissions Council
Learning International (Times Mirror) - 1998
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, New York, NY
Legal Aid Society, New York, NY
Legal Services Corp.*, Des Moines, IA
Lesbian and Gay Law Association of Greater New York
(LeGal), NY - 1997
Levi Strauss & Co., San Francisco, CA - 1992
Lexington Herald-Leader, Lexington, KY
Liberation Publication Inc.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Group
Life USA Holding
Lighthouse for the Blind, Seattle, WA
Lilenthal & Fowler, San Francisco, CA - 1988
Lincoln National Corp., Fort Wayne, IN - 1997
Livingston Enterprises, Inc.
Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center, CA
Los Angeles Philharmonic, CA
Los Angeles Times (Times Mirror) - 1998
Lotus Development Corp., Cambridge, MA - 1991
LSI Logic, Milipitas, CA
Lucas Films, Los Angeles, CA
Lucent Technologies - 1998
Lundy Foundation, CO
Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME
Mark Hopkins Hotel, San Francisco, CA - 1994
Market News Service
Mark Shale Clothing
Mattel*
Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. (Times Mirror) - 1998
MCA/Universal, Inc., Hollywood, CA - 1992
McCutchen, Doyle, Bornw & Enersen
McGraw-Hill Companies, Hightston, NJ
McKinsey & Co. - 1997
Merrill Lynch, New York, NY - August 1998
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. (MGM), Hollywood, CA - 1996
Miami Herald/El Nueva Herald - 1998
Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, New York, NY - 1992
Millenium Global Inc., Clearwater, FL
Minnesota Communications Group, MN - 1992
Minnesota Public Radio, MN
Minnesota Star-Tribune Newspapers, MN
Mintz, Levin & Ferris, Boston, MA
Mitretez Systems, Inc.
Mobil Corp., Fairfax, VA
Monitor Co.
Mosaix, Redmond, WA
Monsanto Co., St. Louis, MO - 1997
Montefiore Medical Center, New York, NY - 1991
Montreal Bank, Canada
Morning Call (Times Mirror) - 1998
Morrison & Foerster - 1993
Motion Picture Industry Health Plan
Mosby-Year Book, Inc. (Times Mirror) - 1998
Mt. Sinai/NYU Hospital*, New York, NY
Museum of Modern Art, New York, NY
Musicians Union, Local 47
National Association of Socially Responsible Organizations
National Center for Lesbian Rights, San Francisco, CA
National Conference for Christians & Jews
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute
(NGLTF), Washington, DC - 1992
National Grocers Association
National Health and Human Service Employees Union,
1199, NY
National Organization for Women, Washington, DC
National Public Radio (NPR), Washington, DC - 1993
National Treasury Employees Union*
Nature Conservancy, Washington, DC
NCR Corporation
Netopia Inc., Alameda,CA
Nevada Bell
New England Medical Center
NewscorpInc.
Newsday (Times Mirror), 1998
New York Life & Annuity*, New York, NY
New York Times, New York, NY
New York United University Professions, NY
NEXT Computer, Redwood City, CA
Nieman Marcus - November 1998
Nike Inc., OR
Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, MN - January
1995
Northern Telecom, NC - 1994
Northwest Airlines*
Novartis Pharmeceutical Corp.
Novell Corporation, UT/CA - 1994
NW Ayer PR
NYNEX, NY - January 1996
Oakland Children’s Hospital, Oakland, CA
Octel America Inc.
O’Melveny & Myers
Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, several local unions
OneWave Inc.
Open Society Institute, New York, NY
Oracle Systems Corp., Redwood, CA
Organic Online, San Francisco, CA - November 1996
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, San Francisco, CA - 1993
Outdoor Life (Times Mirror) - 1998
Pacific Bell
Pacific Corp., UT
Pacific Enterprises, Los Angeles, CA
Pacific Gas & Electric National* - 1997
Pacific Mutual Life*
Pacific Stock Exchange
Pacific Sun Newspaper, Mill Valley, CA
Pacific Telesis Group - 1999
PacifiCare, CA
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 123
PacifiCorp
Paradigm
Para Transit, Inc., Sacramento, CA
Paramount Pictures, CA - January 1995
Park Nicolet Medical Center, MN - 1995
Patagonia
Pathmark Supermarkets
Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, New York, NY - 1995
Paul, Hastings, Jenofsky & Walker
Paul, Weiss & Rifkind, New York, NY - 1995
PeopleSoft Inc.
Petro Canada
Pew Charitable Trust, Philadelphia, PA
Philadelphia Newspapers Inc., PA
Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette*, PA
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, NY - 1990
Platinum Technology, Oakbrook Terrace, IL
Polaroid*, Cambridge, MA
Popular Science (Times Mirror) - 1998
Portland Cable Access
Pride Foundation, Seattle, WA
Principle Financial Group, Des Moines, IA
Principle Mutual Life Insurance
Professional Musicians Union, Local 47
Proskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn, NY - 1994
Public Broadcasting System (PBS)
Public Employees Federation (SEIU/AFT), NY
Publishers Group West
Qualcomm, San Diego, CA
Quark, Inc., Boulder, CO
Radius
Reader’s Digest Association
Recreational Equipment Inc.
Red Lobster
Reebok International
Regions Hospital, St. Paul, MN
Replacements, Ltd., Greensboro, NC - 1995
Research Triangle Park, NC
Retail Store Employees Union, Local 410R-8FCS*, CA
Reuters News Service
Rhone-Poulenc
Rhode Island Counseling Association
Riggs National Corporation*
Riordan & McKinzie Law Offices
RJR Nabisco Holdings*
Ropes & Gray
Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman
Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center,
Chicago, IL - 1998
Sacramento Para Transit, CA
Saddleback Memorial Center
Safeco, Seattle, WA
Salt Water Sportsman (Times Mirror) - 1998
San Francisco 49ers, CA
San Francisco Chronicle, CA
San Francisco Examiner, CA
San Francisco Giants, CA
San Jose Mercury-News, CA
Santa Cruz Operations, CA - 1992
Sarnoff
SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC - 1994
Schiff, Harden & Waite, Chicago, IL - 1993
Schulte Roth, New York, NY - 1995
Screen Actor’s Guild-Industry Health Fund
Scudder Kemper Investments, New York, NY
Seagram Company
Sears Inc., Canada
Seattle City Light Co., WA
Seattle Mental Health Institute, WA
Seattle Public Library, WA
Seattle Symphony Orchestra
Seattle Times, WA - 1994
Segal & Associates
The Segal Company, Boston, MA
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge,
Washington, DC - 1995
Shearman & Sterling, New York, NY - 1994
Shell Oil Co.
Showtime Entertainment, New York, NY
Sierra Club, San Francisco, CA - April 1995
Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA - 1992
Skadden, Arps, Slate, & Meagher,
New York, NY - January 1995
Ski Magazine (Times Mirror) - 1998
Skiing (Times Mirror) - 1998
Smith & Hawken
Smith, Kettlewell Eye Research
Snowboard Life (Times Mirror) - 1998
Software Etc. (Barnes & Noble)
Sony Music Co.*
Sony Pictures Entertainment, CA - October 1994
Southern California Edison
Southern California Gas Co., CA
Sporting News (Times Mirror) - 1998
Springs Industries
Sprint Telecommunications, Dallas, TX
St. Paul Companies, St. Paul, MN - January 1995
St. Petersburg Times, FL - May 1997
St. Vincent Hospital, Santa Fe, NM
Starbucks Coffee Company, Seattle, WA
Stein & Co., Chicago, IL
Steptoe & Johnson, Washington, DC - 1995
Strong Memorial Hospital, Rochester, NY
Sullivan & Cromwell, New York, NY - 1994
Sun Microsystems, Mountain View, CA
Sunquest Information Systems - 1998
SuperMac Technologies, Sunnyvale, CA
Swope Parkway Medical Center, Kansas City, KS
Sybase Inc, Bekeley, CA
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
124 A P P E N D I X
Tambrands
Tattered Cover Bookstore, CO
TDS/CS, WI
Teachers Insurance & Annuity Association
Teamsters Local 70, Oakland, CA
Tektronix*
Tele-Communications Inc., CO
Telemon Inc.
Teradyne Inc., Boston, MA
Territory Resource, WA
Thinking Machines Company, Cambridge, MA
Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA
Ticket Master
Tides Foundation, CA
Timberland, Myrtle Beach, SC
Time Inc.*, New York, NY
Time Warner* (corporate staff) - 1990
Times Mirror Training, Inc. (Times Mirror) - 1998
Today’s Homeowner (Times Mirror) - 1998
Toronto Dominion Bank, Canada
Tower Records and Video Stores (MTS Inc.)
Towers Perrin
Townsend & Townsend & Crew, San Francisco, CA January 1, 1996
Trans America*
Trans America Occidental Life*
Transworld SNOWboarding (Times Mirror) - 1998
Tropicana, FL
Union Bank of California, CA
Union of American Hebrew Congregations
Unitarian Universalist Association National Headquarters
Unitarian Universalist Funding Program, Boston, MA
United Church Board for Homeland Ministries (United
Church of Christ)
United Way of America
United University Professors
Universal Studios Inc., CA
University of Pennsylvania Health Systems
University Students Cooperative Association, Berkeley, CA
UNUM Corp., ME
The Urban Institute
USA Network
US BanCorp*
US West, Inc., Edgewood, CO - 1998
Utah Power & Light, UT
Wainwright Bank
Walker Art Center*, Minneapolis, MN
Walker, Richie, Quinn
Walt Disney Corporation, CA - January 1996
Warner Brothers Pictures, Burbank, CA - 1993
Washington Post, Washington, DC
Wells, Fargo & Company*, San Francisco, CA
WGBH Public Television, Boston, MA - 1993
White & Case, New York, NY - 1995
Whitman-Walker Clinic, Washington, DC
Whole Foods Market/Fresh Fields,
New York, NY - June 1996
Wilder Foundation, MN - January 1995
Wild Oats
Wiley, Rein & Fielding, Washington, DC - 1995
William Morris Agency - 1995
Woodward & Lothrop, Inc.*, VA
Worcester Telegram, MA
Working Assets Funding Service, San Francisco, CA
WPWR Channel 50 Foundation, Chicago, IL
WQED Radio, Pittsburgh, PA
Writers Guild of America West, CA
Writers Guild-Industry Health Fund, CA
Wyatt Company, Washington, DC
Xerox Corporation, Stamford, CT - 1995
Xerox Federal Credit Union
Ziff Communications, New York, NY
Ziff Davis Publications, New York, NY
Veritas Software Corp.
Vermont Girl Scouts Council, VT
Viacom International, CA/NY
Village Voice, New York, NY - 1982
Vinson & Elkins, Houston, TX - 1997
Visa International - January 1, 1998
Vision Services Plan
Visioneer
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, NY - 1994
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 125
COLLEGES & UNVIERSITIES OFFERING
DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP BENEFITS
As the number of domestic partner benefits programs skyrockets, this list changes. The following list of
colleges and universities with domestic partnership benefits policies is compiled from lists provided by
other organizations, original research and company contacts. For additions or updates, please contact
NGLTF at [email protected] or via the information provided on page 32 of this “Appendix.”
Those employers marked with an asterisk (*) offer only non-health benefits, such as bereavement leave, to
the domestic partners of eligible employees.
School, Location - Date Implemented
Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, NY
Antioch College, Yellow Springs, OH - 1995
American University, Washington, DC
Amherst College, Amherst, MA
Bowdoin College, ME
Bradford College, ME - July 1994
Brandeis University, MA
Brooklyn Law School, NY - 1995
Brown University, Providence, RI - May 1994
California Academy of Science, CA
California Institute of Technology, CA - 1995
California Western, CA
Carleton College, Northfield, MN - August 1994
Carnegie Mellon*, Pittsburgh, PA
Castleton State College, VT
Cazenovia College, NY
Central Michigan University, MI
Central State University, OH
City University of New York, New York, NY
Claremont College, CA
Clark University, Worcester, MA
Colby College, Waterville, ME - August 1993
College of Charleston, SC
Colorado College, Colorado Springs, CO
Columbia University, New York, NY
Concordia University, WI
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
De Anza Community College, Cupertino, CA
Denison University, Granville, OH
Dickinson College, Carlisle, PA
Duke University, NC - 1995
Eastern Connecticut State University, CT
Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI - March 1998
Emerson College, Boston, MA - March 1995
Emory University, Atlanta, GA - 1995
Florida International University, Miami, FL
Foothill College, Los Altos Hills, CA
General Theological Seminary*
Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA
Gettysburg College, PA
Total: 141
Greensboro College, NC
Grinnell College, IA - May 1994
Hamilton College, Clinton, NY - 1995
Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA - May 1993
Harvey-Mudd College, Claremont, CA
Hiram College, OH
Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY
Hunter College, New York, NY
Illinois State University*, Normal, IL - September 1998
Indiana University, PA
Iowa State University, IA
Ithaca College, NY
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD - October 1998
Julliard School of Music, New York, NY
Kenyon College*, OH
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA - April 1993
Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, VA
McKenna College, Claremont, CA
Michigan State University, MI - 1998
Middlebury College, VT - September 1993
Mission College, Santa Clara, CA
Moorehead State University, MN
Mount Holyoke College, Holyoke, MA
Muhlenberg College, Allentown, PA
New York Institute of Technology, NY
New York Law School, New York City, NY - 1995
New York University, New York City, NY
New York University Law School, New York City, NY
North Dakota University, Grand Forks, ND
Northeastern University, Boston, MA - 1994
Northern Michigan University, Marquette, MI
Northwestern University, Chicago, IL - 1995
Oberlin College, OH - April 1992
Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA - 1995
Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
Old Dominion University*, VA
Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, OR
Oregon State University, Corvalis, OR
Pine Manor College, MA
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
126 A P P E N D I X
Pitzer College, Claremont, CA
Pomona College, Claremont, CA
Princeton University, NJ
Reed College*, OR
Rider University, NJ
Rochester Institute of Technology, NY
Rockefeller University
Rush University, Chicago, IL - 1998
Sarah Lawrence College, Bronxville, NY - 1995
Scripps Research Institute, Claremont, CA
Simmons College, Boston, MA
Smith College, Northampton, MA
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, FL
Southwestern University School of Law,
Los Angeles, CA - June 1995
Springfield College, MA - 1995
Stanford University, CA - 1993
SUNY Canton, NY
SUNY Cortland, NY
SUNY New Paltz, NY
SUNY Purchase, NY
SUNY Stonybrook, NY
Swarthmore College, PA
Syracuse University, NY - 1995
Teachers College at Columbia University, NY
Thomas Jefferson University and Hospital, DC - January
1995
Trinity College, CT
Tufts University, Boston, MA
Union Theological Seminary, New York, NY
University of Alaska - 1997
University of California, CA - November 1997
University of Chicago, IL - 1993
University of Colorado, Boulder, CO
University of Denver, CO - October 1995
University of Illinois, IL
University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA - January 1993
University of Maine, ME - September 1996
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI - 1994
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN - October 1993
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM - October
1994
University of Oregon, Eugene, OR
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA - July 1994
University of Pittsburgh*, PA
University of Rochester, NY
University of Southern California, CA
University of Tampa, FL
University of Texas
University of Vermont, Burlington, VT
University of Washington* (non-health benefits only
except for DP access to student health plans),
Seattle, WA - May 1997
University of West Virginia*, Morgantown, WV
University of Wisconsin* (non-health benefits only except
for DP access to student health plans), Madison,
WI
Washington State University, Pullman, WA
Washington University, St. Louis, MO - July 1994
Wayne State University, Detroit, MI - Septmeber 1995
Wellesley College, MA - August 1994
Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT
West Chester University, PA
William and Mary College, Williamsburg, VA
Williams College, Williamstown, MA
Wright State University, Dayton, OH
Yale University, CT
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 127
STATES & MUNICIPALITIES OFFERING
DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP BENEFITS
As the number of domestic partner benefits programs skyrockets, this list changes. The following list of
government employers with domestic partnership benefits policies is compiled from lists provided by
other organizations, original research and company contacts. For additions or updates, please contact
NGLTF at [email protected] or via the information provided on page 32 of this “Appendix.”
Those employers marked with an asterisk (*) offer only non-health benefits, such as bereavement leave, to
the domestic partners of eligible employees.
Region - Date Implemented
STATES
Delaware* - January 1992
Hawaii - 1997
Massachusetts* - Executive order covers gubernatorial
appointees only
New York - January 1995 The Civil Service Employees
Association, representing most but not all New
York State public employees, reached an
agreement to include domestic partnership
benefits in its new contract.
Oregon - April 1998
Vermont - August 1994
CITIES
Alameda County, CA*
Albany, NY - 1994
Ann Arbor, MI - August 1992
Arlington County, VA - July 1, 1997
Atlanta, GA - August 1993
Baltimore, MD - January 1994
Berkeley, CA - December 4, 1984
Berkeley Unified School District, CA
Bloomington, IN - March 1997
Boston, MA -In 1993 non-health benefits were extended. In
1998, health benefits were granted by mayoral
executive order. Private citizens filed suit and the
court ruled against DP benefits. The case is
currently being appealed.
Boulder, CO
Brewster, MA
Brookline, MA* - 1993
Broward County, FL - January 26, 1999
Burlington, VT - January 1993
Cambridge, MA - September 1992
Carroboro, NC
Chapel Hill, NC - April 24, 1995 family and sick leave; May
1995 health benefits added
Chicago, IL - March 1997
Total: 87
Corvalis, OR - 1990
Dane County, WI*
Denver, CO - September 1996
Detroit, MI
District of Columbia - 1992 - Each year since the D.C.
Council passed the domestic partners law,
Congress has attached amendments to the city's
budget laws barring the city from using federal
and D.C. funds for its implementation.
East Lansing, MI - June 1993
Edmonds School District, WA
Eugene, OR - July 1, 1998
Gloucester County, NJ* (government provides benefits to
local union)
Hartford, CT
Iowa City, IA - August 1994
Ithaca, NY - August 1, 1990
Key West, FL - February 12, 1998
King County, WA - January 1993
Laguna Beach, CA - June 1990
Los Angeles, CA - March 1994
Los Angeles County, CA - December 19, 1995
Los Angeles Unified School District, CA
Lower Merton School District, Ardmore, PA - June 7, 1996
Madison, WI* - August 1988
Madison Metropolitain School District, WI
Marin County, CA - January 1997
Miami Beach, FL* - June 1998
Middlebury, VT - September 1995
Monroe County, FL - February 11, 1998
Multnomah County, OR - July 1, 1993
Nantucket, MA
New Orleans, LA - June 1997
New York, NY - January 1994; Expanded July 1998
Oak Park, IL - April 18, 1994
Oakland, CA - June 1996
Olympia, WA - November 1994
Palo Alto, CA - 1996
Petaluma, CA
Philadelphia, PA - Executive order June 7, 1996; Expanded
May 7, 1998
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
128 A P P E N D I X
Pima County, AZ - March 1998
Portland, ME
Portland, OR - June 1994
Provincetown, MA
Rochester, NY - April 1994
Sacramento, CA - October 1992
San Diego, CA - June 1994
San Francisco City and County, CA - July 1991
San Jose School District, CA*
San Mateo County, CA - August 1992
Santa Barbara, CA - 1998
Santa Cruz City and County, CA - May 1986
Santa Monica, CA
Seattle, WA - March 1990
Shorewood Hills Village, WI*
Springfield, MA - April 1997
St. Paul, MN
Takoma Park, MD - July 1, 1995
Travis County, TX* - October 1995
Tucson, AZ - April 28, 1997
Tumwater, WA - May 1996
Wayne County, MI
West Hollywood, CA - February 1985
West Palm Beach, FL* - February 1992
OTHER
United States Civil Service*
United States Department of Housing (HUD)*
United States Office of Personnel Management*
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 129
STATES & MUNICIPALITIES WITH
DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP REGISTRIES
As the number of domestic partner registries skyrockets, this list changes. The following list of government domestic partnership registries is compiled from lists provided by other organizations,
original re s ea rch and company contacts. For additions or updates, please contact NGLTF at [email protected] or via the information provided on page 32 of this “Appendix.”
Region - Date Implemented
STATES
Hawaii - 1997
Massachusetts - September 1992 - Governor's Executive
Order, for stateworkers, permits registration only
for the purposes of bereavement leave and
visitation rights in state prisons and hospitals.
New York - Governor's Executive Order, for state workers,
permits registration only for the purposes of
bereavement leave and visitation rights in state
prisons and hospitals.
CITIES
Albany, NY
Ann Arbor, MI - November 1991
Atlanta, GA - June 1993
Atlanta's right to establish a domestic partnership registry was upheld by the Georgia Supreme Court in
March, 1995. Atlanta et al. v. McKinney et al., 454 S.E.2d
517 (Ga. 1995).
Austin, TX
Berkeley, CA - October 1991
Boston, MA - December 1993
Boulder, CO
Brookline, MA - September 1993
Broward County, FL - January 26, 1999
Cambridge, MA - September 1992
Carrboro, NC - October 11, 1994
Chapel Hill, NC - April 24, 1995
Davis, CA
District of Columbia - April 1992
Each year since the D.C. Council passed the domestic
partners law, Congress has attached amendments to
the city's budget laws barring the city from using federal and D.C. funds for its implementation.
East Lansing, MI - March 1991
Hartford, CT - June 1993
Iowa City, IA - November 1994
Ithaca, NY - August 1990
Laguna Beach, CA - June 1990
Long Beach, CA - March 18, 1997
Los Angeles, CA
Madison, WI - August 1988
Total: 43
Marin County, CA
Nantucket, MA
New Orleans, LA - July 16, 1993
New York, NY - January 1993; Expanded July 1998
Oak Park, IL - October 1997
Oakland, CA - June 1996
Palo Alto, CA - December 1995
Philadelphia, PA - May 1998
Provincetown, MA - 1993
Rochester, NY - April 1994
Sacramento, CA - October 1992
San Francisco, CA - November 1990
Santa Barbara, CA
Seattle, WA - September 6, 1994
St. Louis, MO - March 1, 1997
Travis County, TX
West Hollywood, CA - February 1985
OTHER
U.S. House of Representatives - December 1995 Members of the House and their staff now have
the option of registering their same-sex
partners as "significant others" for the purposes
of House Rule 52, which prohibits them from
accepting gifts from anyone besides family and
personal friends. "Significant others" may be
same-sex or opposite-sex.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
130 A P P E N D I X
SAMPLE PROPOSAL FOR DOMESTIC
PA RT N E R S H I P BENEFITS
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 131
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
132 A P P E N D I X
SAMPLE EMPLOYEE
INFORMATION SHEET
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 133
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
134 A P P E N D I X
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 135
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
136 A P P E N D I X
KEY COURT CASES AFFECTING THE
RIGHTS OF DOMESTIC PA RT N E R S
Complied by Thomas F. Coleman
Executive Director, Spectrum Institute
The following is a summary of some of the leading appellate decisions affecting the rights of domestic partners. Some involve same-sex couples while the
litigants in others involved unmarried opposite-sex relationships. The list is
not intended to be comprehensive as it does not include, for example, decisions of state courts invalidating sodomy laws or state cases involving child
custody, visitation, or adoption.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)
Federal
Cases
States, such as Georgia, have authority to enact criminal laws prohibiting consenting adults from committing sodomy in private, and such laws do not violate the federal constitutional right of privacy.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL
Markman v. Colonial Mortgage Co. (D.C. Cir. 1979)
The federal fair lending act which includes marital status discrimination prohibits a lender from treating an unmarried couple differently than a married
couple for purposes of joint credit.
Rovira v. AT&T, 817 F.Supp. 1062 (S.D. N.Y. 1993)
A private employer's refusal to provide death benefits to the unmarried partner of an employee does not violate any federal law, and state nondiscrimination laws may not attempt to regulate benefits governed by federal ERISA law.
ALASKA SUPREME COURT
Swanner v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commission, 874 P.2d 274 (Alaska 1994)
A local housing law prohibiting marital status discrimination provides protection to unmarried couples, and the religious freedom clauses of state and federal constitutions do not give the right to a landlord to discriminate merely
because landlord believes that unmarried cohabitation is a sin.
State
Appellate
Cases
University of Alaska v. Tumeo, 933 P.2d 1147 (Alaska 1997)
The refusal of the university to provide health and other job benefits to domestic partners of its employees was illegal marital status discrimination in violation of the state's civil rights act.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 137
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson, 610 P.2d 436 (Cal. 1980)
A city ordinance restricting the number of unrelated adults who may live together in a residential area zoned for single families violated the right of privacy in the state constitution which protects the right of "alternate" families to
live together.
Marvin v. Marvin, 557 P.2d 106 (Cal. 1976)
It is not against public policy for courts to enforce cohabitation agreements
made by unmarried couples pertaining to the distribution of their property
when the relationship terminates, so long as sexual services are not the primary consideration for the agreement.
Elden v. Sheldon, 758 P.2d 582 (Cal. 1988)
An unmarried cohabitant who witnesses the death of her partner in an automobile accident may not sue the wrongdoer for emotional distress, although
she could do so if she and her partner had been legally married.
Smith v. Fair Employment and Housing Commission, 913 P.2d 909 (Cal. 1996)
A state housing statute prohibiting marital status discrimination provides
protection to unmarried couples, and neither the religious freedom clauses of
state and federal constitutions, nor the religious freedom restoration act, gives
the right to a landlord to discriminate merely because landlord believes that
unmarried cohabitation is a sin.
CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL
Hinman v. Department of Personnel Administration, 213 Cal.Rptr. 410 (1985)
The state's refusal to provide dental benefits to the family partner of a state
employee was not illegal discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or
marital status, nor did it violate the equal protection clause of the constitution.
Dept. of Industrial Rel. v. Worker's Comp. Bd., 156 Cal.Rptr. 183 (Cal. App. 1979)
An unmarried cohabitant who lived with and was partially dependent on an
employee may recover worker's compensation survivor benefits when the
employee dies from a work-related injury.
COLORADO COURT OF APPEAL
Ross v. Denver Dept. of Health, 883 P.2d 516 (Co. App. 1994)
The refusal of the city to provide sick leave benefits to an employee who
wanted to care for her same-sex domestic partner did not constitute sexual
orientation discrimination, nor did it violate the equal protection clause of
the constitution.
GEORGIA SUPREME COURT
City of Atlanta v. McKinney, 454 S.E.2d 517 (Ga. 1995)
The City of Atlanta had authority to create a local public registry for domestic partners.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
138 A P P E N D I X
Morgan v. City of Atlanta, __ S.E.2d __, 1997 WL 677314 (Ga. 1997)
The City of Atlanta had authority to provide health and other benefits to the
domestic partners of city employees, so long as the domestic partner is at least
partially dependent on the employee.
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT
Hewitt v. Hewitt, 394 N.E.2d 1204 (Ill. 1979)
Illinois courts will not enforce cohabitation agreements made by unmarried
couples because to do so would violate a state public policy promoting marriage.
LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT
Henderson v. Travelers Ins. Co., 354 So.2d 1031 (La. 1978)
An unmarried cohabitant who lived with and was partially dependent on an
employee may recover worker's compensation survivor benefits when the
employee dies from a work-related injury.
MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME COURT
Reep v. Commissioner, 593 N.E.2d 1297 (Mass. 1992)
An unmarried cohabitant is entitled to unemployment benefits when she
quits her job in order to move to another area with an unmarried partner
who was relocating his business.
MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT
State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2 (Minn. 1990)
Unmarried couples are not protected from housing discrimination even
though state law forbids "marital status" discrimination. Since another state
law criminalizes unmarried cohabitation, the legislature could not have intended to protect unmarried couples from discrimination while at the same
time criminalizing their cohabitation.
MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEAL
Lilly v. City of Minneapolis, 527 N.W.2d 107 (Minn. 1995)
The City of Minneapolis lacked authority to grant job benefits to the samesex domestic partners of city employees, since state law authorizing cities to
give job benefits defines "dependent" in a narrow manner which is limited to
children and legal spouses.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 139
NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT
Dunphy v. Gregor, 642 A.2d 372 (N.J. 1994)
A person who witnesses the death of his or her unmarried partner may sue
the wrongdoer for emotional distress so long as the couple was living together in a "familial relationship" even though they were not married to each
other.
NEW JERSEY SUPERIOR COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION
Rutgers Council of AAUP v. Rutgers University, 689 A.2d 828 (N.J. Super.A.D. 1997)
The university's refusal to extend job benefits to same-sex domestic partners
of its employees did not constitute illegal discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or marital status and was not unconstitutional.
NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS
Braschi v. Stahl Associates, 543 N.E.2d 49 (N.Y. 1989)
When the term "family" is used in a statute without definition, the term may
include persons who are living together as a family unit even though they are
not related by blood, marriage, or adoption.
Baer v. Town of Brookhaven, 537 N.E.2d 619 (N.Y. 1989)
A town ordinance prohibiting unrelated adults from living together in a residential area zoned for single-family use violated the due process clause of the
state constitution.
Morone v. Morone, 413 N.E.2d 1154 (N.Y. 1980)
New York courts will enforce cohabitation agreements made by unmarried
couples so long as the agreement is either in writing or is an explicit verbal
agreement between the parties.
NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION
Gay Teachers Assn. v. Board of Education, 585 N.Y.S.2d 1016 (N.Y. Supr. Ct. 1992)
Teachers' complaint stated a cause for discrimination due to the employer's
refusal to provide job benefits to the domestic partners of teachers.
OHIO COURT OF APPEALS
State v. Hadinger, 573 N.E. 2d 1191 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991)
The court rules that a domestic violence statute which applies to “persons living as a spouse” applies to two persons of the same sex who are co-habitating
or have co-habitated within the past year.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
140 A P P E N D I X
OREGON COURT OF APPEALS
Tanner v. Oregon Health Sciences University, __ P.2d __, 1998 WL 869976 (Or. Ct.
App. Dec. 9, 1998)
The court rules that extending important employment benefits like health coverage only to married state employees is unfair to workers who cannot legally
marry, and violates the Oregon Constitution’s “equal privileges and immunities” clause. The court also ruled that the state law which bars discrimination
on the basis of sex also prohibits sexual orientation discrimination.
VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT
Cord v. Gibb, 254 S.E.2d 71 (Va. 1979)
The state could not deny a lawyer a license to practice law merely because she
was living with a person of the opposite sex out of wedlock.
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT
County of Dane v. Norman, 497 N.W.2d 714 (Wisc. 1993)
A county ordinance which purported to protect unmarried couples from
housing discrimination was invalid because it conflicted with the public policy of the state to promote marriage.
WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEAL
Phillips v. Wisconsin Personnel Commission, 482 N.W.2d 121 (Wisc. App. 1992)
The state's denial of health insurance coverage to the domestic partner of a
state employee did not constitute illegal discrimination on the basis of sex,
sexual orientation, or marital status and was not unconstitutional.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 141
THANK YOU TO COMMENTATORS AND EDITORS
Andrew Sherman | Ilse de Veer | Tom Coleman
Paula Ettelbrick | Cynthia Goldstein
Rebecca Isaacs | Kerry Lobel | Betsy Gressler
SPECIAL THANKS TO
Hollywood Supports | Jason Riggs
COLLEAGUES & Sheryl Robertson
Ana de Give | Maggie Fournier | Grant Lukenbill
THANKS TO POLICY INSTITUTE FUNDERS
Gameworks
Gilmour Fund
Brook Glaefke
David Goodhand & Vincent Griski
Joyce Mertz Gilmore Foundation
Billie Jean King Foundation
Norman and Lyn Lear Foundation
Albert A. List Foundation
Amy Mandel & Katina Rodis
Mandel Family Foundation
NewPol Foundation
New York Community Trust
Open Society Institute
Tina Podlodowski
Paul Rapoport Foundation
Allen Schuh
Jeffrey Z. Slavin
H. van Ameringen Foundation
Ric Weiland
DESIGN BY
Sean Bumgarner
EDITED BY
Sarah Pettit | Urvashi Vaid
The Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
is a think tank dedicated to research, policy analysis, and strategic
projects to advance the greater understanding and equality of lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgendered people.
The Policy Institute of NGLTF
121 West 27th Street, Suite 501
New York, NY 10001
(212) 604-9830
NGLTF National Headquarters
1700 Kalorama Road, NW
Washington, DC 20009-2624
(202) 332-6483
http://www.ngltf.org
Copyright © 1999 Sally Kohn and the NGLTF Policy Institute.
This manual may not be reproduced in any format without written
permission from NGLTF.
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
A P P E N D I X 143
The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual
144 A P P E N D I X