A coalition of eleven major organizations for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people (LGBT) say they are alarmed at some Massachusetts employers' plans to eliminate their domestic partner benefits programs. The groups urged Massachusetts employers to maintain their domestic partner (DP) benefits programs even though same-sex marriage is now legal in the state.
The LGBT groups signed a joint statement arguing that just as domestic partnership is not a substitute for marriage, neither is marriage a substitute for domestic partnership. "The two options serve different purposes for different people in different situations," the statement says. "Marriage and domestic partnership can and will continue to exist side by side."
The city of Springfield, MA, Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, and Babson College are among the employers who have announced plans to stop offering DP benefits, and others have said they are considering doing the same.
The LGBT groups' statement outlines six reasons why the signers believe DP benefits should continue to exist even though same-sex couples have the right to marry in Massachusetts. One of these reminds employers that, "Domestic partner benefits were originally invented to recognize family diversity in the workplace, not as a temporary solution until same-sex marriage was legalized." The benefits were intended to provide equal pay for equal work for both married and unmarried employees, the groups argue, especially given the growing diversity of the workplace and the significance of an employee's benefits package in his/her overall compensation. Ninety-two percent of employers offering DP benefits make them available to both heterosexual and LGBT employees, they point out, with no provision that says, "If you can marry, you must marry."
In response to employers who argue that cutting their DP plan is a cost-saving measure, the group cites several studies that find the cost to offer DP benefits is "negligible" or "minimal," increasing health care costs an average of 0.5% to 3%. Many employers find their competitive advantage in employee recruitment and retention easily covers the benefits' cost, according to the statement.
The statement also makes several points about the logistics of eliminating DP benefits. It reminds employers that that employees who do not live in Massachusetts may not yet have the right to marry a same-sex partner or to have their marriage recognized in their own state. "Employers who eliminate their domestic partner policies risk cutting off partners and children who are still dependent on the benefits," the statement says, and warns of the time and costs involved in administering different benefits plans for employees in different states.
The signatories also warn that same-sex marriage is not yet guaranteed for the long-term, despite their hopes that LGBT couples will soon have equal marriage rights in every state. They point to the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment which would make same-sex marriage unconstitutional, and remind employers that if they withdraw DP benefits prematurely, they "could regret this decision if they later have to re-establish them if same-sex marriage became unavailable.quot;
The groups signing the joint statement include Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), which filed the lawsuit resulted in Massachusetts's groundbreaking decision to legalize same-sex marriage. The statement was also endorsed by the country's largest LGBT advocacy groups, including the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; by LGBT family groups, including the Family Pride Coalition, COLAGE (Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere), and PFLAG (Parents, Friends, and Families of Lesbians and Gays); and by LGBT legal groups Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. Other signers include the LGBT labor group Pride at Work, the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies (which published a major study on the costs of DP benefits), and the Alternatives to Marriage Project.
Joint Statement in Favor of Maintaining Domestic Partner Benefits June 2004
We, the undersigned, are organizations and individuals working for equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people and their loved ones. We share a concern that some Massachusetts employers are considering eliminating their domestic partner health benefits plans now that same-sex marriage is legal in that state. We urge employers to maintain their domestic partner benefits policies even after civil marriage is available to same-sex couples.
Domestic partnership is not a substitute for marriage. Likewise, marriage is not a substitute for domestic partnership. The two options serve different purposes for different people in different situations. We believe there are important reasons why domestic partner benefits policies should be maintained after LGBT same-sex couples have the right to marry. These include:
1) Domestic partner benefits were originally invented to recognize family diversity in the workplace, not as a temporary solution until same-sex marriage was legalized.
The first workplace to write a domestic partner benefits policy was The Village Voice newspaper, which made "marital" employment benefits available first to unmarried heterosexual employees in long-term relationships, and later expanded their policy to include gay and lesbian domestic partners.(1) Some employers argue that domestic partner benefits are no longer necessary once all employees are free to get married. In fact, though, these benefits were originally intended as a way to provide fair and equal treatment to the growing diversity of employees' families, both married and unmarried.
2) Most employers domestic partner benefits do not have a provision that says, "If you can marry, you must marry."
92% of employers who offer domestic partner benefits make them available to both same-sex and different-sex couples.(2) These employers have no reason to consider eliminating their policies, since they do not rely on marriage as the sole way to define employees' families (they allow heterosexual employees to receive benefits for an unmarried partner). Recent interviews suggest these employers with inclusive policies are far less likely to plan to withdraw their policies in light of same-sex marriage. We recommend that employers who are among the small minority offering domestic partner benefits only to same-sex partners consider expanding their policies to be inclusive, the approach which is becoming standard business practice, rather than eliminating domestic partner benefits entirely.
3) The cost to offer the benefits is low, and they bring potential savings in recruiting and retaining employees.
Numerous studies of domestic partner benefits plans have found that on average, these benefits increase health care costs only 0.5% to 3%. Researchers' conclusions tend to use phrases like "not a costly proposition for employers," and "companies consistently reported the financial impact of DP benefits as "negligible" or "minimal."(3) These costs are likely to decrease as many same-sex couples get married, leaving fewer domestic partners in need of benefits. Many employers find domestic partner benefits are a small price to pay for the competitive advantage they receive in employee recruitment and retention. One survey of 279 human resources professionals representing nineteen industries found that domestic partnership benefits were among the top three most effective incentives for recruiting new hires.(4)
4) Employers should provide equal pay for equal work.
Benefits make up a significant part of employee compensation. If two employees do the same job equally well, they should not receive benefits or be ineligible for benefits based on their marital status. There is no logical reason why civil marriage should be the dividing line between which employees' families are eligible for benefits, and which employees' families are not. If an employer recognizes the value of supporting employees' families, demonstrations of caregiving and emotional and financial interdependence (as outlined in the affidavits of domestic partnership used by many employers) are a more accurate way to define who is "family" than marriage licenses.
5) Some employees may live in states where same-sex marriage is not legal.
Currently, Massachusetts will only grant marriage licenses to couples who reside in the state or intend to. Even if this policy is changed, there remain many legal questions about whether a same-sex couple's marriage created in another state will be recognized in the couple's own state. Employers who eliminate their domestic partner policies risk cutting off partners and children who are still dependent on the benefits. Administering different benefits policies depending on what state employees live in is likely to be unnecessarily expensive and time-consuming for the employer.
6) Same-sex marriage is not yet guaranteed for the long-term.
We hope the day will not be far off when same-sex marriage is legal in every state in the country. However, there are many groups working to oppose same-sex marriage and to overturn the laws in any city or state that performs same-sex marriages. There has been a proposed amendment to the federal Constitution which would make it impossible for any state to perform or recognize same-sex marriages. Employers who eliminate their domestic partner policies now could regret this decision if they later have to re-establish them if same-sex marriage became unavailable.
Our community appreciates those employers who have policies that treat LGBT employees fairly and equally. We understand employers' desires to keep their policies up to date as state and national laws change regarding marriage and LGBT people. We hope employers will consider carefully the factors we discuss above when considering the future of their domestic partner benefits policies, and will understand that marriage and domestic partnership can and will continue to exist side by side, two parts of the landscape of family in America.
Signatories:
Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere (COLAGE) www.colage.org 415.861.KIDS
Family Pride Coalition www.familypride.org 202.331.5015
Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) www.glad.org 617.426.1350
Human Rights Campaign www.hrc.org 202.628.4160
Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies www.iglss.org 413.577.0145
Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund www.lambdalegal.org 212.809.8585
National Center for Lesbian Rights www.nclrights.org 415.392.6257
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force www.TheTaskForce.org 202.393.5177
Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) www.pflag.org 202.467.8180
Pride At Work, AFL-CIO www.prideatwork.org 202.637.5085
Alternatives to Marriage Project www.unmarried.org 518.462.5600
----------
Sources:
(1) Holcomb, Desma. "Domestic Partner Health Benefits: The Corporate Model vs. the Union Model." In Hunt, Gerald, ed. Laboring for Rights: Unions and Sexual Diversity Across Nations. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1999, p. 106.
(2) Human Rights Campaign Foundation. State of the Workplace for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Americans 2003. Washington, D.C., 2004, p. 23.
(3) Badgett, M. V. Lee. "Calculating Costs with Credibility: Health Care Benefits for Domestic Partners." Angles. Amherst, MA: Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, 2000. Hewitt Associates. "Update to 1994 Study of Domestic Partner Benefits." Lincolnshire, IL: 1997. Kohn, Sally. The Domestic Partner Organizing Manual for Employee Benefits. Washington, D.C.: The Policy Institute of the Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 1999. Domestic Partner Benefits: A Trend Toward Fairness. Washington: National Gay and Lesbian Journalists Association, 1997. How To Achieve Domestic Partner Benefits in Your Workplace. Washington, D.C.: Human Rights Campaign Worknet, 2002.
(4) Human Resources Management, Issues & Trends. Commerce Clearing House, 16 June 1999.
The Family Pride Coalition is the only national not-for-profit organization exclusively dedicated to securing equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender parents and their families.