Work Discrimination (Am I A Victim?)

[Travis]

My husband (registered domestic partner) has been trying to add me to his work insurance and we keep getting denied. It is currently open enrollment at his work and we have been given the same rigmarole- that he cannot add me a spouse.

Here's exactly what we are told:

Markel's policy is written in Virginia and is also a self-insured policy. This has been researched and there are a number of tax consequences, payroll changes and system changes that would need to be made before this type of benefit could be put in place. Therefore, at this time, domestic partner benefits are not covered under our policies.

Please let me know if you need anything further.

Thanks,
Janet


That would be fine and all if hetero couples weren't allowed to add their wives/husbands on to their coverage and if we were in the state of Virginia, but we're not. My husband works for Markel Insurance's California branch. I've researched California law and as far as my understanding goes, it's against the law to deny domestic partners coverage if the same rights are given to heterosexual spouses in the state of California.

Here is my husband's response to Miss Janet:

Janet,

I just want to understand why I cannot add my partner to my benefits. He and I have a registered domestic partnership with the State of California and I am a resident of the State of California. Under the CA Family Code, it states:

297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

Does this not apply to me and my partner, as residents of California, and as an employee in California, just because the policy is written in Virginia? I can provide a copy of the certificate of our registered domestic partnership from the State of California.

I’ve also attached a copy of AB 2208 that I believe supports my belief that I should be able to add my partner to my benefits.

I don’t mean to be a bother or a pest, I would just really like to understand this situation.


Here is something I dug up myself...

California Insurance Equality Act (AB 2208 – Kehoe): This law prohibits insurance companies and health plans from issuing policies or plans that discriminate against registered domestic partners. This means that all policies and plans that include coverage for spouses — including health, life, auto and homeowners insurance policies — must provide coverage on equal terms for registered domestic partners.

So, are we being discriminated against and do we have a legal leg to stand on if we choose to pursue some sort of legal action against the insurance company if they don't cooperate?

 

[Travis]

Also, here's the file my husband attached to his email to Janet (insurance provider). You don't really have to read it all to get the jist of it.

AB 2208 - New California Law Mandates Equal Insurance Coverage For Domestic Partners

Analysis Prepared on 11-5-2004 by Bill Robinson - IEAHU Legislative Chair - PalmCanyonIns@aol.com
This new law requires all individual and group health, dental, vision, disability, accident, and life insurance plans
[plus auto insurance, maybe still other types] to provide Domestic Partners with coverage that is exactly equal to
what spouse receive.

Under AB 2208, employer plan sponsors who provide insured benefits and offer such coverage’s to spouse of their
employees will only be able to purchase and offer coverage for spouses that also includes equal benefits for
Domestic Partners. This new law does NOT allow for any exceptions or exemptions for ANY employers who might
have religious or moral convictions for not wanting to comply with AB 2208. All employers must comply, unless
they are clearly governed by the federal ERISA law, which always overrides state insurance laws.

Domestic Partners are defined as those partners who meet the requirements of and who have filed a valid
Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the State of California’s Secretary of State’s office (fee required also).
The Declaration establishes that the partners are unmarried, share a common residence, share basic living
expenses, are not related by blood, are capable of consenting, and are both of the same gender- unless at least
one of them is eligible for Social Security benefits for the aged and is older than age 62.

This D/P Registry is public information on the Secretary of State’s website, as are copies of the Declaration of
Domestic Partnership forms. Individually created Domestic Partner Declarations by carriers and HMO plans will not
be acceptable anymore. However, Domestic Partners may also be eligible if they have an equivalent document
issued by a local (municipal) agency within California or by another state or municipal agency under which the
partnership was legally created.

Important Issue: While this new law does allow insurance and HMO plans to request a copy of the CA Declaration
of Domestic Partnership when an employee wants to enroll their eligible Domestic Partner.....this proof can only be
required IF the insurance plan or HMO ALSO requires proof of marriage (i.e.: Marriage Certificate) from every
employee wanting to enroll their spouse. Thus I do not expect insurance plans to request proof of Domestic
Partnership from anyone wanting to enroll their claimed Domestic Partner.

Plan sponsors need to be aware that the portion of premiums paid by the employer for all benefits coverage
provided to Domestic Partners (as they may be paying for spousal coverage’s).... is subject to federal income tax,
FICA and FUTA tax withholding (i.e.: the premium costs for such D/P benefits paid for by an employer are fully
taxable income to the employee of the D/P - since federal tax laws do not recognize the concept of Domestic
Partnership at all). However such benefits will be exempt from California state income taxes - if the Domestic
Partnership has been registered with the State of California, but not if it was registered with a local/municipal
agency. Nor can an EE’s premiums for their Domestic Partner’s benefits be paid for through a Section 125 plan of any type, again because of IRS tax rules that do not recognize Domestic Partnerships.

Domestic Partners are not eligible for federal COBRA benefits (though many self-insured larger employers
voluntarily provide such benefits). However, Domestic Partners are eligible for Cal-COBRA benefits when they
have worked for an employer with less than 20 full and part-time employees.

As for the additional 18 month extension of COBRA and Cal-COBRA benefits- I conclude that Domestic Partners
whose partners are employees of employers subject to federal COBRA will not be eligible for the extended 18
months of Cal-COBRA benefits (because they could not enroll first for COBRA benefits). But Domestic Partners
whose partners are employees of small employers subject to Cal- COBRA will be eligible for the extended 18
months of Cal-COBRA benefits.

Effective Date: 1-1-2005 for all INDIVIDUAL health, dental, vision, life, accident and disability insurance and HMO
policies issued, amended, delivered or renewed on or after this date

Effective Date: 1-2-2005 for all GROUP benefits insurance and HMO policies issued, amended, delivered or
renewed on or after this date. This date gives calendar-year plans with 12-month policies in place by 1-1-2005 an
extension until 1-1-2006 to comply.

Following are selected excerpts from the actual AB 2208 law itself:

1374.58. (a) A group health care service plan that provides hospital, medical, or surgical expense benefits shall
provide equal coverage to employers or guaranteed associations, as defined in Section 1357, for the registered
domestic partner of an employee or subscriber to the same extent, and subject to the same terms and conditions,
as provided to a spouse of the employee or subscriber, and shall inform employers and guaranteed associations of
this coverage. A plan may not offer or provide coverage for a registered domestic partner that is not equal to the
coverage provided to the spouse of an employee or subscriber.

(b) If an employer or guaranteed association has purchased coverage for spouses and registered domestic
partners pursuant to subdivision (a), a health care service plan that provides hospital, medical, or surgical expense
benefits for employees or subscribers and their spouses shall enroll, upon application by the employer or group
administrator, a registered domestic partner of an employee or subscriber in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the group contract that apply generally to all spouses under the plan, including coordination of
benefits.

(c) For purposes of this section, the term "domestic partner" shall have the same meaning as that term is used in
Section 297 of the Family Code.

(d) (1) A health care service plan may require that the employee or subscriber verify the status of the domestic
partnership by providing to the plan a copy of a valid Declaration of Domestic Partnership filed with the Secretary
of State pursuant to Section 298 of the Family Code or an equivalent document issued by a local agency of this
state, another state, or a local agency of another state under which the partnership was created. The plan may
also require that the employee or subscriber notify the plan upon the termination of the domestic partnership.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a health care service plan may require the information described in that
paragraph only if it also requests from the employee or subscriber whose spouse is provided coverage, verification
of marital status and notification of dissolution of the marriage.

Following are selected excerpts from the actual AB 2208 Legislative Bill Analysis:

This bill:

1.Requires group health care service plans and health insurance policies to provide equal coverage to the
registered domestic partner of an employee or subscriber with the same terms and conditions that are provided to
a spouse of an employee or subscriber if that plan or policy offers spousal benefits. Precludes plans and policies
from offering or providing coverage to a registered domestic partner that is not equal to that offered or provided to
the spouse of an employee or subscriber.

2.Allows health care service plans and health insurance policies to require verification of a registered domestic
partnership and its termination only if it also requests verification of marital status and notification of the dissolution
of the marriage.

3.Requires insurance policies to provide coverage for registered domestic partners that are equal to the coverage
provided to spouses and precludes a policy from offering to provide coverage for a registered domestic partner if
that coverage is not equal to that offered to a spouse.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author's office, this bill conforms provisions in the Health and Safety
and Insurance Codes made in AB 205 (Goldberg), Chapter 421, Statutes of 2003. It also brings those provisions in
line with requirements made in existing non-discrimination provisions that ensure that domestic partners receive
the same insurance coverage and spouses.

This bill is cosponsored by Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi, who states this bill simply conforms
insurance statutes with AB 205 and establishes a necessary and consistent standard of non-discrimination in
insurance. Equality California, the other cosponsor of this bill, suggests that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender (LGBT) Californians are not always covered under their partners’ policies in the same way spouses
are covered. As a result, LGBT Californians are being denied benefits, paying discriminatory higher premiums, or
being denied coverage. The California National Organization of Women agrees that this bill would clarify the law to
afford domestic partners equal insurance coverage.