In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 25 Aug 1993 15:45:15 GMT
Message-id: <"pFwnN2.0.KE8.sXBCn"@sul2>
Sender: Rare Books and Special Collections Forum <EXLIBRIS@RUTVM1.BITNET>
I have shared your query with all members in our E-Directory, and I hope that
someone will be able to help you. I am appending several recent posts I've
collected about benefits.
In a separate post I am sending you a form to be listed in our E-Directory,
where these matters are reported on an ongoing basis....
Good luck...
Now for the BENEFITS file from my subdirectory:
10-May-93 10:51:42-GMT,4105;000000000001
Received: from PISCES.RUTGERS.EDU by andromeda.rutgers.edu
(5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08)
id AA04887; Mon, 10 May 93 06:51:39 EDT
Received: from zodiac.rutgers.edu by zodiac.rutgers.edu (PMDF #12194) id
<01GY01Z0UVFG9VWLZ6@zodiac.rutgers.edu>; Mon, 10 May 1993 06:51 EDT
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 06:51 EDT
From: JANDERSON@zodiac.rutgers.edu
Subject: Benefits at Rutgers
To: gary.smith@mvs.udel.edu, lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu
Message-Id: <01GY01Z0UVFG9VWLZ6@zodiac.rutgers.edu>
X-Envelope-To: lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu
X-Vms-To: IN%"gary.smith@mvs.udel.edu" IN%"lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu"
X-Vms-Cc: JANDERSON
10 May 1993
To: Gary Smith -- Gary.Smith@mvs.udel.edu.
Fr: Jim Anderson, Rutgers
Re: Benefits
Dear Gary,
Good luck with your efforts at Delaware.
I believe Julien Murphy at the University of Southern Maine has
been compiling lists of universities and the benefits they extend
to lesbian and gay folks. At least, as I recall, it's someone in
Maine. Julien's email address is:
JMURPHY@MAINE.BITNET Julien Murphy
University of Southern Maine, CAS
Here's a memo I've prepared to describe where we are on benefits
here at Rutgers:
RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY
School of Communication, Information, and Library Studies
4 Huntington Street
New Brunswick, NJ 08903
908/932-7501, FAX 908/932-6916
Internet: janderson@zodiac.rutgers.edu
10 May 1993
From: Jim Anderson, Chairperson, President's Select Committee
for Lesbian and Gay Concerns (Rutgers)
Subject: Domestic Partnership Benefits
Rutgers has included "sexual orientation" and "marital status" in
its nondiscrimination policy since 1981. However, it was only in
1991 that it finally figured out that this meant that lesbian and
gay couples should get all the same benefits and services that
straight couples get. So now we have the commitment from the
central administration that all such benefits and services will
go to all "bona fide sole domestic partners" without regard to the
gender of the partners.
We are now in the process of actually implementing this
commitment in the myriad of offices and programs. The first to
fall in line was access to athletic facilities. The libraries
did it all by themselves.
The policy for graduate student family housing is almost in
place. I saw a draft of it last week.
Bereavement and other leave policies are in place.
Tuition remission has been promised (orally) but no one has
actually asked for it yet.
So our big remaining problem are family health benefits.
Unfortunately, we do not receive them from the university, but
from the state of New Jersey.
So last year (April 1992), six of us (faculty and staff members)
filled out the forms to get coverage for our spouses (lovers,
partners, whatever). These were forwarded by Rutgers to the NJ
Division of Pensions, which is the state agency which administers
state health benefits. They called Rutgers and asked, "what do
we do with these?" Rutgers reminded them that the governor
issued an executive order in August 1991 and that the legislature
passed a law (which was signed by the governor into law) in
January 1992 banning discrimination on the basis of sexual or
affectional orientation in employment (as well as public
accommodations, credit, housing, etc.). The executive order also
specifies no discrimination in the provision of state benefits
and services.
The Division of Pensions queried the NJ Attorney General, who
said that the new nondiscrimination law does not supersede
marriage and health benefits laws, so gays and lesbians can't get
family health benefits until the legislature changes those laws.
So now we are back at Rutgers, trying to get them to own up to
their promise, since 1981, that they won't discriminate. This
year I sent my own application directly to the president with a
personal plea to honor that commitment. No answer yet. Two
faculty members have filed a grievance through our faculty union.
The state ACLU is considering a suit on behalf of state workers.
So that's where we are.
18-Aug-93 8:50:52-GMT,8900;000000000201
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 21:23-EDT
From: Scott.Safier%ISL1.RI.CMU.EDU@RUTVM1.RUTGERS.EDU
Reply-To: Scott Safier <corwin+%cmu.edu@RUTVM1.RUTGERS.EDU>
To: domestic@tattoo.mti.sgi.com
Subject: new companies list
Message-Id: <745636996/scotts@ISL1.RI.CMU.EDU>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Will someone (Scott Safier, perhaps?) send me the most up-to-date
>list of companies and universities with same-sex DP benefits of
>various sorts?
Your wish is my command. If anyone has anything not on this list, let
me know. -S
Public Sector Plans
-------------------
Key: (A) Access to school records
(B) Bereavement and family leave policies
(C) County plan
(c) City plan
(D) Dental Insurance Only
(M) Medical Benefits
(P) Parenting leave
(p) Pension benefits
(R) Registration of partnership
(r) use of recreational areas
(S) Sick Leave
(s) State Plan
(T) Tax benefits for companies in the city which recognize DPs
(V) visitation in prisons, hospitals, etc.
(=) no benefits available to spouses are excluded
(-) some benefits available to spouses are excluded
(?) specifics of plan unknown
[n] number of employees
{s} source of information
Alameda, CA (c) (B) (S)
Ann Arbor, MI (c) (B) (S)
Bay Area Rapid Transit [2,600] (B) (M)
Berkeley, CA [1,550] (c) (R) (B) (P) (S) (M)
Burlington, VT (c) (?)
Cambridge, MA (c) (A) (B) (M) (P) (R*) (=)
(* for those who qualify for the benefits)
Chicago, IL (c) (B)
East Lansing, MI (c) (B) (S) (M)
Ithaca, NY (c) (R)
Laguna Beach, CA [560] (c) (R)
Los Angeles, CA [46,000] (c) (B) (S)
Madison, WI (c) (R) (B) (S)
Marin County, CA (C) (?)
Massachusetts [23,800] (s) (B) (V)
Minneapolis, MN [6,000] (c) (R) (B) (S) (M?)
New York, NY [417,000] (c) (B) (P) (R)
Ontario Canada (M) (p)
Ottawa, Canada (?)
San Francisco, CA [23,000] (c) (R) (M)
San Mateo County, CA (C) (S) (D)
Santa Cruz, CA [650] (c) (B) (S) (M)
Seattle Metro [4,000] (C) (B) (S) (M) (=)
Seattle, WA [11,000] (c) (B) (S) (M)
Shorewood Hills, WI (c) (r)
Takoma Park, MD (c) (B) (S)
Toronto, Ontario (?)
Travis County, TX (C) (B) (S)
Washington County, PA (C) (R)
Washington, DC [48,000] (c) (M)
West Hollywood, CA [125] (c) (R) (B) (S) (M)
West Palm Beach, FL (c) (B)
Yukon Territory (?)
A 1991 ruling by a British Columbia court extended Canada's National
Health Insurance to same-sex partners. A 1992 court order granted
medical and pension benefits to employees of the Ontario government.
The Washington, DC plan is held up in Congress.
Private Sector Plans
--------------------
These plans include medical benefits unless otherwise noted.
Key: (A) Adoption benefits
(B) Bereavement and family leave policies
(b) Child care
(C) COBRA benefits
(D) Dental Insurance
(L) Dependent Life Insurance
(M) Medical Benefits
(P) Parenting leave
(r) use of health and fitness programs
(R) relocation policy
(S) Sick Leave
(U) Policy derived from collective bargaining
(v) Vision medical insurance included
(O) benefits offered to same-sex and opposite-sex couples
(=) no benefits available to spouses are excluded
(-) some benefits available to spouses are excluded
(?) specifics of plan unknown
[n] number of employees
{s} source of information
AMTRAK (?)
ASK Software Corp (Ingres, Data 3) [2,058] (M) (O)
Adamation Inc, Oakland CA [10] (O)
American Automobile Association [3,200] (?)
American Civil Liberties Union, San Francisco Office (?)
American Friends Service Committee [350] (?)
American Psychological Association [1,500] (?)
Apple Computer Corp [13,400] (M) (A) (B) (b) (D) (O) (P) (R) (r)
(S) (v) (=)
Ben & Jerry's [300] (?) (=)
Beth Israel Medical Center, New York (?)
Borland [986] (D) (M)
Boston's Childrens Hospital (D) (L) (M) (=)
Canadian Press/Broadcast News [440] (B) (D) (M) (U)
Columbia University clerical workers, NYC (B) (U)
Committee of Interns and Residents Staff Union, NYC (U)
Consumers United Insurance Company [15] (?)
DEC-Belgium (D) (M) (O) (-)
Episcopal Church of Newark (M) {domestic@tattoo Steven Green
Princeton}
Frame Technology [303] (D) (M) (O)
Greenpeace (?)
Human Rights Campaign Fund (?)
IDG [530] (M)
Interleaf [800] (D) (M) (=)
Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund (?)
Levi Strauss and Company [31,000] (B) (U) (L) (M) (=)
Lotus Development Corporation [3,500] (B) (M) (R) (=)
MCA [18,000] (M) (C)
Microsoft [9,000] (M) (R) (S) {domestic@tattoo Seattle
Times}
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy (M)
Minnesota Public Radio [218] (?)
Montefiore Medical Center, New York City (?)
Mt. Sinai Hospital Nurses, New York City (B) (U)
Museum of Modern Art, New York City (B) (U)
NYNEX workers (NY/NJ telephone company) [93,800] (U)
National Organization for Women (?)
Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers (several locals in NY and elsewhere) (U)
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (law firm) [761] (M)
Quark, Inc. [375] (M)
Santa Cruz Operation [1,300] (O)
Seattle Mental Health Institute (?)
San Francisco Giants (M)
Silicon Graphics Inc [2,099] (A) (B) (D) (M) (R) (r) (=)
Sun Microsystems [11,000] (7/93) (B) (D) (M) (O)
Sybase [1600] (B) (D) (M) (O) (P) (R)
Viacom [5,000] (M) (C?)
Unitarian Universalist Association (?)
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (?)
Village Voice newspaper [223] (?)
Warner Bros. (H)
WGBH [800] (M)
Woodward and Lothrop Department Stores [16,000] (?)
Colleges and Universities
-------------------------
The plans listed here DO NOT include medical benefits, unless otherwise noted.
Key: (B) Bereavement and Sick Leave Only
(F) Faculty/staff only
(H) Student housing only
(I) informal policy -- not in writing
(ID) issues university identification
(P) pension plan
(M) offers medical benefits
(T) tuition waiver
(O) benefits offered to same-sex and opposite-sex couples
(S) students only
(=) no benefits available to spouses are excluded
(-) some benefits available to spouses are excluded
(?) specifics of plan unknown
[m/n] number of faculty/students
Albert Einstein College of Medicine (?)
Bowdoin College (H) (S) (P)
Brown University (S) (P)
Carnegie Mellon University [616/5000] (ID) (B) (O) (-)
Colby College (ID) (T)
Columbia University (R) (H) (ID) (P)
Dartmouth College (H) [proposed only 8/10/93]
Georgia State University (S) (P)
Grinnell College (H)
Harvard Law School (H)
MIT (M)
Moorehead State University (P)
New York University Law School (H) (S) (P)
North Dakota University (H) (S)
Northeastern (H) [effective 1/94]
Oberlin College (ID) (T)
Occidental College (ID) (T)
Ohio State University [3097/51,000] (B) (P)
Pitzer College [80/750] (F) (M)
Princeton University [671/6200] (ID) (H)
Rutgers University [1964/48,000] (ID) (?)
SUNY at Purchase (H)
Stanford University [650/6500] (S) (ID) (M) (D)
Swarthmore College (ID) (T)
Swathmore College [135/1320] (M) (?)
Union Theological Seminary (H) (S) (P)
University of California-Irvine (ID)
University of California-Santa Cruz (ID)
University of Chicago [120/9000] (ID) (F) (H) (M) (T)
University of Colorado (ID)
University of Iowa [1600/28,000] (M)
University of Michigan (ID) (S) (P)
University of Pittsburgh (ID) (B) (O) (T) (-)
University of Texas (R) (ID)
University of Vermont (M)
University of Wisconsin (H)
Wesleyan University (ID) (T) (H)
Yale University [2239/9800] (ID) (I)
19-Aug-93 19:27:35-GMT,10433;000000000201
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 14:53-EDT
From: Scott.Safier%ISL1.RI.CMU.EDU@RUTVM1.RUTGERS.EDU
Reply-To: Scott Safier <corwin+%cmu.edu@RUTVM1.RUTGERS.EDU>
To: domestic@tattoo.mti.sgi.com
Subject: newest companies list
Message-Id: <745786397/scotts@ISL1.RI.CMU.EDU>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
As always, special thanks to Evelyn Leeper who keeps a duplicate of the
list and supplies all the employee numbers!
---
Note: Every institution listed below requires some form of registration for
domestic partners before benefits are granted. If this is not true, please
tell me. The (R) in the public sector plans means that there is some
form of registration granted to non-employees. (For example, Cambridge
lets city residents who are not employees register in order to get access
to school records of the partner's children.) Note that in many cases when
the plan is identical to that provided to spouses, not all aspects may be
listed. For example, if company X announces equality of benefits, the
press release may not say specifically "medical, dental, life insurance,
relocation, and adoption benefits" or may not say that the company does
not have a legal plan for any employees. IMHO, a "(=)" means the rest
of the notations are interesting but not really important (except for
"(O)").
Public Sector Plans
-------------------
Key: (A) Access to school records
(B) Bereavement and family leave policies
(C) County plan
(c) City plan
(D) Dental Insurance Only
(M) Medical Benefits
(P) Parenting leave
(p) Pension benefits
(R) Registration of partnership
(r) use of recreational areas
(S) Sick Leave
(s) State Plan
(T) Tax benefits for companies in the city which recognize DPs
(V) visitation in prisons, hospitals, etc.
(=) no benefits available to spouses are excluded
(-) some benefits available to spouses are excluded
(?) specifics of plan unknown
[n] number of employees
{s} source of information
Alameda, CA (c) (B) (S)
Ann Arbor, MI (c) (B) (S)
Atlanta, GA (c) (R) {soc.motss,
danny.ingram@business.gatech.ed}
Bay Area Rapid Transit [2,600] (B) (M)
Berkeley, CA [1,550] (c) (R) (B) (P) (S) (M)
Boston, MA (B)
Burlington, VT (c) (?)
Cambridge, MA (c) (A) (B) (M) (P) (R*) (=)
(* for those who qualify for the benefits)
Chicago, IL (c) (B)
East Lansing, MI (c) (B) (S) (M)
Ithaca, NY (c) (R)
Laguna Beach, CA [560] (c) (R)
Los Angeles, CA [46,000] (c) (B) (S)
Madison, WI (c) (R) (B) (S)
Marin County, CA (C) (?)
Massachusetts [23,800] (s) (B) (V)
Minneapolis, MN [6,000] (c) (R) (B) (S) (M?)
New Oreans, LA (c) (H) (R)
New York, NY [417,000] (c) (B) (P) (R)
Ontario Canada (M) (p)
Ottawa, Canada (?)
San Francisco, CA [23,000] (c) (R) (M)
San Mateo County, CA (C) (S) (D)
Santa Cruz, CA [650] (c) (B) (S) (M)
Seattle Metro [4,000] (C) (B) (S) (M) (=)
Seattle, WA [11,000] (c) (B) (S) (M)
Shorewood Hills, WI (c) (r)
Takoma Park, MD (c) (B) (S)
Toronto, Ontario (?)
Travis County, TX (C) (B) (S)
Washington County, PA (C) (R)
Washington, DC [48,000] (c) (M)
West Hollywood, CA [125] (c) (R) (B) (S) (M)
West Palm Beach, FL (c) (B)
Yukon Territory (?)
A 1991 ruling by a British Columbia court extended Canada's National
Health Insurance to same-sex partners. A 1992 court order granted
medical and pension benefits to employees of the Ontario government.
Private Sector Plans
--------------------
These plans include medical benefits unless otherwise noted.
Key: (A) Adoption benefits
(B) Bereavement and family leave policies
(b) Child care
(C) COBRA benefits
(D) Dental Insurance
(L) Dependent Life Insurance
(M) Medical Benefits
(P) Parenting leave
(r) use of health and fitness programs
(R) relocation policy
(S) Sick Leave
(U) Policy derived from collective bargaining
(v) Vision medical insurance included
(O) benefits offered to same-sex and opposite-sex couples
(=) no benefits available to spouses are excluded
(-) some benefits available to spouses are excluded
(?) specifics of plan unknown
[n] number of employees
{s} source of information
AMTRAK (?)
ASK Software Corp (Ingres, Data 3) [2,058] (M) (O)
Adamation Inc, Oakland CA [10] (O)
American Automobile Association [3,200] (?)
American Civil Liberties Union, San Francisco Office (?)
American Friends Service Committee [350] (?)
American Psychological Association [1,500] (?)
Apple Computer Corp [11,500] (M) (A) (B) (b) (D) (L) (O) (P) (R)
(r) (S) (v) (-) {"Daniel Sonnenfeld" <daniel_sonnenfeld@quickmail.apple.com>}
Ben & Jerry's [300] (?) (=)
Beth Israel Medical Center, New York (?)
Borland [986] (D) (M)
Boston's Childrens Hospital (D) (L) (M) (=)
Boston Hotel Workers Union (?)
Boston Globe [3445] (M) (B)
Cadance (D) (M) (v) {tal@warren.mentorg.com}
Canadian Press/Broadcast News [440] (B) (D) (M) (U)
Columbia University clerical workers, NYC (B) (U)
Committee of Interns and Residents Staff Union, NYC (U)
Consumers United Insurance Company [15] (?)
DEC-Belgium (D) (M) (O) (-)
Episcopal Church of Newark (M) {domestic@tattoo Steven Green
Princeton}
Frame Technology [303] (D) (M) (O)
Greenpeace (?)
HBO [1600] (M) (?)
Human Rights Campaign Fund (?)
IDG [530] (M)
Interleaf [800] (D) (M) (=)
Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund (?)
Levi Strauss and Company [31,000] (B) (U) (L) (M) (=)
Lotus Development Corporation [3,500] (B) (M) (R) (=)
MCA [18,000] (M) (C)
Microsoft [12,000] (M) (R) (S) {domestic@tattoo
Seattle Times}
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy (M)
Minnesota Public Radio [218] (?)
Montefiore Medical Center, New York City (?)
Mt. Sinai Hospital Nurses, New York City (B) (U)
Museum of Modern Art, New York City (B) (U)
NYNEX workers (NY/NJ telephone company) [93,800] (U)
National Organization for Women (?)
Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers (several locals in NY and elsewhere) (U)
Oracle (C) (D) (M) (v)
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (law firm) [761] (M)
Planned Parenthood (D) (M) (?) {tteeter@attmail.com}
Quark, Inc. [375] (M)
Santa Cruz Operation [1,300] (O)
Seattle Mental Health Institute (?)
San Francisco Giants (M)
Silicon Graphics Inc [2,099] (A) (B) (D) (M) (R) (r) (=)
Sun Microsystems [11,000] (7/93) (B) (D) (M) (O)
Sybase [2100] (B) (D) (M) (O) (P) (R)
Thinking Machines [500] (M) (B) (D) (v) (R)
Viacom [5,000] (M) (C?)
Unitarian Universalist Association (?)
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (?)
Village Voice newspaper [223] (?)
Warner Bros. (M) {UPI on Clarinet}
WGBH [800] (M)
Woodward and Lothrop Department Stores [16,000] (?)
Colleges and Universities
-------------------------
The plans listed here DO NOT include medical benefits, unless otherwise noted.
Key: (B) Bereavement and Sick Leave Only
(F) Faculty/staff only
(H) Student housing only
(I) informal policy -- not in writing
(ID) issues university identification
(P) pension plan
(M) offers medical benefits
(T) tuition waiver
(O) benefits offered to same-sex and opposite-sex couples
(S) students only
(=) no benefits available to spouses are excluded
(-) some benefits available to spouses are excluded
(?) specifics of plan unknown
[m/n] number of faculty/students
Albert Einstein College of Medicine (?)
Bowdoin College (H) (S) (P)
Brown University (S) (P)
Carnegie Mellon University [616/5000] (ID) (B) (O) (-)
Clark University (B) (D) (M) (T) {domestic@tattoo Boston
Globe}
Colby College, ME [140/1880] (ID) (T)
Columbia University (R) (H) (ID) (P)
Dartmouth College (H) [proposed only 8/10/93]
DeAnza Community College (H)
Georgia State University [746/24247] (S) (P)
Grinnell College, IA [131/1291] (H)
Harvard Law School (H)
MIT [1000/9564] (F) (M)
Moorehead State University (P)
New York University Law School (H) (S) (P)
North Dakota University [532/9711] (H) (S)
Northeastern (H) [effective 1/94]
Oberlin College, OH [185/1783] (ID) (T)
Occidental College, CA [125/1680] (ID) (T)
Ohio State University [3097/51,000] (B) (P)
Pitzer College [80/750] (F) (M)
Princeton University [671/6200] (ID) (H)
Rutgers University [1964/48,000] (ID) (?)
SUNY at Purchase, NY [129/2999] (H)
Stanford University [650/6500] (S) (ID) (M) (D)
Swarthmore College [135/1320] (ID) (T)
Swathmore College [135/1320] (M) (?)
Union Theological Seminary (H) (S) (P)
Univ. of CA at Irvine [957/15,776] (ID)
Univ. of CA at Santa Cruz [405/2036] (ID)
Univ. of Chicago, IL [120/9000] (ID) (F) (H) (M) (T)
Univ. of Colorado [4500/41,689] (ID)
Univ. of Iowa [1600/28,000] (M)
Univ. of Michigan [3035/42,673] (ID) (S) (P)
Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA [3447/34,336] (ID) (B) (T) (-)
Univ. of Texas [9967/145,655] (ID)
University of Vermont (M)
University of Wisconsin [7200/162,330](H)
Wesleyan University [284/1833] (ID) (T) (H)
Yale University [2239/9800] (ID) (I)
21-Aug-93 13:46:18-GMT,25700;000000000201
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 22:58:36 EDT
From: "Steven Greene" <greene%choice.Princeton.EDU@RUTVM1.RUTGERS.EDU>
Message-Id: <9308210258.AA00311@choice.princeton.edu>
To: domestic@tattoo.mti.sgi.com
Subject: Vermont Labor Relations Board decision
Cc: ~v@choice.Princeton.EDU
VERMONT LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDERS DOMESTIC PARTNERS MEDICAL BENEFITS AT
UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT!
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Below is the text of the Vermont Labor Relations Board's decision
ordering the University of Vermont to offer medical benefits to
same-sex domestic partners. All underlining has been removed.
All section symbols have been replaced with dollar signs.
Scanned by AppleScan. OCR by OCRServant.
VERMONT LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
GRIEVANCE OF: )
) DOCKET NO. 92-32
B.M., S.S., C.M. AND J.R. )
FINDINGS OF FACT, OPINION AND ORDER
Statement Of Case
On July 9, 1992, Attorney Beth Danon filed a grievance on
behalf of University of Vermont ("Employer") employees B.M.,
B.B., S.S., C.M. and J.R. ("Grievants"). Therein, Grievants
claimed that the Employer had discriminated against Grievants,
who are gay and lesbian faculty, on the basis of their sexual
orientation by refusing to extend medical benefits to Grievants'
domestic partners, but extending those benefits to the spouses of
their colleagues who are legally married. Grievants contended
that, by depriving them of the same benefits provided to
employees who are legally married, the Employer: 1) was violating
its non-discrimination policies, rules and regulations which
apply to compensation and benefits, and which provide that the
Employer does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation
in access to, treatment or employment in its programs or
activities; and 2) was engaging in an unlawful employment
practice proscribed by the Fair Employment Practices Act, 21 VSA
$495 et seq. ("FEPA"), which prohibits employment
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The Employer filed a motion to dismiss claims made by
Grievant premised upon alleged violations of FEPA. By Memorandum
and Order issued December 10, 1992, the Labor Relations Board
granted the Employer's motion to dismiss claims made by Grievant
premised upon alleged violations of FEPA. 15 VLRB 503 (1992).
On December 3, 1992, Grievants filed a motion to amend their
grievance to allege that the Employer is engaging in an unfair
labor practice under the State Employees Labor Relations Act
("SELRA"), 3 VSA $901 et seq., in violation of $961(6) of SELRA,
which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation. The Employer did not object to the motion with the
understanding that Grievants are not seeking relief retroactive
prior to the effective date of the revision of 3 VSA $961(6) to
include reference to discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Given that Grievants had not requested such retroactive relief,
the understanding of the Employer was consistent with the amended
grievance as filed. Pursuant to the Employer's lack of objection
to the Motion to Amend, the Labor Relations Board granted the
motion.
Also, Grievants and the Employers agreed to a proposed
order, for the Board's approval, providing that Grievants may
keep their identities confidential in filing this grievance. The
Board signed this order on March 1, 1993.
On February 18, 1993, the parties filed a partial
stipulation of facts. On February 25, 1993, the Employer filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment. The Board reserved judgment on this
motion. On March 1, 1993, an evidentiary hearing and oral
argument was held before Board Members Charles McHugh, Chairman;
Catherine Frank and Louis Toepfer. Attorney Beth Danon
represented Grievants. Attorney Karen McAndrew represented the
Employer. Grievants withdrew B.B. as a grievant. The Employer
indicated that it was not contesting the admissibility of an
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Policy statement made by
Employer President George Davis even though the Employer did
question its relevance. The Employer also stipulated that, for
purposes of this grievance, the Board may assume that there is a
class of employees of the Employer engaged in domestic
relationships with same sex partners. The Findings of Fact
contained herein are based on the stipulation of facts (and
attached exhibits) of the parties, and the evidence introduced at
the March 1 hearing.
In addition to oral argument made on March 1, the parties
submitted pre-hearing and post-hearing briefs. The post-hearing
briefs were filed on March 9, 1993.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Employer is an educational corporation and
instrumentality of the State of Vermont with its principal place
of business in Burlington, Vermont.
2. There is a class of employees of the Employer engaged
in domestic relationships with same sex partners.
3. Grievants are faculty members employed by the Employer.
They are grieving on the basis that they are gays and lesbians,
and the Employer is refusing to extend medical and dental
benefits to Grievants' domestic partners.
4. The Employer provides its faculty and other employees
with certain benefits, including medical and dental plan
benefits. Eligibility requirements and coverage limitations are
set out in the terms of the University's Medical Plan and Dental
Plan. In addition to the plans themselves, a summary of benefits
is contained in the Officers' Handbook of the Employer, which
contains the operating practices, procedures and policies
concerning employees. The summary of benefits under the Medical
and Dental Plans is contained in a section of the Handbook
entitled "Benefit Programs For Officers of the University of
Vermont" (Exhibit C).
5. The Employer's Medical Plan makes benefits thereunder
available to University employees and their "dependents". The
Medical Plan defines dependent to include the spouse of the
employee, so long as not legally separated from the employee, and
certain unmarried children (Exhibit A, p. 7 and 44 of the Plan).
6. The Employer's Dental Plan similarly makes benefits
available to University employees and their "dependents". The
Dental Plan defines dependent to mean an employee's "lawful"
spouse (so long as not divorced or legally separated) and
unmarried children (Exhibit B, p.2 of the Plan).
7. The Employer has a non-discrimination policy contained
in the Officer's Handbook which provides, in part, that:
Applicants for admission and employment, students,
employees, sources of referral of applicants for admission
and employment, and all unions or professional organizations
holding collective bargaining or professional agreements
with the University of Vermont are hereby notified that the
University of Vermont does not discriminate on the basis of
race, sex, sexual orientation, handicap, color, religion,
age, national origin, or Vietnam Veteran status in
admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its
programs and activities. In addition, it is the policy of
the University that sexual harassment is unacceptable and
will not be tolerated (Exhibit C).
8. The provisions of the medical and dental plans with
respect to the definition and coverage of "dependents" were
implemented a number of years before the non-discrimination
policy was implemented.
9. The University is at the present time self-insured with
respect to Medical and Dental benefits.
10. Employer President George Davis issued a document
entitled Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Policy Statement,
University of Vermont, September 1, 1991 - August 31, 1992, which
provided in pertinent part as follows:
Universities, especially public universities, have the
responsibility to provide leadership in enlightened social
behavior. The University of Vermont is doubly obligated to
express and demonstrate its commitment to Equal Employment
and Educational Opportunity for all persons in our
community, regardless of irrelevant factors such as race,
sex, age, color, religion, national origin, sexual
preference, disability, marital status, or status as a
disabled or Vietnam-era veteran. I am personally deeply
committed to these principles and am convinced that they are
essential for a distinguished university.
Each of us within the university community must not
only labor to abide by the rules, regulations and policies
of Equal Employment and Education Opportunity, but should
also be conscious of our own individual responsibility.
Each must ensure that all our actions are fair and
equitable, and reflect the purpose and intent of Affirmative
Action and Equal Employment and Educational Opportunity.
In order to be effective, Equal Employment Opportunity
will affect all employment practices including, but not
limited to, recruitment, hiring, transfers, promotions,
benefits, compensation, training, educational opportunities,
and terminations (Exhibit D).
11. Grievants requested and were denied medical and dental
insurance benefits for their same-sex domestic partners as is
afforded spouses of employees under the terms and conditions of
the University's Medical and Dental plans.
12. Grievants have exhausted their internal University
administrative remedies.
13. Grievants first filed a Petition for Grievance Hearing
with the University's Faculty Grievance Committee. That
Committee is comprised of seven members, five of whom are faculty
members and two of whom are administrators at the University with
academic experience. The Faculty Grievance Committee makes
findings and may also submit recommendations to the President of
the University (Section 270, Officer's Handbook, Exhibit E).
14. On May 12, 1992, the Faculty Grievance Committee issued
its findings and recommendation in the form of a letter to
University President Thomas Salmon. The Committee unanimously
found in favor of Grievants. The Committee concluded that
excluding Grievants' same-sex domestic partners from health
benefits coverage violated the Employer's non-discriminatory
policy contained in the Officer's Handbook and the Affirmative
Action/Equal Opportunity Policy Statement (Exhibit F).
15. University President Salmon, by letter dated June 8,
1992, declined to accept the recommendations and conclusions of
the Faculty Grievance Committee. In his letter denying the
grievance, President Salmon concluded that the health care
benefit plan did not discriminate on the basis of sexual
orientation (Exhibit G).
OPINION
Grievants contend that the Employer has discriminated
against them on the basis of their sexual orientation in
violation of its own non-discrimination rules and regulations by
denying medical and dental insurance benefits to their same sex
domestic partners. Grievants also claim that the Employer's
denial of benefits constitutes an unfair labor practice on the
basis of sexual orientation, as proscribed by 3 VSA $961(6). We
first address the claim concerning the alleged violation of the
Employer's non-discrimination rules and regulations.
The Board has such adjudicatory jurisdiction as is conferred
on it by statute. In re Grievance of Brooks, 135 Vt. 563, 570
(1977). In deciding Grievances, the Board is limited by the
statutory definition of grievance, Boynton v. Snelling, 147 Vt.
564, 565 (1977), which statutory definition provides:
"Grievance" means an employee's, group of employees or
the employee's collective bargaining representative's
expressed dissatisfaction, presented in writing, with
aspects of employment or working conditions under
collective bargaining agreement or the discriminatory
application of a rule or regulation, which has not been
resolved to a satisfactory result through informal
discussion with immediate supervisors. 3 VSA $902(14).
Since there is no applicable collective bargaining agreement
here, Grievants must allege and prove the discriminatory
application of a rule or regulation. In re Grievance of Gobin,
___ Vt. ___, slip op. at 3 (May 15, 1992). Failure of an employer
to follow a binding rule constitutes an actionable grievance.
Id.
Grievants allege that the Employer's denial of health
insurance benefits to their domestic partners violates its
binding rule that it will not discriminate on the basis of sexual
orientation in how it administers its programs and activities.
The Employer has adopted a non-discrimination policy, contained
in its Officers Handbook, which provides that the Employer "does
not discriminate on the basis of . . . sexual orientation . . .
in access to, treatment or employment in, its programs and
activities." It is apparent that the provision of medical and
dental benefits constitute "programs" within the meaning of this
non-discrimination policy since the summary of benefits under the
medical and dental plans is contained in a section of the
Handbook identified as "benefit programs". Further, it is clear
that the Officers Handbook, the provisions of which were formally
adopted as rules governing the administration of the University,
constitute binding rules. Gobin, slip op. at 3-4. Thus, we
conclude that it is a binding rule of the Employer not to
discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in its providing
of health and dental benefits to its employees.
Our conclusion in this regard is reinforced by the Equal
Opportunity Policy Statement issued by University President
George Davis, which stated the commitment of the Employer to
equal employment opportunity, regardless of "irrelevant factors"
such as "sexual preference", and provided that equal employment
opportunity "will affect all employment practices including . . .
benefits, compensation . . ." Although the Employer takes the
position that this policy statement is not relevant in this
matter, because it is not a binding rule, we believe the Supreme
Court's Gobin decision refutes that position. In Gobin, the Court
concluded that salary increase guidelines were binding rules even
though they were issued autonomously by the Provost, without
formal review, and were intended to "guide", not govern, the
administration of the University. Gobin, slip op. at 4. The Court
reasoned that the guidelines were virtual mirror images of a
formally adopted regulation governing the procedure to be
followed and did not merely indicate or outline future policy or
conduct. Id.
Similarly here, the policy statement is best construed as
generally mirroring the non-discrimination policy contained in
the Employer's formally adopted Officer's Handbook by specifying
programs and activities which the Employer considered to be
included in its policy of non-discrimination. By identifying
"benefits" and "compensation" as among those programs and
activities, the President was reinforcing, for the guidance of
administrators and employees, the Employer's stated commitment
that medical and dental benefits would be provided to its
employees without discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation.
Thus, the Employer is in violation of a binding rule by
providing health benefit coverage to the spouses of its married
faculty members, while denying the same coverage to the same sex
domestic partners of its gay and lesbian faculty members, if such
distinction constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation. Grievants make their claim of discrimination based
on a "disparate impact" theory. Such a theory has been developed
under the non-discrimination provisions of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, which theory we conclude is applicable
to evaluating a sexual orientation discrimination claim.
Non-discrimination requirements prohibit "not only overt
discrimination but also practices that are fair in form but
discriminatory in practice." Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S.
424, 431 (1971). Under the disparate impact theory, a facially
neutral employment practice may be deemed in violation of
non-discrimination requirements without evidence of the
employer's subjective intent to discriminate that is required in
a "disparate treatment" case. Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Antonio,
490 U.S. 642, 645-46 (1989). Once the employee demonstrates that
the employer practice causes a disparate impact on a protected
class, the practice is prohibited unless the employer can
demonstrate that the practice is related to job performance and
consistent with business necessity. Griggs, 401 U.S. at 431;
Section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. $2000e-2),
as amended by Section 105 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
Grievants contend that the Employer's exclusion of coverage
of domestic partners of gay and lesbian employees from its health
benefit programs has caused a disparate impact on the protected
class of gay and lesbian employees. This contention is based on
the fact that gay and lesbian employees cannot legally marry
their domestic partners, and therefore can never qualify for the
full benefits afforded their heterosexual colleagues who can
marry their partners and qualify for spousal benefits.
The Employer contends that its health benefit plans does not
discriminate against Grievants on the basis of their sexual
orientation, but rather makes a distinction on the basis of
marriage as defined by Vermont law. The Employer so reasons
because, under the definition of "dependents" under its health
benefit plans, benefits are not available to any individuals
involved in significant relationships with employees, regardless
of whether such relationships are homosexual, heterosexual, or
otherwise. The Employer contends that, as a result, gay and
lesbian employees are not being treated differently than
similarly-situated unmarried heterosexual employees.
The Employer's argument misconstrues the thrust of the
disparate impact theory. A conclusion of disparate impact does
not require that an employer practice has no impact on
individuals other than the group claiming protection against
discrimination for a prohibited reason, but requires only a
disproportionate impact on a protected class as compared to
other individuals. A brief discussion of the Griggs case will
demonstrate this principle.
In Griggs, black employees of a generating plant brought a
claim of race discrimination, challenging the employer's
requirement of a high school diploma or passing of aptitude tests
as a condition of employment in or transfer to jobs at the plant.
401 U.S. at 427-28. The Court of Appeals rejected the employees'
claim that these requirements, unless shown to be job-related,
constituted race discrimination because they rendered ineligible
a markedly disproportionate number of blacks. Id. at 429. The
U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision. The
Court concluded that barriers to employment, which were not
related to job performance and not consistent with business
necessity, must be removed if they operated invidiously to
discriminate on the basis of racial or other impermissible
classification. Id. at 431. The Court indicated that good intent
or absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem employment
practices that operate as "built-in headwinds" for protected
groups and are unrelated to job capability. Id. at 432. The
thrust of non-discrimination requirements under a disparate
impact theory are the consequences of employment practices, not
the motivation. Id.
So too, here, the absence of discriminatory intent on the
part of the Employer to discriminate against gay and lesbian
employees on the basis of sexual orientation is not
determinative. The consequences of the Employer's exclusion of
unmarried domestic partners of employees from health benefits
coverage is determinative. It is self-evident here that the
consequences are that there is a markedly disproportionate
impact on gay and lesbian employees compared to heterosexual
employees. This is because heterosexual employees can marry their
partners, and many obviously do, and thereby obtain benefits
coverage for them. Meanwhile, gay and lesbian employees are
unable to legally marry their domestic partners and, thus,
inevitably suffer disproportionately to their heterosexual
colleagues with respect to terms of benefits coverage. Just as
the exclusionary effect of the diploma and testing requirements
on some white employees did not bar a conclusion of adverse
impact on black employees, the exclusion of the partners of
unmarried heterosexual employees does not bar a conclusion of
adverse impact on gay and lesbian employees. The disproportionate
impact is determinative in both cases.
Nonetheless, the Employer, in reliance on contract
construction rules, contends that the specific provisions of the
medical and dental plans, and the Handbook, relating to coverage
of "dependents" must prevail over the more general provisions of
the non-discrimination policy. We disagree. The
non-discrimination requirements must prevail over the specific
components of the health benefit plans which conflict with
non-discrimination requirements. Otherwise, the expressed purpose
of the Employer's rules to prohibit discrimination based on
sexual orientation in provision of such benefits would be
frustrated. Grievance of Lowell, 15 VLRB 291, 324-25.
If the Employer intended to exempt employee benefit plans
from its policy protecting employees from discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation, which policy was implemented a
number of years after the applicable provisions of the benefit
plans, it could have done so expressly. This is what the Vermont
General Assembly did in amending the Fair Employment Practices in
1991 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation. 21 VSA $495(a). Simultaneous with that amendment,
the legislature provided that the "provisions of this section
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
shall not be construed to change the definition of family or
dependent in an employee benefit plan". 21 VSA $495(f). The
failure of the Employer to make such an express exemption in its
non-discrimination policy lends support to our ultimate
conclusion that no such exemption exists under its rules.
Also, the Employer requests that we take into account cost
considerations in determining whether exclusion of same sex
domestic partners of gay and lesbian employees from benefits
coverage constitutes discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The Employer has presented no evidence aiding us in ruling on
such a business necessity defense. Under such circumstances, we
follow the general rule that the expense of changing employment
practices is not a business purpose that will validate the
effects of an otherwise unlawful employment practice. Robinson v.
Lorillard Corp., 444 F.2d 791, 800 (4th Cir. 1971).
In sum, the Employer is in violation of a binding rule by
providing health benefit coverage to the spouses of its married
faculty members, while denying the same coverage to the same sex
domestic partners of its gay and lesbian faculty members. This
constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Grievants have demonstrated that this employer practice causes a
disparate impact on gay and lesbian employees in the provision of
health and dental benefits, and the Employer has not demonstrated
that the practice is related to job performance and consistent
with business necessity.
We conclude that an appropriate remedy for this violation of
a binding rule is to order the Employer to cease and desist from
its blanket refusal to provide medical and dental plan coverage
for same-sex domestic partners of its gay and lesbian employees,
and to develop a plan providing non-discriminatory coverage. We
believe it is impractical for us to provide the specific terms
for such a plan, such as the definition of "dependent", and
unwarranted to order the Employer to negotiate such a policy with
the individual grievants. A general remedy by the Board also
allows the Employer to consider whether its revised
non-discriminatory benefits plan also should provide coverage for
partners of heterosexual employees. We make no judgment on that
issue in this case.
Given our conclusion, it is unnecessary to decide the
unfair labor practice claim.
ORDER
NOW THEREFORE, based on the foregoing findings of fact and
for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the
Grievance of B.M., S.S., C.M. and J.R. is SUSTAINED, and:
1. The University of Vermont shall CEASE and DESIST
from its blanket refusal to provide medical and dental
plan coverage for the same sex domestic partners of its
gay and lesbian employees; and
2. The University shall develop and implement a
revised medical and dental plan providing coverage,
which does not discriminate on the basis of sexual
orientation, within 60 days of this order.
Dated this 4th day of June, 1993, at Montpelier, Vermont.
VERMONT LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Charles H. McHugh, Chairman
Catherine L. Frank
Louis A. Toepfer
23-Aug-93 22:35:24-GMT,854;000000000201
Date: 23 Aug 1993 10:50:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: MACKELSBERG%smith.smith.edu@RUTVM1.RUTGERS.EDU
Subject: request for info on domestic partner tuition benefits
To: KSSHC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
Message-id: <01H22YTGLQUG8Y5320@SMITH>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Does anyone have any cost information on provision of dependent-child
tuition benefits to domestic partners of employees at academic institutions?
I realize it's a bit early for actual cost data; but has any university
with which anyone is familiar done any research on potential costs? Smith
is now thinking about extension of benefits, and one of our most costly ones
is a college tuition benefit for children of employees.
Any information or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Martha Ackelsberg (MACKELSBERG@SMITH.SMITH.EDU)