Laura Maechtlen Published in Los Angeles Daily Journal and San Francisco Daily Journal "Covering Same-Sex Couples, in Sickness and in Health"

Laura Maechtlen’s article, “Covering Same-Sex Couples, in Sickness and in Health,” published May 23, 2008 in both the Los Angeles Daily Journal and San Francisco Daily Journal discussed employment issues raised by the California Supreme Court’s ruling in In Re Marriage Cases.

Laura remarked, “The Supreme Court’s decision does not address California's domestic partner law. It remains intact, and continues as a parallel institution to marriage. This adds complexity to some employers' policies and benefits plans.” She noted, “California law already mandates that insurers must offer group health plans, health insurance and other forms of insurance that provide equal coverage to spouses and registered domestic partners. Given the applicability of California's domestic partner laws to insured arrangements, and the scope of the recent California ruling, it is likely that the decision will impact insured arrangements covering employees in California. The impact is likely to be the same as the impact with the domestic partner laws—same-sex spouses must be covered under insured arrangements, such as HMOs. The decision will also affect other employee benefits plans that fall outside the scope of ERISA, including paid time off arrangements and uninsured short-term disability plans.”

In addition to benefits, Laura noted that, “employers have other legal requirements to consider, primarily state employment laws and regulations governing benefits and legal entitlements for employees with ‘spouses.’ First, employers will be required to recognize same-sex marriages with respect to state leave laws.… Second, employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and marital status has long been prohibited under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. The marriage decision does not change or expand those protections, however it allows employees in newly recognized same-sex marriages to assert a claim for ‘marital status’ discrimination.”

In conclusion, Laura observed, “Overall, although the law surrounding marriage as an option for same-sex couples in California is still nascent, expect further developments in this area. The court's ruling legalizing marriage for same-sex couples in the state will not be the last word. California voters will almost certainly hold a referendum on a constitutional amendment attempting to bar same-sex couples from marriage in November, and it will likely be an epic battle. Employers should stay tuned for any further developments.”