The recent California Supreme Court ruling allowing for same-sex marriages may
not stick, but employers throughout the U.S. had better know now whether they
will extend health care benefits to same-sex spouses. On May 15, California’s
high court ruled that same-sex couples must be permitted to legally marry.
However, on June 3, an initiative banning same-sex marriages received enough
voter signatures to qualify for the November 4 ballot.
What happens after the
fall vote is up for speculation, but since the Supreme Court ruling took effect
June 17, employers need to decide how to handle health care benefits for
same-sex spouses, experts say.
Most large private employers with employees in
California have a choice as to whether they are going to allow same-sex spouses
to qualify for health care benefits, says J.D. Piro, head of Hewitt Associates’
health law consulting practice.
Most large private employers have health care
plans that are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which
says that states can’t regulate employer benefit plans. Therefore, employers
that do not want to offer health care benefits to same-sex spouses could argue
that they don’t have to under ERISA, Piro says.
Similarly, consultants say
large employers with self-funded plans may be able to argue that they don’t have
to recognize same-sex spouses when it comes to health care benefits under the
1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as a legal union between a
man and a woman.
Whether employers would win these arguments would likely be
decided in litigation, Piro says.
Employers need to review their plan
documents and make sure they are comfortable with how they define a spouse, says
Joanne Hustead, senior health compliance specialist at the Segal Co.
“Most plan
documents talk about a legal spouse as the person you are married to under
applicable law, and there was never a need to define that,” she says.
The
California ruling also has implications for employers outside the state, because
there is no residency requirement for same-sex couples to get married. This
means employees could get married in California, then return to their home
states and ask their employer for health care coverage for their same-sex
spouse.
While a handful of states, like New York, have agreed to recognize
same-sex marriages, the majority of states have approved laws or amended their
constitutions to say that they are not bound to recognize out-of-state same-sex
marriages, Piro says.
“It’s unclear what happens in these cases,” Piro says.
“No one has pushed this issue yet.”
Employers nationwide need to be clear on
where they stand in regard to same-sex spousal benefits, Hustead says. Companies
providing health care benefits to same-sex spouses also need to make sure they
are clear on the tax implications for those individuals.
If the ruling
stands, same-sex spouses will get tax deductions on a state level. But since
federal law does not recognize same-sex marriages, these individuals don’t get
federal deductions for being married, Hustead says.
Employers have to make
sure they are taking out the right amount of deductions and communicating these
nuances to employees, she says.
“There is nothing clear about this issue
because of the interplay with federal and state law,” Hustead says.
—Jessica
Marquez