Health insurance question

[Pab Sungenis]

My husband works for a conglomerate based in New York (a gay marriage state). He and I have been in a New Jersey Civil Union since shortly after they became available, registering our union shortly after our 15th anniversary in 2007.

He's coming up on his company's open enrollment period for health insurance, and was pointedly told by the insurance company rep that they wil not offer coverage to me as his spouse, citing DOMA as their excuse. They claim that as a company that crosses state lines they're immune to state regulations regarding recognizing LGBT relationships, and Federal regulations prevent such recognition anyway.

Now, we can't afford another $100-200 taken out of each paycheck to insure me anyhow, and we're not in a position to be able to risk retribution by the company by pushing the matter, but I'm reasonably sure they are full of shit.

What does the law, and case law, have to say about this? Anyone know?

[mitchtv]

1. sounds wrong

If your state has antidiscrimination laws, they are supposed to follow them. I get them from a national company, but I don't know how they treat employees in the hating states

[MarkCharles]

2. I'm a little confused; you are covered now, but won't be with...

another insurance company?

The health insurance laws and benefits SHOULD cover employees and their "families" in the state where the employee works, not where s/he chooses to live.

Is this insurance company representative telling your husband that, were you living in NY state, you would be covered? Sounds like a made-up regulation which the insurance rep is pushing in order to score an individual policy for you, and extra premiums for the company, and a bonus from premiums paid for the insurance rep.

Or maybe I am totally confused. But it looks like if you lived in NY state, your insurer would have to follow NY state laws. I think that since the location of your husband's employer in NY state, whatever laws are in effect in NY state must apply for all couples in such employment, regardless of location of domicile.

[Pab Sungenis]

3. Neither of us is covered now.

He was covered under a previous employer, but not this one. I passed on that employer's plan because they wanted $500.00 a month just to insure me.

They're telling him that no matter where we live, I won't be covered, because as a national company they don't have to follow state marriage laws.

[mitchtv]

4. I think that is a lie

[MarkCharles]

5. NO, I'm trying to say the opposite but I'm not sure.

If the company has a benefits package of health insurance they offer to those they employ in the state of NY, they need to comply with NY laws concerning that offer.

Although, I'm not sure of my position. The best course would be to seek someone more knowledgeable than me in NY state employee benefits. Since a large number of major national employers operating in NY state would be involved, I have my doubts NY exempts them all from such coverage for same gender partners. no matter where the partners have a domicile. NY state has many employees who live in NJ or CT.

[Pab Sungenis]

7. Well, the company is HQ'ed in NY

but we live (and he works) in NJ. I know Corzine shamed UPS into offering benefits once the Civil Union law passed, but I don't think it's been through the courts.

And as I said, I'd be hesitant to try it because that's a good way for him to wind up out of a job.

[obamanut2012]

12. That's not true

There's case law supporting what I wrote, too. They have to give you spousal coverage. That is the law.

[TriMera]

6. My partner and I are in the same boat.

Her company is national and it does not offer benefits to domestic partners even though the state of Washington requires that they offer them. The HR Director cited the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). It states that if the company manages its own benefit plan, then it does not have to follow state laws. These companies will find any loophole just to screw us and save a buck.

http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/health-plans/erisa.htm

[LostinRed]

8. I would contact HRC

They could probably clear it up for you. They have people that will give you some free legal advice. My lay opinion is that if they are based in NY, they are bound by NY state law.

[beyurslf]

9. Since you live in NJ and your husband works in NJ, it should be NJ law that matters.

Where a company is based does not dictate what laws it has to follow all over the country. Bank of America must comply with the laws in every state where it does business, not just NC law. Boeing must follow the laws in the states where it operates, not just the laws of IL. Your husband's work must comply with NJ law as it relates to your situation. NY can't make a company with a HQ in NYC offer benefits to people who don't live or work in NYC. I think most companies do end up following the most stringent non-discrimination policies simply because that would be confusing to have multiple policies based on location, but NY state can't force a NJ office to follow its laws.

[obamanut2012]

13. Exactly

[jumptheshadow]

10. This is why DOMA needs to be passed

I do have partnership benefits at my wife's company, which is based in another state. We asked HR if they could stop taxing my benefits since we were now legally married in NY. They replied that we should try to take deductions on our returns. Huh? That was misdirection, of course.

On the positive side, more companies are striving to extend fair benefits to the LGBT community, and to circumvent DOMA. The landscape is changing but, in the meantime, those of us who work for the majority of the private sector are in the soup.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. you mean struck down not passed

[jumptheshadow]

15. Yes, struck down :)

I won't even begin to explain that one...

[dsc]

11. I am not sure if they are right about the law

but you would be taxed on the benefits as income which could add up to quite a bit depending upon your bracket.