Employee benefits effects of Supreme Court same-sex marriage decision
(Posted on July 14, 2015 by )


SCOTUSOn June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court struck down all state bans on same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges. For employers, this decision raises the issue of what changes must be made in employee benefits to reflect the decision.

For this purpose, we will look at three categories of employers: those that have already been offering benefits to same-sex spouses, those that have not previously offered benefits to same-sex spouses, and those that have been offering benefits to domestic partners.

Read more.

State Taxes for Married Same-Sex Couples
(Posted on June 26, 2015 by )


gay_marriageIn light of the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, employers that maintain plans covering employees in same-sex marriages who live in any of the states that previously did not recognize same-sex marriage will have to adjust state tax withholding and reporting for such employees. State Taxes and Married Same-Sex Couples Before Obergefell provides a handy chart for determining which states are affected.

State Taxes and Married Same-Sex Couples Before Obergefell
(Posted on June 26, 2015 by )


Update: On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court held in Obergefell v. Hodges that all states must recognize same-sex marriages. This means that employers must adjust state tax reporting and withholding for all employees in same-sex marriages who live in states that did not previously recognize their marriages. The discussion below, written before the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, shows which states fall into that category. Read more.

EEOC: Discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status is prohibited sex discrimination
(Posted on May 12, 2015 by )


EEOCLogoFederal law contains provisions forbidding discrimination based on several classifications: race, sex, veteran status, etc. However, no federal law explicitly prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status. As a result, many employers in states which do not have their own legislation barring discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status have assumed that no laws prohibited such discrimination.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has now called this assumption into question, by bringing several lawsuits treating discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status as a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This issue is a focus of the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan for 2013-2016. Read more.

Family & Medical Leave Act regulations protect same-sex spouses, regardless of domicile
(Posted on February 23, 2015 by )


deptlaborImmediately after the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, the Department of Labor announced that for purposes of the spousal protections of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), it would recognize a same-sex marriage only if it was legal in the jurisdiction of the couple’s domicile. It has now reversed that position, issuing final regulations which recognize a marriage a) within the United States, if it was valid in the state in which it took place, and b) outside of the United States, if it was valid in the jurisdiction in which it took place and if it could have been entered into in at least one state. The effective date for the final rule was March 27, 2015.

Update (June 26, 2015): This rule is in line with the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which has now recognized same-sex marriages nationwide.

Carol Calhoun quoted in article on elimination of domestic partner benefits
(Posted on February 10, 2015 by )


gay_marriageCarol V. Calhoun was quoted in an article in Human Resources Online entitled “Fair Play… Or Not?” about companies’ actions to eliminate domestic partner benefits for unmarried employees who live in states in which same-sex marriage is now legal. With the majority of US states now allowing same-sex marriage, such actions are becoming more common. Ms. Calhoun is quoted both on why eliminating domestic partner benefits is popular among employers, and some of the pitfalls that may occur.