Branches of the federal government have taken divergent actions affecting same-sex partners. A federal district court upheld a state law defining marriage as occurring between a man and a woman; meanwhile, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management has issued final and proposed regulations to expand federal employees’ benefits coverage to their same-sex partners and those partners’ children.
Hawaii Marriage and Civil Union Laws Remain
Employers in Hawaii can leave their policies, benefit plans and plan documents intact, at least regarding coverage of spouses and civil union partners. The U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii on Aug. 8 ruled in Jackson v. Abercrombie (2011-CV-00734) that the state’s law defining marriage as occurring between a man and a woman does not violate the U.S. Constitution.
The plaintiffs had challenged that law, as well as the amendment to the state constitution granting the legislature the power to define marriage and the law allowing couples to enter into civil unions.
Since the ruling leaves intact the state law defining marriage, civil unions and the amendment to the Hawaii constitution allowing the state legislature to define marriage, employers in Hawaii can continue to follow current law regarding civil unions, reciprocal beneficiaries and spouses. But they may be wise to monitor any further developments, since if the decision is appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and it reverses, they could have to change their policies, plans and documents.
OPM Acts
Same-sex partners of federal employees can more easily be covered by annuities through federal coverage under a U.S. Office of Personnel Management regulation that went into effect July 20. OPM issues and enforces rules governing the federal work force.
OPM amended its regulations to add same-sex domestic partners to the list of people for whom an insurable interest is presumed to exist for purposes of federal personnel regulations. This means that federal employees’ same-sex domestic partners are treated in the same way in this regard as spouses, former spouses, blood or adopted relatives closer than first cousins, common law spouses, or persons to whom employees or members of Congress are engaged to be married. Federal employees with same-sex domestic partners therefore do not have to provide evidence of a relationship in order for them to be covered.
Under another OPM rule, this one proposed, the children of federal employees’ same-sex domestic partners would be covered under those employees’ health coverage up to age 26, consistent with the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
OPM is accepting public comments on the proposed rule through Sept. 18.
Written comments can be sent to: Marguerite Martel, Senior Policy Analyst, Planning and Policy Analysis, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Room 3415, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC. They can be sent by fax to (202) 606–4640 Attn: Marguerite Martel. Comments may be submitted online through the federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov.
For the full story, click here.