|
Web posted
“We didn't feel it was optional,” said Julie Hasquet, spokeswoman with the Anchorage mayor's office.
“It's what the court said to do,” said Tim Thompson, spokesman for the Alaska Railroad Corp. “You can't discriminate if you are a public employer.”
A few public agencies, including the municipality of Anchorage, the Anchorage School District and the Alaska Railroad, began offering benefits to employees' same sex partners during their current open enrollment periods.
Other public employers across the state will likely follow suit next year.
The benefits offering is in response to an Alaska Supreme Court decision ordering the state of Alaska and the municipality of Anchorage to offer same-sex benefits by Jan. 1.
The court ruling basically says that public employers not offering same sex benefits are discriminating against employees who are gay or lesbian. Public employers include state, borough and local governments, as well as government organizations such as the Alaska Railroad Corp. and the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority.
While the court's decision directed only the state and the municipality of Anchorage to offer benefits by Jan. 1, “it's clear in the ruling that every public entity will have to comply, but not immediately,” said Allison Mendel, attorney for the Alaska Civil Liberties Union for the case.
The ACLU and 18 individuals filed suit against the state and the city in 1999, arguing that the governments' benefits programs violated their rights to equal protection under the state Constitution.
The court ruled that the government entities failed to offer gay and lesbian employees equal access to the benefits because gay couples cannot legally be married under the state Constitution, while heterosexual, unmarried couples have the choice to marry and then be eligible for the benefits.
Alaska voters in 1998 passed the Marriage Amendment, adding language in the state Constitution saying that marriage is only legal between one man and one woman, banning same-sex marriages.
That move effectively conflicts with the Constitutional language guaranteeing equal rights, protection and opportunities to all Alaskans, the court justices said.
Gov. Sarah Palin during her campaign for office said that she would honor the Supreme Court decision.
Palin spokesman Curtis Smith said in late November that Palin was aware of the issue and planned to assemble a team to take a closer look at the options shortly after she took office. He said she was aware of the deadline and that waiting could potentially mean to the state.
If the state waits and doesn't have benefits in place by Jan. 1, the court could hold the state in contempt, potentially issuing fines for every day of noncompliance, among a list of other moves, Mendel said.
Legislators in a special session last month moved to hold a special election asking voters if the state should ban all public employers from offering benefits to same-sex partners of employees. A special election would cost $1.2 million, and would not be law; it would simply be an advisory vote.
The election would be held in April, meaning the state would be a full three months past the deadline date set by the Supreme Court to offer benefits.
The special session cost Alaska taxpayers more than $100,000, according to the Legislative Affairs Office. That total will likely grow, as all the bills weren't in as of Nov. 30, officials there said. Sessions typically run about $25,000 a day for both houses.
More and more private-sector employers offer same-sex benefits, including Harley Davidson Inc., Costco Warehouses and Levi Strauss and Co., according to the Human Rights Campaign Foundation.
The foundation said that at least 13 states and 137 city and county governments offer same-sex partner benefits.
The University of Alaska and the city and borough of Juneau already offer benefits to partners.
The railroad is using the guidelines used by the University of Alaska, Thompson said. The university in 1995 began offer financially interdependent partnership benefits — offering health care and other benefits to both same-sex and opposite-sex partners of employees — after a lawsuit was filed by two employees who were denied benefits for their partners.
To qualify for benefits, employees with partners must meet eight requirements, such as having an exclusive relationship for a year or living in the same home for a year. They must also meet five of eight financial requirements, such as joint ownership of property, vehicles and list each other as beneficiaries.
Guidelines for the city and borough of Juneau are similar.
Neither the city of Anchorage nor the Alaska Railroad expects many takers to the new offering, their spokespeople said.
Typically, fewer than one-half of 1 percent of a work force signs up for partner benefits, according to a study paid for by the state of Alaska. Nor should the offerings add much to the total benefits bill.
The study, conducted in April by Buck Consultants, says that large plan sponsor experience shows that average per-employee costs do not show a measurable increase solely because domestic partnership coverage is added.
Deloitte Consulting did enrollment and cost estimates for the state. The consulting group, in a February letter, said “the cost increase is typically less than 1 percent,” and for Alaska should total between $84,000 and $120,000 a year for the active plan. Retiree plans may cost the state an additional $533,000 to $760,000 a year, Deloitte said.
The university tracks the number of people who signed up for the interdependent partnership benefits, but doesn't differentiate the distinctions of same or opposite sex partners, said spokeswoman Kate Ripley.
There are currently 116 employees with 175 dependents receiving the benefit, Ripley said. About 4,300 university employees are eligible for benefits, totaling about 10,000 if their dependents are included.
Ripley said it's difficult to determine the added costs domestic partners add to the system's $50 million benefits package, Ripley said.
Regardless of costs, Ripley said the university offers the benefits as a matter of fairness as well as a way of attracting staff and faculty.
“We have to compete on a national level for employees, especially for faculty,” Ripley said. “We have found that outside Alaska, about half the public universities, and even more in the private side, offer this. It is often cited as a benefit. And it gives our employees the peace of mind to include their partners and their children on a health policy.”
Joy Morrison, director of the office of faculty development in the University of Alaska Fairbanks' provost office, said she'd leave her job in a second if the university stopped offering partner benefits.
“That's why I'm still at this university,” she said. “This is a recruitment issue, but most importantly, for me, was the benefits. It's equal opportunity, it's a question of fairness.”
Laura Milner, of UAF's school of management, agreed.
“It offers peace of mind, and it makes me know that the university values my working here,” she said.
Melissa Campbell can be reached at melissa.campbell@alaskajournal.com.
|
