E-Alerts
California Now Allows Same-Sex Couples To Marry
On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court invalidated a California law prohibiting same-sex marriage. As a result, California has joined Massachusetts as the second state to allow same-sex couples to marry.
The California Supreme Court’s ruling decided a group of consolidated lawsuits seeking to overturn the state’s Defense of Marriage Act, Proposition 22, which limited marriage to “between a man and a woman.” The Court found that this limiting language is unconstitutional, and that the statute should be understood to make marriage available to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples. Although the Court determined that the law did not discriminate on the basis of gender, it did find that the law discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation.
Previously, California’s domestic-partner registration law allowed same-sex couples to enjoy certain spousal benefits, such as those related to wills, powers of attorney and relationship agreements. In this respect, California had been similar to Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Vermont, which prohibit same-sex marriages, but whose civil union laws give same-sex couples all the rights and obligations of heterosexual couples in traditional marriages.
As in Massachusetts and the states governed by civil union laws, the interplay between state and federal law is complex with respect to employment issues. In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (the “DOMA”). For purposes of all federal laws, the DOMA defines “marriage” as a legal union between a man and woman, and “spouse” as a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife. As a result, same-sex marriages and civil unions are not recognized as “marriages” under federal law for purposes of, among other things, an employee’s spousal benefits.
Many employee benefit plans are governed by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), which preempts state laws. Thus, California cannot mandate that employers treat same-sex spouses the same as opposite-sex spouses for purposes of ERISA benefit plans. However, ERISA does permit an employer to amend covered benefit plans in order to provide benefits to same-sex spouses.
On the other hand, fully-insured employee benefit plans (including but not limited to group medical and dental plans) are excluded from ERISA and, accordingly, governed by state law. Thus, California employers participating in group health and dental insurance plans are now required to extend spousal coverage to same-sex spouses of participating employees. However, these same-sex spouses will not be entitled to the federal pre-tax deduction for the cost of the applicable premium, because of the DOMA.
All employee benefits that are governed by California law must now be extended to same-sex spouses. Accordingly, we recommend that California employers promptly implement personnel policies in the same manner for same-sex spouses as for heterosexual spouses. Employers should promptly review all personnel practices and policies to ensure that the definitions apply to both opposite sex and same-sex spouses.
Employers with employees in multiple states are now faced with a more complex myriad of conflicting laws. For example, an employer whose employees have legally recognized same-sex relationships in California, New Hampshire and Florida will now be confronted with completely different obligations in each state. We recommend that multi-state employers consult with counsel to ensure compliance with all such applicable laws.
As always, we are available to help you with any questions regarding the implications of same-sex marriage in California.
