The office of City Councilman Bill Spelman declared Monday that the domestic partners of the more than 200 city employees who are in same-sex relationships will continue to receive health insurance benefits in the event of their termination from a job or the divorce or death of their partner.
Previously, same-sex domestic partners of employees were offered the same benefits as those in opposite-gender marriages only until the termination, divorce or death of the employee. Families of employees only continued to receive health insurance benefits if the employee was in an opposite-gender marriage.
The issue of the lack of coverage of partners in same-sex relationships came to light when the partner of a deceased city employee who worked in Spelman’s office was denied health coverage.
Spelman’s office took the issue to City Manager Marc Ott, who calculated that increasing health insurance benefits to the around 200 city employees in same-sex relationships would be under the limit required to OK the action with City Council approval.
The federal Defense of Marriage Act defines a “spouse” as a husband or wife in an opposite-gender marriage, and therefore the 200 GLBT employees cannot be covered by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which gives health insurance benefits to the spouses of the deceased, divorced or fired employees.
While public institutions need regional or federal approval to overstep COBRA, municipalities can choose to individually offer financial support the partners of same-sex marriages, which is the case in Austin.
The change made Austin the first city in Texas to extend such health care benefits to employees, but Spelman spokeswoman Heidi Gerbracht said she does not think Austin will be the last.
“Every city who does it will push another city to think about doing it,” Gerbracht said.
Karen Landolt, chairwoman of the UT Pride and Equity Faculty Staff Association’s Domestic Partner Benefits Committee, applauds the city’s move, but she does not think it will help UT employees in same-sex partnerships. Since UT is a public institution governed by the laws of the Texas government, it also only provides health insurance benefits to those in a marriage with a person of the “opposite sex.”
“While I think it’s awesome the city is doing that, it won’t impact UT directly,” Landolt said.
The UT Domestic Partner Benefits Committee has been working with Texas House Representative Elliott Naishtat to pass House Bill 861, which will alter the Texas Insurance Code to authorize the University of Texas and Texas A&M University school systems, which currently are restricted from extending health care benefits to those in same-sex relationships. The bill is currently pending, but Naishtat said he will work to get it passed next session.
“I would like to see domestic partnership benefits offered at whole levels,” Naishtat said. “Unfortunately, most members of the Legislature regard Austin as extremely liberal in many of its municipal policies. The fact that Austin did it doesn’t carry much weight; if Dallas or Houston did, then it would.”
The Pride and Equity Faculty Staff Association released a report in April arguing that UT is suffering because of the inequalities in health benefits for GLBT employees.
In April, assistant professor Deborah Vargas turned in a resignation letter explaining her decision to take a job at UCLA. Vargas stated that, despite her personal wish to stay at UT, she could not afford to pay for her partner’s health condition without the domestic health care benefits that the University of California system offered and UT did not.
Vargas is among the multiple employees cited in the report that have left UT because it does not offer the same benefits to same-sex domestic partners as it does to those of opposite genders.
Graduate student Corina Cantu cofounded Burnt Orange Benefits after attending the hearing of the bill. The organization supports extending UT employee health care benefits to those in same-sex domestic partnerships.
“They had gotten to a point where they needed students to support this. Ultimately we are the consumers of what the University provides,” Cantu said. “Faculty and staff are leaving or not coming in the first place. We need to look long-term and [know] that inequality is not going to be physically sound.”
As a student, paying thousands of dollars in tuition, I don't want a bad policy to keep quality faculty and staff away and as a result reduce the value of my degree.