StaggerLee
Scrapple Level: 161
Posts: 1835/7105 EXP: 53018772 For next: 1094461
Since: 3.10.02 From: Right side of the tracks
Since last post: 928 days Last activity: 928 days
| #1 Posted on 26.8.04 2220.12 Reposted on: 26.8.11 2221.07 | The company I work for has introduced a new policy that states that they will be offering to cover domestic partners under thier insurance policies.
I was looking into this, since I have been living with my girlfriend for three years, dont seem to think there is a reason to believe it will end soon. However, I was told that it only covered same sex couples.
I asked the reasoning, and they stated that "heterosexuals can marry, and when they decide to, they will both be covered."
Now, I hate crappy lawsuits, but I was thinking of calling the ACLU and asking them to represent me. If a person cannot be denied a job based on thier sexual orientation, how can a person be denied benefits based on thier sexual preference? Promote this thread! | | AWArulz
Scrapple Level: 125
Posts: 851/3909 EXP: 21976026 For next: 478201
Since: 28.1.02 From: Louisville, KY
Since last post: 90 days Last activity: 90 days
| | Y!: | |
|
| #2 Posted on 26.8.04 2238.16 Reposted on: 26.8.11 2239.19 | Originally posted by StaggerLee The company I work for has introduced a new policy that states that they will be offering to cover domestic partners under thier insurance policies.
I was looking into this, since I have been living with my girlfriend for three years, dont seem to think there is a reason to believe it will end soon. However, I was told that it only covered same sex couples.
I asked the reasoning, and they stated that "heterosexuals can marry, and when they decide to, they will both be covered."
Now, I hate crappy lawsuits, but I was thinking of calling the ACLU and asking them to represent me. If a person cannot be denied a job based on thier sexual orientation, how can a person be denied benefits based on thier sexual preference?
Sounds to me like you have a legitimate complaint, Stagger. I'd go for it, and I think this is a policy that needs to be challenged. | JayJayDean
Scrapple Level: 136
Posts: 1567/4750 EXP: 29484538 For next: 612454
Since: 2.1.02 From: Seattle, WA
Since last post: 2975 days Last activity: 2553 days
| | Y!: | |
|
| #3 Posted on 26.8.04 2240.09 Reposted on: 26.8.11 2240.10 | Originally posted by StaggerLee Now, I hate crappy lawsuits, but I was thinking of calling the ACLU and asking them to represent me. If a person cannot be denied a job based on thier sexual orientation, how can a person be denied benefits based on thier sexual preference?
Call 'em up. There has to be a qualifying definition of "domestic partner" somewhere, and if it refers to same-sex couples specifically (or actually even if it doesn't) then you'd think a lawyer would be able to get that changed. Heck, I'd half-expect even the inquiry from the lawyer might get the policy changed provided there was a reasonable chance you were LEGALLY correct.
EDIT: No sleepy means poor typey.
(edited by JayJayDean on 26.8.04 2041) | StaggerLee
Scrapple Level: 161
Posts: 1836/7105 EXP: 53018772 For next: 1094461
Since: 3.10.02 From: Right side of the tracks
Since last post: 928 days Last activity: 928 days
| #4 Posted on 26.8.04 2344.13 Reposted on: 26.8.11 2345.14 | My thinking is that if she meets all the other standards that they need to qualify, which they are 'formulating' at this time, with the exception of gender, is her gender the only thing disqualifying her? If so, that just doesnt seem right to me.
I did a little look around, and the only real thing I ever saw that was a constant for defining Domestic Partnership were: Live together for X amount of years Be financially interdependant
She meets the criteria, except for the having a penis thing.
What kind of good Republican sues his worker using an ACLU lawyer? LOL! | MoeGates
Boudin blanc Level: 100
Posts: 1698/2353 EXP: 10277019 For next: 77413
Since: 6.1.02 From: Brooklyn, NY
Since last post: 14 days Last activity: 7 days
| #5 Posted on 27.8.04 0005.23 Reposted on: 27.8.11 0005.52 | Now, do they cover people who have filed for domestic partnership with the state? Because that is definitely gender neutral. I'm almost certain any two people can file for domestic partnership if the state or locality has that law. If they have their own definition of "Domestic Partner" that's different.
I would, of course, like to point out that if you want to get in the business of complaining about a policy that only gives benefits to a partner of a specific gender, there's better ones to complain about
| Grimis
Scrapple Level: 135
Posts: 3827/4700 EXP: 28678380 For next: 656701
Since: 11.7.02 From: MD
Since last post: 4704 days Last activity: 3158 days
| #6 Posted on 27.8.04 0807.59 Reposted on: 27.8.11 0808.59 | Originally posted by MoeGates Now, do they cover people who have filed for domestic partnership with the state? Because that is definitely gender neutral. I'm almost certain any two people can file for domestic partnership if the state or locality has that law. If they have their own definition of "Domestic Partner" that's different.
THat is often the case. Often, there is no domestic partner option for heterosexual couples.
This is why I would rather see gay marriage than the current system, incidentally... | DrDirt
Banger Level: 106
Posts: 1144/2743 EXP: 12414511 For next: 257473
Since: 8.10.03 From: flyover country
Since last post: 2336 days Last activity: 2238 days
| #7 Posted on 27.8.04 0817.15 Reposted on: 27.8.11 0817.37 | I have a problem with this period. I am not moralizing but without a legal commitment why should a company grant benefits. I realize this is one of the arguments for gay marriage. Therfore, come up with a civil union fr gyas and then I'm happy but not thrilled.
And Syagger, you are getting screwed. | ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE |
| | | | | | | |