“As of the fall of 2001, less than 1,200 employers nation wide had chosen to offer benefits to cohabiting couples without being subject to local laws requiring such benefits.” [From Do Domestic Partner Benefits Make Good Business Sense?, p. 2.]
“A corporation’s sexual orientation nondiscrimination policy may conflict with the duty not to discriminate on the basis of religion.” [From Answers to an Employer’s Legal Questions about Domestic Partner Benefits and Sexual Orientation Nondiscrimination Policies, p. i.]
“Are domestic partnerships just as good as marriage, in the sense of providing the same benefits to adults, children and society? The scientific evidence to date strongly indicates the answer is, no.” [From Why Supporting Marriage Makes Business Sense, p. 6.]
“Injustice arises when equals are treated unequally, and when unequals are treated equally.” Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 350 B.C.E. (emphasis added).
Please Note: White Papers require the Adobe Acrobat Reader for viewing.
Do Domestic Partner Benefits Make Good Business Sense?
This paper serves as an introduction to the White Papers currently available from CRC. Contrary to arguments put forth by advocacy groups, domestic partner benefits do not make good business sense for most employers. It makes better economic sense for employers to promote healthy marriages among employees because married employees generally provide a more dependable and more motivated workforce.
Why Supporting Marriage Makes Business Sense
Since married employees are generally happier, healthier, and more dependable than single or cohabiting employees, employers should adopt policies that promote stable marriages for their employees. Studies have shown that divorce reduces the productivity, health and general welfare of employees. In addition, it has been well documented that cohabitation does not provide the same benefits as marriage to employers, individuals or children-and that women and children suffer the most severe consequences of divorce and cohabitation.
Many employers have no idea that adding sexual orientation to their nondiscrimination policies may expose them to significant legal problems. Potential problems include:
- Possible legal liability in states that do not prohibit sexual orientation discrimination (laws in 12 states and the District of Columbia prohibit discrimination based upon sexual orientation);
- A conflict between the implementation of the sexual orientation policy and the employer's duty under Title VII to protect employees from a sexually hostile work environment;
- Lawsuits over which restrooms transgendered persons should use (if transgender is included); and
- A conflict between the choice to protect sexual orientation and the duty under Title VII to accommodate religious beliefs.
No law of general application requires employers to provide domestic partner benefits to employees.
Behind the Rhetoric: The Social Goals of GLBT Advocacy in Corporate America
Although people who identify themselves and seek benefits as gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender ("GLBT") constitute approximately 2 percent of the population, they have brought about tremendous social transformation in recent years. The social goals of many GLBT advocates include the elimination of sexual mores, the reformation of the traditional concepts of marriage and family, and the establishment of GLBT relationships as equal to heterosexual relationships. GLBT advocates openly acknowledge that Corporate America is a key vehicle for achieving social change, and they have a well-organized strategy for reaching their goals.
The Hidden Costs of Domestic Partner Benefits
A lack of public data about domestic partner benefits makes it difficult to predict what it will cost any particular company to provide such benefits. Advocates of domestic partner benefits assert that the cost of health care is about the same for same- or opposite-sex cohabiting couples as it is for married couples. But one insurance company found that it paid 17.1% more for health care for same-sex couples in 2001 than it did for opposite-sex couples. This paper explores the reasons why employers should expect to pay more for domestic partner health care than for married couple health care.
Sexual relationships between members of the same sex expose gays, lesbians and bisexuals to extreme risks of sexually transmitted diseases, physical injuries, mental disorders and even a shortened life span. This paper documents those risks, and draws a provocative conclusion: A compassionate response to requests for social approval and recognition of GLB relationships is not to assure gays and lesbians that homosexual relationships are just like heterosexual ones, but to point out the health risks of gay sex and promiscuity.
A Model Approach to Employee Benefits Decisions
Employers can simplify the decision-making process about employee benefits by having a pre-determined structure for making sound business decisions. This is especially helpful when it comes to controversial issues like domestic partner benefits.
