Litigation

Washington domestic partnership law may complicate employee benefits

By Stacey Mark

Washington's domestic partnership law, which went into effect on December 3, 2009, provides that for all purposes, registered domestic partners must be treated the same as married spouses, unless doing so would conflict with state law.  "Registered domestic partners" include same-sex domestic partners, and also opposite-sex domestic partners, provided one of them is at least 62 years old.

For employers, this means that employment-related benefits must be extended to the registered domestic partners of employees on the same basis as spouses -- that is, unless the benefit is governed exclusively by federal law.  FMLA is one such law; ERISA is another.  This means that employers subject to FMLA and the corresponding state leave laws (the Washington Family Leave Act,  state pregnancy disability laws, and state military leave laws) cannot count against an employee's annual FMLA entitlement any leave that is covered by state law but not FMLA.  One such example is leave taken to care for a registered domestic partner or his/her family member with a serious health condition.  A complication resulting from that difference is that employers covered by the FLSA (federal wage and hour law) cannot make deductions for partial-day absences for leave that qualifies under state law but not under FMLA.   

Another area of conflict between state and federal law exists with respect to group health plans.  To the extent group health plans are regulated under state insurance law, which is the case when the plan is funded by insurance, the benefits must be made available to the registered domestic partners of employees on the same terms as they are made available to employees' spouses.  However, self-funded plans are governed exclusively by ERISA, under which there is no requirement to provide benefits to registered domestic partners.

In practice, administering benefits in light of these differences can be complicated.  Questions should be reviewed with employment counsel.

Full post as published by Northwest Business Litigation Blog on January 22, 2010 (boomark / email).