Executive Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court has held that marriage is a fundamental right, and states must perform and recognize same-sex marriage. See Obergefell v. Hodges (June 26, 2015).
What this Means for Employers
Uniform state and federal treatment of same-sex spouses
-
Fully-Insured Health and Welfare Plans: Under today's decision, fully-insured plans must extend coverage to same-sex spouses.
-
Self-Insured Health and Welfare Plans: Self-insured plans may continue to use a plan-specific definition of spouse but may be subject to federal and state anti-discrimination claims.
-
Employees have begun successfully litigating the exclusion of same-sex spouses from self-insured plans under federal and state anti-discrimination laws.
-
Recent case law has found that ERISA's preemption provisions may no longer provide protection for the design flexibility once afforded to employers providing self-insured plans. As a result, implementing a definition of "spouse" that is at odds with the state and federal definition may considerably increase a plan's potential exposure to lawsuits under state and federal anti-discrimination statutes, such as Title VII and the Equal Pay Act (EPA).
-
Background
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on:
1) The "marriage" question: Does the Constitution require states to allow same-sex marriages?
Yes. The Court held that there is a constitutional right to marry.
2) The "recognition" question: Does the Constitution require states to recognize same-sex marriages that legally took place somewhere else?
Yes. The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from denying the marital status of same-sex couples lawfully married in the state of celebration.
The Court's decision overrules a 6th Circuit decision that upheld state same-sex marriage bans in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee and resolves the inconsistent treatment of same-sex marriage nationwide. In addition to the issues discussed above, today's decision could have a far-reaching impact on state laws. Please stay tuned for a more comprehensive discussion of how this decision may impact employers.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.