According to The New York Times, Google is going to begin covering a cost that gay and lesbian employees must pay when their partners receive domestic partner health benefits. This is intended to compensate these employees for an extra tax that heterosexual married couples do not pay. Employer-provided health benefits for domestic partners are counted as taxable income if the partner is not considered a dependent. The tax owed is based on the value of the partner’s coverage paid by the employer. The Tax Prof Blog explains the tax aspects here, and notes that other companies such as Cisco, Kimpton Hotels, and the Gates Foundation provide similar benefits.
While it is easy to understand why a company might adopt such a policy, is it legal? I am not aware of any cases testing the issue, but it is not too hard to mount an argument that this benefit violates the law.
Twenty-one (21) states and the District of Columbia prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. By way of example, California’s law prohibits discrimination “on account of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, age, or sexual orientation.” The “gross up” benefit is extra compensation and is provided based exclusively on sexual orientation. Conversely, it is denied to heterosexual employees on the same basis, their sexual orientation. This appears to be a direct violation of several states’ anti-discrimination laws.
In the Times article, Google’s vice president for “people operations” also justifies the benefit by noting that ”heterosexual couples can avoid the added tax by marrying.” The implication is that the employees who are heterosexual and single have no one but themselves to blame for any income disparity they suffer. However, this is also problematic in that California and several other states prohibit discrimination based on marital status. Moreover, the denial of extra compensation to married employees could run afoul of these provisions as well.
The “gross up” benefit provides homosexual employees a benefit in the form of extra compensation that is not provided to similarly situated heterosexual employees based on their orientation and/or marital status. I’m no plaintiff’s attorney but it seems to me that Google and other companies offering these benefits would be wise to remember my first rule of employment law — no good deed goes unpunished.
- Partner
Mark Chumley has experience representing management in all aspects of labor and employment law. He has handled numerous cases before state and federal courts and state and federal civil rights agencies, including claims ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- Coronavirus
- Labor Law
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- NLRB
- Discrimination
- Department of Labor
- IRS
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Retirement
- Arbitration
- NLRA
- Employer Policies
- ERISA
- Race Discrimination
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Accommodation
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Litigation
- Social Media
- Reasonable Accommodation
- National Labor Relations Act
- National Labor Relations Board
- Employer Handbook
- Employment Litigation
- EEOC
- Wage & Hour
- 401(k)
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Title VII
- ADAAA
- Workplace Accommodations
- Sexual Harassment
- Employer Rules
- Unions
- Transgender Issues
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Technology
- Securities Law
- Privacy
- FMLA
- Disability
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Workplace Violence
- Health Savings Account
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Sixth Circuit
- Disability Discrimination
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- OSHA
- Overtime Pay
- Religion Discrimination
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Representative Election Regulations
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Department of Justice
- Benefits
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Environmental Law
- Privacy Laws
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Healthcare Reform
- Telecommuting
- Electronically Stored Information
- Affirmative Action
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Compensable Time
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Security Screening
- Supreme Court
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Classification
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Misclassification
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- Taxation
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Antitrust
Recent Posts
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Termination Done Right - Part 1
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Welcome 2021 - 5 Things for Employers to Consider
- Congressional Proposal Extends Tax Credits to Companies Providing Paid Leave, but Allows Requirement to Expire
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: EEOC Issues New Guidance on COVID-19 Vaccinations
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Non-Compete Agreements - Five Mistakes by Three Parties
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Employment At-Will – Myth or Reality?
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: COVID-19 Immunity Laws
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Reductions in Force - Key Factors to Consider
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast
- 5 Things Employers Should Know About Military Leave