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.
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Employment Law
- Coronavirus
- Labor Law
- Federal Trade Commission
- Department of Labor
- National Labor Relations Board
- Wage & Hour
- Privacy
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- NLRB
- Workplace Accommodations
- FMLA
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Employment Litigation
- Arbitration
- Workplace Violence
- Discrimination
- Religion Discrimination
- Medical Marijuana
- FLSA
- IRS
- Litigation
- Social Media
- Employer Policies
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Disability Discrimination
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Race Discrimination
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Accommodation
- OSHA
- Whistleblower
- Employer Handbook
- ERISA
- United States Supreme Court
- EEOC
- ADAAA
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Unions
- Title VII
- Employer Rules
- Sexual Harassment
- Technology
- Federal Arbitration Act
- NLRA
- Transgender Issues
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Sixth Circuit
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Benefits
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Securities Law
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Health Savings Account
- Preventive Care Benefits
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Environmental Law
- Privacy Laws
- Overtime Pay
- Representative Election Regulations
- Department of Justice
- Healthcare Reform
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Electronically Stored Information
- Telecommuting
- Affirmative Action
- Compensable Time
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Security Screening
- Supreme Court
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Disability Leave
- Social Media Content
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
- Antitrust
Recent Posts
- NLRB General Counsel Expands Focus on Non-Compete Agreements and Stay-Or-Pay Agreements
- FTC's Non-Compete Rule Struck Down
- District Court Finds in Favor of FTC, Declines to Issue Injunction
- DOL Increases Compensation Threshold for Exemption Eligibility
- Federal Trade Commission Announces New Rule Invalidating Non-Compete Agreements
- EEOC Announces Final Rule Providing Guidelines under the PWFA
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Immediate Termination
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Labor & Employment Law Update February 2024
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Telephone Game
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Labor & Employment Law Update January 2024