Domestic partner benefits returned to City of Ann Arbor employees
Slightly more than one month after a federal judge struck down Michigan’s ban on domestic partner benefits, the city of Ann Arbor has officially restored them to its employees.
As of Thursday, health care benefits were granted back to “other qualified adults” — which include gay and lesbian partners of city workers. Ann Arbor City Council's labor committee began pursuing the issue in mid-July.
Ann Arbor's city hall.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com file photo
Here are the stipulations for the city’s medical coverage for other qualified adults:
- An employee can only name one other adult as his or her “other qualified adult”
- The employee and the other qualified adult must have lived together for the past 18 months
- Neither the employee nor the other qualified adult is married to someone else
- The other qualified adult can’t inherit from the employee
- The employee and the other qualified adult either have durable power of attorney for health care for each other or for financial management
Employees have until Aug. 30 to apply for coverage.
The city of Ann Arbor follows Washtenaw County's swift move to restore domestic partner benefits to nine employees in early July.
Ann Arbor Public Schools reinstated health care benefits for domestic partners of employees at the end of June immediately after the judge issued an injunction on the ban, said Liz Margolis, district spokeswoman.
The city of Ypsilanti is working on a resolution to restore such benefits to its employees as well.
Amy Biolchini covers Washtenaw County, health and environmental issues for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at (734) 623-2552, amybiolchini@annarbor.com or on Twitter.
Comments
Buckybeaver
Sat, Aug 3, 2013 : 5:49 p.m.
Just wonderful
clownfish
Sat, Aug 3, 2013 : 12:04 p.m.
I looked out my window, the Earth is still there! No one was harmed by this policy change. The Bearded Man did not flood A2 or turn it into salt. Just like no one was harmed anywhere in the US when Minnesota began marrying gay people last week. Did any Haters even notice? Did you all leave your spouses because your relationship has been rendered meaningless or is your bond just as strong as it was a month ago? Good job Court and A2 government!!
AimeeMConat
Mon, Aug 5, 2013 : 5:43 a.m.
You mean I divorced my awesome husband and ran to Minnesota to marry a woman and I didn't HAVE to? I thought once *anyone* could get married to someone of the same gender, everyone HAD to. Dammit.
YpsiGirl4Ever
Sat, Aug 3, 2013 : 5:28 a.m.
Good to read all Domestic Partners whether LGBT or Heterosexual will be offered this benefit option by the City of Ann Arbor!
Jaime Magiera
Fri, Aug 2, 2013 : 9:57 p.m.
Funny anecdote... I was sitting at the Fleetwood on a warm sunny day back in the mid-90s. The University and the City were starting to implement various domestic partner benefits. A couple in their late 50s were enjoying a meal at the next able over. They had apparently just dropped off their daughter for her first semester. I overheard the man say to his wife "The university is going to start giving benefits to the gays. Now, they're going to start coming here and build a community!" I nearly fell over in my chair :)
Jaime Magiera
Sat, Aug 3, 2013 : 9:40 a.m.
In a sense, yes. However, the funny part is the man thinking "the gays" were going to come here and build a community. They have been here, in a nurturing community, for a loooong time. The man and his wife were clearly living in some sort of "Leave it to Beaver" fantasy bubble.
Paul
Sat, Aug 3, 2013 : 4:59 a.m.
Ah, that is what happen. Places that are more gay friendly, attracts more of them. Why not, its good to feel wanted. People want to fit in, not out.
Jaime Magiera
Fri, Aug 2, 2013 : 9:52 p.m.
Yes! Ann Arbor remains steadfast in its dedication to equality!
Basic Bob
Fri, Aug 2, 2013 : 8:22 p.m.
While this is likely to placate those who believe their civil rights were being violated, it also likely includes some heterosexual employees who desire family benefits outside of marriage, as well as providing benefits to nominally married couples who have been separated for decades but stay married on paper for the sole reason of personal financial benefit. But for the sake of equality and fairness, we will allow people to stretch the truth to the maximum extent of the law, regardless of what is ethical or moral.
clownfish
Sat, Aug 3, 2013 : noon
This new/old rule has no application to your example. Under existing rules those hetero couples could have received benefits, as they are "married on paper". Do you have some examples of hetero employees abusing this kind of rule or are you just making examples up ?
Basic Bob
Sat, Aug 3, 2013 : 3:05 a.m.
@Lola, they don't have to prove anything if they are married.
Lola
Fri, Aug 2, 2013 : 10:49 p.m.
You said: "as well as providing benefits to nominally married couples who have been separated for decades but stay married on paper for the sole reason of personal financial benefit. " The article stated: "The employee and the other qualified adult must have lived together for the past 18 months" Try again.
MichU
Fri, Aug 2, 2013 : 6:32 p.m.
Right on. That's a good thing.
Greg
Fri, Aug 2, 2013 : 5:22 p.m.
Great, we can breath again now that the the city can be politically correct once more. I feel better already.
Lola
Fri, Aug 2, 2013 : 10:56 p.m.
Mike, you said "ordmad - So you hating or being intolerant of people with religious beliefs that disagree with you would by definition be a bigot" Citing religious beliefs is usually just an excuse that bigoted people hide behind. Haven't you heard? The pope has no problem with gay people. The only "people" (monsters) I'll give a pass to for claiming their "religion" forbids them to believe that homosexuality isn't a sin are the ones from the Westboro Baptist "Church" (hate group). Surely you don't want to be associated with them.
Jaime Magiera
Fri, Aug 2, 2013 : 9:48 p.m.
Religious beliefs are personal. This is government. Limiting government-based benefits based on the religious beliefs of the few is bigotry.
Mike
Fri, Aug 2, 2013 : 9:32 p.m.
definition of bigot - "someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics." ordmad - So you hating or being intolerant of people with religious beliefs that disagree with you would by definition be a bigot
KMHall
Fri, Aug 2, 2013 : 7:52 p.m.
Greg I feel better knowing that the city is doing the right thing. Your statement seems unkind in being sarcastic. You sound as though you are making fun of those who feel strongly about this issue.
ordmad
Fri, Aug 2, 2013 : 5:51 p.m.
You mean not bigoted, right?
David Briegel
Fri, Aug 2, 2013 : 5:10 p.m.
Wow, no more second class citizens. This will make the "values" posters quite upset!
speerhawk
Fri, Aug 2, 2013 : 5:02 p.m.
"The other qualified adult can't inherit from the employee." This means not a immediate family memeber like daughter or son even thought I dont know why that would matter whats the difference if its a same sex couple, opposite couple (yes there are a few that benefit from this so they dont have to get married) or a daughter, son or even brother or if you have mom or dad living with you.
justcurious
Fri, Aug 2, 2013 : 4:52 p.m.
"The other qualified adult can't inherit from the employee." I'm not sure I understand this part. Can't we name anyone in our wills and if we are in a serious relationship I would think this would be a common thing to do?
Goober
Sat, Aug 3, 2013 : 11:46 a.m.
How about an adult sibling?
Eep
Fri, Aug 2, 2013 : 10:22 p.m.
I think that they probably meant that the "other qualified adult" had to be someone who wouldn't inherit from the employee through intestate succession - i.e. not a family member who would inherit if the employee died without a will. The obvious purpose (call it diabolical or clever, depending on your perspective) is to allow same-sex partners to use this benefit without opening it up to adult children (over the age of 26) who wouldn't otherwise be eligible.