Out In The Mountains : News - UVM Employees Need Civil Unions for Partner Benefits

In the wake of Vermont’s legal recognition of same–sex couples, the state’s university is doing away with domestic partnership benefits for employees in same–sex relationships.

The University of Vermont has given notice that employees in same–sex relationships will now be required to have civil union licenses to claim benefits for their partners. Those who are currently covered under the school’s domestic partnership plan will have until the end of 2001 to comply.

The university determined that same–sex couples now have the ability to legalize their relationships as married couples do, school spokesperson Enrique Corredera told the Burlington Free Press, and licenses will be the requirement for obtaining benefits for spouses. The result, he said, would make UVM’s policy on granting benefits consistent for all couples.

He cited increasing health care costs as justification for not extending benefits to others. “The goal is to bring costs under control,” said Corredera. “We feel it is necessary to draw the line somewhere.”

Glen Elder, assistant professor of geology, said this reasoning is based on the assumption that marriage and civil unions are equal. “If they were,” said the South Africa native, “I wouldn’t have had to go through what I did to get a green card; we would have had access to the immigration policies that married couples have.”

Beth Robinson, attorney for the plaintiffs in the Baker case that prompted the civil union law, said UVM was correct in seeing a problem, but “absolutely wrong” in their solution. “Same–sex couples don’t want a double standard,” she said, “But domestic partnership benefits are about equal pay for equal work, whether you’re married, in a civil union, living with someone of the same sex of someone of the opposite sex, or living with your brother or sister.”

Robinson believes the correct move would be to extend domestic partnership benefits more broadly. “It is unfortunate,” she said, “that UVM has decided to narrow the scope of health insurance availability at a time when workers everywhere certainly need greater access to it.”

The university was one of the state’s first employers and one of the country’s first universities to offer same–sex couples benefits. Now those benefits are commonplace in academia, said Elder. “This action will deplete the pool of people who will apply here,” he said. “Why would you go someplace that required a civil union when other places offer domestic partnership benefits without it?”

Professor Beth Mintz, UVM sociology department chair, was one of the employees whose grievance led to the 1993 implementation of domestic partnership benefits. “This decision was made with minimal consultation in general,” she said, “and none that I know of with people who were part of the original movement to acquire the benefits.” She said the administration’s conference with the Ad Hoc Benefits Committee of university employees was “like asking white people what’s good for people of color.”

The issue, said Mintz, is not whether or not civil unions provide the same benefits as domestic partnership, but that neither is equal to marriage. “Civil unions are still second class benefits,” she said. For example, she said, even with a civil union license, any health benefits she would acquire for her partner are taxable, unlike those for married couples.

Some UVM employees are concerned about the loss of privacy the new rules require. Elder said there are many people who will not be comfortable outing themselves to their town clerks to get licenses. “In some places, there’s a real risk to that,” he said.

Additionally, Elder finds the new requirements insulting. “It puts the burden of responsibility back on gay and lesbian faculty to prove that our relationships are valid.” He says that those who are already a part of the program should at least have been grandfathered in. “This conveys to me very clearly,” he said “that our benefits on campus were always contingent—never granted fully. At any point, I could lose my benefits just because of who I am.”

Elder and Mintz and other UVM employees have met informally to discuss how to deal with the change in policy. They have scheduled a meeting with members of the school’s administration to discuss the decision and the process through which it was made.