On December 13, 2002, Minneapolis joined about half a dozen other
municipalities around the country in enacting an “Equal Benefits
Ordinance,” requiring certain contractors with the City to offer
domestic partner benefits. The full
text of the ordinance is available at the City of Minneapolis web
site. What follows are answers to some of the frequently-asked questions
regarding the ordinance.
Are all contractors with the City required to offer domestic
partner benefits?
No. Only those contractors whose contracts are being handled by the
City’s Purchasing division are affected, and only with respect to those
contractors with more than 21 benefits-receiving employees and whose
contracts are for more than $100,000. Additionally, benefits are
required only for those employees working on the City contract, and only
for the duration of the contract. The Equal Benefits Ordinance applies
these same requirements to subcontractors working on qualifying City contracts.
Do all affected employers have to offer benefits?
No. The ordinance itself, which became effective January 1,
2004, contains a business-friendly provision
that permits an employer who currently offers no domestic partner
benefits to comply with the ordinance by simply certifying that such
benefits would be provided upon request by an employee or by the City,
and that employees will be notified of their right to request benefits.
Are benefits required only for same-sex couples?
No. The Equal Benefits Ordinance requires that affected employers
provide benefits to employees’ domestic partners regardless of their
sex. This is consistent with the City’s existing domestic partner
registry ordinance, and with the practices of a majority of employers,
according to the Human Rights Campaign.
To get benefits, must the couple be registered with the City? What
if I live in a city where there is no registration available?
Government registration is NOT required, although a story in the
Star-Tribune reported otherwise. The Equal Benefits Ordinance requires
affected employers to provide benefits to government-registered partners
AND to partners who, absent such a registration mechanism, identify
themselves to the employer in a manner created by the employer, which
is the typical current practice.
Will this requirement impose heavy financial burdens on employers?
No. Most studies show that only a small percentage of employees
actually avail themselves of domestic partner benefits, and that the
cost to an employer of covering a partner is essentially the same (or
even cheaper) as covering a spouse. Additionally, because the employer
is required to provide benefits only to partners of employees working on
a City contract, for the duration of the contract, the actual cost to
the employer of benefits required by the Equal Benefits Ordinance is
anticipated to be quite small. Employers, of course, remain free to
provide their employees and their spouses or partners benefits greater
than those required by the Ordinance.
Will this Ordinance hamstring the City’s ability to get the
quality goods and services it needs in a timely manner?
No. In fact, the City’s stated purpose in passing the Equal Benefits
Ordinance was to ensure that it was receiving the highest-quality goods
and services, arguing that employers who provide domestic partner
benefits tend to be the most competitive in their fields and therefore
are more likely to attract and retain the highest-qualified employees,
thereby maintaining or improving the quality of goods and services the
City receives. Additionally, the City reserved the right to waive the
benefits requirement in cases of emergency, and in other limited
circumstances, so that if a crisis exists, the City need not wait to
find a benefits-providing contractor in order to respond.
Is this ordinance legal?
Yes. In 1997, the City of San Francisco passed the first Equal
Benefits Ordinance. This first version was very broad and it was
challenged in federal court. The result of the litigation was that the
core of the San Francisco ordinance was upheld, but its scope was
narrowed. All subsequent Equal Benefits Ordinances, including the
Minneapolis ordinance, have been drafted with these limitations in mind.
However, due to
the heavy involvement of the Minneapolis City Attorney’s office, it is
felt that the “bugs” have been sufficiently worked out so that problems
should be avoidable. The first attempt to challenge the ordinance was
dismissed from federal court in a case called
Titus Construction v. City of Minneapolis (PDF file).
|
