Two steps forward for domestic-partner benefits

Laabs, Jennifer J.
January 1998
Workforce;Jan1998, Vol. 77, p13
Focuses on the University of California Board of Regents' voting to extend health benefits to the domestic partners of its gay employees. Non-provision of same benefit to partners of unmarried heterosexual workers; Views of opponents to the ruling; Treatment of reciprocal beneficiaries under a law in Hawaii.


Related Articles

  • The board of regents of the University of California, governance, and affirmative action.  // Academe;Jul/Aug96, Vol. 82 Issue 4, p61 

    Presents the report issued by an American Association of University Professors' (AAUP) ad hoc commission in response to a request from some faculty in the University of California concerning the regents' decision, on July 20, 1995, to end its affirmative action policy. Affirmative action...

  • Benefits for gays and lesbians.  // Alberta Report / Newsmagazine;6/13/94, Vol. 21 Issue 26, p12 

    Cites an article that appeared in the May/June issue of the newsletter `reality.' Lists several Ontario-based companies which have joined Sears Canada Inc. in extending family benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian employees.

  • A victory for marriage.  // Alberta Report / Newsmagazine;7/4/94, Vol. 21 Issue 29, p31 

    Discusses the contents of the May 27, 1994 issue of the `Washington Watch' newsletter issued by the Family Research Council. Observations about the city of Austin, Texas, and its `domestic partnership' laws.

  • Gay couples' charter to hit pensions for £2.5bn. Greenwood, John // Money Marketing;7/3/2003, p56 

    Reveals the cost to British private sector occupational pension schemes of plans to give same-sex couples the same legal rights as married couples.

  • In the courts. Moskowitz, Eileen H. // Hastings Center Report;Jul/Aug96, Vol. 26 Issue 4, p46 

    Presents court cases in the United States illustrating legal issues on providing medical care for gay couples. Tumeo v. University of Alaska in Alaska; Heeney v. Erhard in Minnesota; Ward v. Ward in Florida.

  • Benefits, not marriage.  // National Catholic Reporter;5/16/97, Vol. 33 Issue 28, p10 

    Focuses on bills voted on by the Hawaii Legislature regarding the granting of married couples' rights and benefits to homosexual couples.

  • Ontario Blue Cross appeals `same-sex' ruling as unfair. Cox, Brian // National Underwriter / Life & Health Financial Services;8/16/93, Vol. 97 Issue 33, p6 

    Reports on Ontario Blue Cross's appeal on the ruling regarding the provision of spousal benefits to same-sex couples in all group plans in Ontario, Canada. Non-inclusion of other insurers in the area; Competitive disadvantage.

  • Spousal benefits granted to same-sex couple in Ontario. Cox, Brian // National Underwriter / Property & Casualty Risk & Benefits Manag;8/16/93, Vol. 97 Issue 33, p2 

    Reports on the Ontario Human Rights Commission's ruling that grants spousal benefits to same-sex couples in all group plans of Canada's Blue Cross. Non-inclusion of other insurers in the area; Competitive disadvantage; Appeal of the ruling.

  • Love ya if it's free. Goldberg, Kim // Canadian Dimension;Aug94, Vol. 28 Issue 4, p22 

    Discusses gay issues in Canada. Notable gay-bashing incident in Ottawa 25 years earlier; Equal rights for gays in British-Columbia; Inconsistencies in government policies regarding same-sex relationships; Health risks; Medical expenses of AIDS patients.


Read the Article


Sign out of this library

Other Topics