TITLE

Two steps forward for domestic-partner benefits

AUTHOR(S)
Laabs, Jennifer J.
PUB. DATE
January 1998
SOURCE
Workforce;Jan1998, Vol. 77, p13
SOURCE TYPE
Periodical
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
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.
ACCESSION #
85977

 

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.

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of VIRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY AND SYSTEM

Sign out of this library

Other Topics