IN THIS ISSUE:
December 8, 2009 Breakfast Meeting
Wrap Up
SNHRA Member Survey Winners Announced
LEGAL BRIEF:
An Update for Employers on Domestic Partnership
and Same-Sex Marriage Laws
SNHRA Career Center
Powered by
Lasvegasjobs.com
PLUS:
Have A Safe and Happy Holiday Season
We would like to thank all of our Members and Guests who attended our December 8, 2009 Legal Panel breakfast meeting. The panel conducted a great discussion of some current and pressing legal matters and answered some great questions from the group. We would also like to thank all of you who brought a new, unwrapped toy for Toys for Tots.
The installation of officers was held during the meeting, as we welcomed in our new President Patrice Ross, SPHR and the rest of our Board. We would also like to thank all of our 2008-09 Officers and our 2008-09 President (and now Past-President) Bud H. Pierce for their unwavering commitment to the Association and to the HR field in general. We salute you! (Click here to see the new 2010-11 Board)
Sadly, this was our last meeting of 2009 but we now look forward to an exciting 2010 Schedule of Meetings [just added online...Visit "Meeting Schedule" to see the dates and/or to RSVP...Info about each meeting will be added when received from the speaker(s)]. We've already had some great announcements for the first quarter of 2010, including our next Seminar “Finance for HR Professionals” presented by Terry Gilland on February 19th, followed by our upcoming mixer at Madame Tussauds on February 24th, 2009.
With our SNHRA calendar for 2009 coming to an end, we would like to wish you all a happy and healthy holiday, and a healthy and prosperous New Year!
Recently, SNHRA took a survey of our membership with a chance to win a one of three great prizes:
- Grand Prize: 1 Year paid membership
- First Runner-Up: 6 Month paid membership
- Second Runner-Up: A Free Breakfast or Lunch meeting
Before announcing our winners, we would like to thank everyone who participated in the survey and thank you for your time...We got some great feedback and are using the feedback to shape our activities over the next year.
The announcement of the winners was held at the December 8th breakfast meeting, and the winners are:
- Our Grand Prize Winner is Maria Vandermolen from NV Energy who won a
1 Year paid membership! - Our First Runner-Up is Sonya Mayfield from United Coin who won a 6 month paid membership
- Our Second Runner Up is Ruth Urban from Urban Group who won a free paid breakfast or lunch meeting
Again, thanks to all who participated and congratulations to our winners.
By: Patrick H. Hicks and Jeanine Navarro. Patrick H. Hicks is the Founding Shareholder of Littler Mendelson’s Las Vegas and Reno offices. He can be reached at phicks@littler.com. Jeanine Navarro is an Associate in Littler Mendelson’s Las Vegas office. She can be reached at jnavarro@littler.com.
An Update For Employers on Domestic
Partnership and Same-Sex Marriage Laws
Despite voter rejections of same-sex marriage laws in Maine and New York, there have been recent developments in the legal recognition of same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships in a variety of states.
Same-Sex Marriage Rejected and Recognized
On November 3, 2009, voters in Maine overturned legislation that would have enabled "any 2 persons" otherwise qualified under state law to marry "regardless of the sex of each person." Similarly, on December 2, 2009, the New York State Senate voted against a measure that would have permitted same-sex couples to wed.
Meanwhile, Vermont's same-sex marriage law, SB 115, went into effect on September 1, 2009; Iowa began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in April 2009; and New Hampshire enacted legislation permitting same sex marriage effective January 1, 2010. These states join Massachusetts and Connecticut in permitting same-sex marriages.
In addition, on December 1, 2009, the Council of the District of Columbia approved, on the first of two required votes, legislation that would provide that marriage "is the legally recognized union of 2 people" and would permit any person who otherwise meets the requirements of local law to marry any other eligible person "regardless of gender." The second Council vote on the measure is scheduled at the end of the year, and the mayor is expected to sign it.
Washington's Domestic Partnership Law Survives Referendum While Other States Enact Domestic Partnership Laws
In a victory for domestic partnerships, on November 3, 2009, Washington State voters defeated Referendum 71, which would have cancelled legislation that grants state registered domestic partners the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities under state law as spouses, excluding marriage.
Nevada joined Washington in enacting domestic partnership legislation, SB 283, that permits same-sex and heterosexual couples to register as domestic partners and receive virtually all of the rights and responsibilities of spouses under state law.
Two other states passed more limited legislation. Wisconsin's domestic partnership law establishes a state domestic partner registry and confers some of the benefits of marriage, including inheritance and survivor protections, family and medical leave, hospital visitation rights and exemption from the real estate transfer fee. In Colorado, any two unmarried adults may enter into a designated beneficiary agreement providing certain rights and responsibilities, including hospital visitation, inheritance, and standing to sue for wrongful death.
These states join several other states (California, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Connecticut, and District of Columbia) that have previously enacted civil union or domestic partnership laws that provide some or all of the rights and responsibilities of spouses under state law.
California Recognizes Some Out-of-State Marriages
Proposition 8 amended the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. In a decision issued on May 26, 2009 (Strauss v. Horton), the California Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Proposition 8, but ruled that the measure, which took effect on November 5, 2008, did not retroactively invalidate the 18,000 marriage certificates that were already granted to same-sex couples. The court also declared that Proposition 8 "leaves undisturbed" samesex couples' constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship through the state's domestic partnership law, which gives state-registered domestic partners all of the legal rights and responsibilities of married couples under state law.
Bolstering the California Supreme Court's decision, the California Legislature passed, and the governor signed, Senate Bill 54, effective January 1, 2010, which provides that a marriage contracted outside California between two persons of the same sex prior to the effective date of Proposition 8, November 5, 2008, will be recognized as a valid marriage in California if it would be valid in the jurisdiction in which it was contracted. The law further provides that two persons of the same sex who contracted a valid marriage in another jurisdiction on or after November 5, 2008 will be entitled to the same rights, protections, obligations and duties under law as are granted or imposed upon spouses, with the sole exception of the designation of "marriage."
How Same-Sex Marriage and Domestic Partnership Laws Impact Employee Benefits
For private employers, the principal effect of state laws recognizing same-sex marriage or broadly granting registered domestic partners the same rights under law as spouses is in the area of insured group health plans. State-regulated insurers may be required to extend spousal coverage to registered domestic partners or same-sex spouses. These laws do not affect employee benefit plans (including self-insured group health plans) that are solely regulated by federal law, ERISA, or the federal tax treatment of employee benefits, because the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) limits marriage recognized under federal law to a legal union between one man and one woman.
Notwithstanding DOMA, in two recent cases affecting public employees, two judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued orders providing benefits to same-sex spouses of federal employees who were married before the effective date of Proposition 8 in California. In In the Matter of Karen Golinski, a Ninth Circuit staff attorney sought to add her wife to family health insurance under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act (FEHBA). The Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts refused, citing DOMA, and the attorney complained of sexual orientation 3 and sex discrimination. Chief Judge Kozinski, acting under the Ninth Circuit's Employment Dispute Resolution (EDR) Plan, ultimately concluded that the FEHBA provision authorizes coverage of same-sex spouses.
In a second case, In the Matter of Brad Levenson, a deputy federal public defender in the Central District of California who had married his husband in accordance with California law sought to add him as a family member beneficiary of his federal health, dental and vision benefits. When his request was denied on the ground that DOMA prohibits the provision of federal benefits to same-sex spouses, Levenson filed a complaint alleging that the denial of benefits violated the Ninth Circuit's EDR Plan, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation, and the United States Constitution. Judge Reinhardt, ruling on Levenson's complaint, agreed that the denial of benefits violated the EDR Plan. While Judge Reinhardt found that the FEHBA does not permit coverage of persons falling outside the definition of family member, he nevertheless concluded that application of DOMA to FEHBA to exclude a same-sex spouse violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Judge Reinhardt ordered the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to process Levenson's request to add his spouse as a beneficiary of his federal benefits. After the Office of Personnel Management intervened to prevent his enrollment, Levenson requested an order directing the federal public defender either to enter into separate contracts with private insurers to provide coverage, or for a monetary award. Judge Reinhardt issued a subsequent order granting Levenson's alternative request for a monetary award in an amount equal to the cost of obtaining comparable coverage.
In another judicial development, the New York Court of Appeals in November 2009 rejected legal challenges to public officials' directives recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages for purposes of public employee health insurance and other benefits, affirming the dismissal of two taxpayer lawsuits (Godfrey v. Spano and Lewis v. New York State Department of Civil Service). The court ruled that there was no basis for the plaintiffs' claims that the directives constituted a waste of taxpayer funds, or that the defendant officials acted inconsistently with the legislature's pronouncements on spousal benefits in the state Civil Service Law.
Outlook for Further Developments
It appears certain that efforts to expand recognition of same-sex marriage will continue, both at the state and federal level.
Due to the economy, a number of our Members and Guests have experienced job loss, and we wanted to help guide those who are looking for work by publishing selected postings from our Career Center powered by LasVegasJobs.com, as well as list postings we receive via email. Remember, SNHRA Members can post HR Related positions for free. Visit snhra.org and click on the "Career Center" banner ad in the middle lower part of the home page to access the Career Center.
Here is a posting we recently received, available as of publishing date:
"I am seeking candidate referrals for a Human Resources position that we I am staffing. I am seeking candidates with at least 3 years of HRIS database management, payroll, and payroll tax experience. If you know of anyone who might be a fit and would be interested in this position, please have them contact me directly; or I could contact them. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions:
Best Regards,
Dina Noricks
Market Manager
Ajilon Professional Staffing
3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 320
Las Vegas, NV 89169
702.932.6118 cell
702.528.0349 cell
www.ajilonoffice.com"
Vice Presidents and personnel directors of the one hundred largest corporations were asked to describe their most unusual experience interviewing prospective employees.
A job applicant challenged the interviewer to an arm wrestle.
Interviewee wore a Walkman, explaining that she could listen to the interviewer and the music at the same time.
Candidate fell and broke arm during interview.
Candidate announced she hadn't had lunch and proceeded to eat a hamburger and french fries in the interviewers office.
Candidate explained that her long-term goals was to replace the interviewer.
Candidate said he never finished high school because he was kidnapped and kept in a closet in Mexico.
Balding Candidate excused himself and returned to the office a few minutes later wearing a headpiece.
Applicant said if he was hired he would demonstrate his loyalty by having the corporate logo tattooed on his forearm.
Applicant interrupted interview to phone her therapist for advice on how to answer specific interview questions.
Candidate brought large dog to interview.
Applicant refused to sit down and insisted on being interviewed standing up.
Candidate dozed off during interview.
The employers were also asked to list the "most unusual" questions that have been asked by job candidates.
"What is it that you people do at this company?"
"What is the company motto?"
"Why aren't you in a more interesting business?"
"What are the zodiac signs of all the board members?"
"Why do you want references?"
"Do I have to dress for the next interview?"
"I know this is off the subject, but will you marry me?"
"Will the company move my rock collection from California to Maryland?"
"Will the company pay to relocate my horse?"
"Does your health insurance cover pets?"
"Would it be a problem if I'm angry most of the time?"
"Does your company have a policy regarding concealed weapons?"
We hope that all of our Members and Friends find the articles contained within R E S O U R C E S useful in your HR environment.
Many thanks to all of you who responded to our requests
for articles and research for this newsletter.
If you have anything you wish to contribute to the next issue, please do not hesitate to email Barry Lippold at blippold@marcison.com.
Contact Barry Lippold at 702-281-6528 for pricing and availability
to sponsor future R E S O U R C E S editions
Newsletter: 2009 Edition 12