Arbitrator’s Ruling Requires Benefits For Gay State Employees

By Adam Gorlick

Associated Press

HARTFORD — Civil rights activists are applauding an arbitrator’s ruling that requires Connecticut to offer health benefits to gay partners of state employees.

“Most of society accepts that it’s love that makes a family,’’ said Joe Grabarz, executive director of the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union. “And that means there’s no need to exclude same-sex couples from basic benefits.’’

Tuesday’s ruling applies only to gay couples and does not affect employees in unmarried, opposite-sex “domestic partner’’ living arrangements. It will take effect unless a two-thirds majority of one house of the Legislature determines that there is not enough money to pay the benefit.

Arbitrator Roberta Golick estimated the cost to the state at $1.3 million to $1.5 million per year.     The Legislature begins its session February 9 and has 30 days to act. State Comptroller Nancy Wyman said Tuesday that the state is running an estimated budget surplus of more than $240 million.

“I don’t think we’ll have a vote to overturn this decision,’’ said Senate Majority Leader George Jepsen, D-Stamford. Jepsen said Tuesday that he had not read the decision.

Gov. John G. Rowland’s administration has opposed the benefit extension, saying it is too costly and can be easily abused.

“You can’t just say we have the money for this because we have a surplus this year,’’ Marc Ryan, Rowland’s budget chief, said. “It doesn’t mean that the money will be there in the future.’’

The state and the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition, which negotiates the pension and health benefits of about 43,000 employees, took the issue before a mediator last fall.

Dan Livingston, chief negotiator for the union coalition, said the decision “simply recognizes that the crucial need for working families to have decent health and pension coverage doesn’t disappear simply because the families are headed by same-sex couples.’’ He said the cost was a “miniscule’’ amount compared to overall state personnel costs of $2.8 billion.

The unions argued that offering the benefits would help the state attract and keep employees, especially because other states and private employers are offering health coverage to same-sex partners.

“This ruling is not the government running ahead of the pack,’’ Grabarz said. “This is Connecticut catching up with everyone else. It’s going to cost the state very little to attract and retain some of the best employees.’’

Similar benefits are offered to state employees in New York, Oregon and Vermont. Aetna Inc. and Yale University are among the Connecticut employers who offer health benefits to the partners of gay employees.

The union proposal would extend a state worker’s health benefits to a partner who is in a “caring, committed relationship’’ and living in the same home as the state employee.

The employee and his or her partner would have to sign an affidavit swearing they are in such a relationship.

“This is not an issue of gay rights,’’ Grabarz said. “It’s a family and labor issue.’’