Salt Lake can offer benefits to more than spouses

It is not illegal for Salt Lake City to offer health insurance benefits to "adult designees" of city workers who live in the same household but are not married to the employee, a judge has ruled.

Third District Judge Stephen Roth issued a five-page opinion Friday stating that when employers offer such benefits it does not violate state law or the Utah Constitution.

Jane Marquardt, an attorney and board chairwoman of Equity Utah, applauded the judge's decision.

"It's a very important step for Utah to recognize that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees can be treated equally, at least as far as health insurance benefits go," Marquardt said.

This also applies to other people who are not homosexual, but who are in nontraditional relationships: "It's a good benefit for them also."

Roth's opinion is timely because Salt Lake City currently is in its open enrollment period for city workers to make any changes to their health insurance.

In the city ordinance reviewed by the court, the "adult designee" benefit does not appear to create any legal status or rights that are substantially equivalent to a legal marriage between a man and a woman, the judge wrote.

An adult designee is defined as anyone over age 18 who has lived in the city worker's household for a year and is either financially dependent upon the city worker, or has financial interdependence with that person. An "adult designee" could be a sister or brother, a parent, a romantic partner or friend. The ordinance also applies to the designee's children.

The judge noted that although insurance plans traditionally have been limited to spouses and dependent children, "as a practical matter single employees may have relationships outside marriage, whether motivated by family feeling, emotional attachment or practical considerations, which draw on their resources to provide the necessities of life, including health care."

Employee health insurance is a form of alternate compensation that can increase worker satisfaction, reduce stress, help retain valued workers and attract new hires, the judge wrote.

"Providing such benefits also can satisfy an employer's sense of social obligation, whether in the private or public sector," Roth wrote.