|
 The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Boston, seeks
nationwide class-action status.
Wal-Mart, the largest private U.S. employer, began offering health
insurance benefits to same-sex spouses last year, after the U.S.
Supreme Court in 2013 struck down part of the Defense of Marriage
Act that denied federal benefits to married gay couples. Even after
that change, the lawsuit says, Wal-Mart workers still live with the
uncertainty of losing spousal coverage.
"Benefits provided by Wal-Mart as a matter of grace ... are not
secure and could potentially be withdrawn just when large health
care costs are incurred," the lawsuit says.
Jackie Cote, who has worked at Walmart stores in Maine and
Massachusetts since 1999, said in the lawsuit that her wife, Diana
Smithson, developed cancer in 2012 and the denial of insurance led
to more than $150,000 in medical debt.
Cote and Smithson were married in Massachusetts in 2004, days after
a court ruling made the state the first to allow gay nuptials.
Smithson worked for Wal-Mart until 2008, when she left to care for
Cote's elderly mother, according to the lawsuit. The company then
repeatedly denied requests by Cote to add her wife to her insurance
policy. Smithson is now in hospice care, Cote said.
Last year, Cote filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, a prerequisite to filing an employment
discrimination lawsuit. The commission said in January that Wal-Mart
violated gender discrimination laws by denying benefits to Smithson.
The commission in recent years has pioneered the argument that
employment discrimination against gay people is a form of gender
discrimination, since it would not happen if an employee were of the
opposite sex, but it has not been vetted by courts.
In Cote's case, for example, the commission said if her spouse were
a man or her wife were married to a man, the couple would've
received insurance.
Wal-Mart argued before the commission that because federal
anti-discrimination laws did not apply to gay employees, it was not
obligated to provide benefits to their spouses.
[to top of second column] |
But the retailer's primary claim was that because it is
self-insured, like many large companies, federal laws governing the
administration of employee benefits preempted any discrimination
claims. Companies insured by a third party, by contrast, would be
subject to state insurance regulations prohibiting discrimination.
Allison Wright, a lawyer with Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders,
which filed Cote's lawsuit, said the group believed other large
companies have similar policies in place that could be open to legal
challenges.
A Wal-Mart spokesman said in a statement that the company's benefits
coverage before the 2014 change was legal. He declined to comment
further, saying the company had not yet seen the details of the
lawsuit.
The lawsuit seeks to certify a class of current and former gay
Wal-Mart workers who were married before Jan. 1, 2014, and various
damages for employees, including the value of benefits that were
denied and any out-of-pocket medical expenses.
The Supreme Court last month said the U.S. Constitution provided
same-sex couples the right to marry, making their marriages legal in
all 50 states.
The case is Cote v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc, U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, case number 15-cv-12945.
(Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York; Editing by Alexia
Garamfalvi and Cynthia Osterman)
[© 2015 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2015 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
