Mayor Richard Daley’s plan to extend health insurance benefits to the partners of homosexual city workers does not follow programs already in effect in other big cities, where unmarried heterosexual couples enjoy the same privileges.
But according to legal experts, the city would likely prevail if its version becomes law and is then challenged on the grounds that it discriminates against single heterosexuals living together.
While cities such as Los Angeles and New York have broader laws, Chicago’s proposal “is consistent with the position of a number of (other) municipalities and private companies,” attorney Jeffrey London, an employee benefits specialist, said Thursday.
More Top Picks Best Home Gym Setups For Crossfit Athletes
“As long as the criteria they use are understandable, it would probably pass muster,” agreed Thomas Vasiljevich, chairman of the employee benefits section of the Illinois State Bar Association.
London said unmarried heterosexual couples would have a hard time successfully suing the city for discrimination because they have the option of obtaining benefits by getting married, while gay people do not.
That’s precisely what the city is prepared to argue, according to Corporation Counsel Susan Sher.
Her chief assistant, Ben Gibson, added that Chicago’s home-rule legislative powers would be used to fight a contention that it is wrong to use public funds to support alternative lifestyles.
In Illinois, such broader legislative authority is granted to communities with populations of more than 25,000 and smaller towns whose voters approve it through a referendum.
“It’s a very powerful tool,” Gibson said.
Laurie Dittman, Daley’s deputy city treasurer, called the plan the final step in putting homosexual city workers on equal footing with other employees.
“We are no less productive than other city workers,” she said. “So why shouldn’t we get the same benefits? It’s unfair for our families to be denied those privileges.”
Greg Harris, chief of staff for Ald. Mary Ann Smith (48th), called the proposal “a major step forward for the city.”
Some aldermen reported receiving a steady stream of phone calls from those saying they are opposed to the measure on religious grounds Thursday, a day after it was circulated by Ald. Bernard Hansen (44th) at a City Council meeting. The measure attracted the signatures of 30 of the other 49 aldermen.
In the meantime, Daley was defending it, arguing the fairness of a plan that would require gay employees to sign affidavits declaring their homosexuality and offer proof of cohabitation in order to qualify for health benefits. He also said that its estimated annual cost of $600,000 to $800,000 would not burden the city budget.
“This is a health issue. This is about fairness. . . . It has nothing to do with religion,” said Daley as he was pressed for answers on how he will explain the new measure to church groups who oppose it and how the city might respond to any legal challenges.
In its current form, the proposal does leave unanswered questions, such as what happens to the benefits of the family of a city worker who divorces his or her spouse and later registers as a gay partner to get new benefits.
Referring to those loopholes, one city official said, “That’s what (public) hearings are for.”
The track record in other cities appears to confirm predictions that domestic partnership benefits do not seriously affect finances.
Since its law became effective in 1994, about 450 of Los Angeles’ 33,000 employees covered by its health plan have enrolled a domestic partner. Henry Hurd, employee benefits administrator for the city, said the added cost for domestic partnership benefits was less than $1 million a year out of a total health benefits budget of about $125 million.
In Oak Park, where same-sex benefits have been offered for three years, none of the town’s 460 workers has applied.
Chicago officials estimate that no more than 2 percent of the city’s 40,000 employees, including police and fire department workers, will sign up if the ordinance is passed. That could come as early as next month.