UNT official sues state agency over benefits

Harry · June 20, 2015

Deborah Leliaert, a vice president at the University of North Texas, and her wife, Paula Woolworth, have sued the Employee Retirement System of Texas.

The federal lawsuit, filed last week in U.S. District Court in Austin, claims the retirement system’s denial of benefits for Leliaert’s spouse is unconstitutional and that their marriage should be recognized for purposes of insuring Woolworth through Leliaert’s state-supported health and medical policy.

“Frankly, it’s distressing that the state I’ve worked for for 24 years treats me like a second-class citizen,” Leliaert said. “I want to be treated equally as other state employees who enjoy the benefits of state-supported family health coverage.”

The couple married legally in California in 2008 after being in a relationship for seven years, and they share a home in Shady Shores. When Woolworth retired in 2011, Leliaert called the human resources department at UNT to add Paula to her health insurance plan.

However, she was told it wouldn’t be approved by the state because Woolworth is the same sex as Leliaert.

read more: http://www.dentonrc.com/local-news/local-news-headlines/20150619-unt-official-sues-state-agency-over-benefits.ece

cogido · June 21, 2015

Yuck

oldguystudent · June 21, 2015

I'm really surprised at the lack of response on this thread. I thought for sure this would be one of Harry's golden era trolls.

Anywho, kinda surprised that she didn't look into the domestic partner benefit thing before coming to Texas. Surely she must've known the cultural hostility.

But now that all is said and done, it's going to take a federal lawsuit for her spouse to get benefits. Ain't no way no how the state of Texas is just going to lie down and pay on this one.

We have three openly gay employees at work who enjoy domestic partner benefits. Doesn't seem to harm anybody at all. Doesn't increase our benefit premiums or reduce the benefits we receive.

Also, they're the best accountants in the firm. One of them is a North Texas grad who went from intern to manager, passing all four sections of the CPA exam on the first try while doing it, in under five years. A propensity for bumping uglies that look just like yours seems to have zero negative effect on the work you perform.

Edited June 21, 2015 by oldguystudent
.

SilverEagle · June 22, 2015

She could have saved herself a lot of money in attorney's fees by waiting on the Supreme Court ruling. Unless, of course, she has a good friend who is an attorney who is trying to gain some notoriety amongst his/her peers.

Harry · June 22, 2015

She could have saved herself a lot of money in attorney's fees by waiting on the Supreme Court ruling. Unless, of course, she has a good friend who is an attorney who is trying to gain some notoriety amongst his/her peers.

I agree Silver unless they think this and other suits would help influence the Supreme Court decision...or if the Supreme Court puts it back on the states.

oldguystudent · June 22, 2015

I think I read the article incorrectly. I thought it was that they got married in California then moved to Texas. Upon re-reading, it appears as though they've lived in Texas for decades, but flew to California in 2008 to get married. Under current law, it's gonna be tough for them to prevail. Depending on what SCOTUS does, they might force Texas to recognize the marriage, but will it be retroactive to time of employment so the spouse can enjoy benefits?

UNT really should just step up to the plate on this one like any decent private sector company would do, but they won't. It surely would violate state law to do so. Maybe they'll have some leeway to bend if SCOTUS imposes legal recognition on Texas.

Quoner · June 22, 2015

If this gets resolved, will our marketing get better?

SilverEagle · June 22, 2015

If this gets resolved, will our marketing get better?

If she's in charge of something as important as marketing, she should be given "other duties that better suit her talents" until such time as her lawsuit is resolved and/or dropped.

To state the obvious, it's not the job of the ERS to create new social policy. They only operate within the laws of the State of Texas.

Edited June 22, 2015 by SilverEagle

oldguystudent · June 26, 2015

So now this takes an interesting turn. Is UNT now compelled to retroactively recognize the marriage and bestow benefits?

SilverEagle · June 26, 2015

So now this takes an interesting turn. Is UNT now compelled to retroactively recognize the marriage and bestow benefits?

Employment Retirement System. But since I've originally commented on this, I've thought about it and think the original article is mistaken. Since she works for NT, she's part of TRS not ERS.

oldguystudent · June 26, 2015

Employment Retirement System. But since I've originally commented on this, I've thought about it and think the original article is mistaken. Since she works for NT, she's part of TRS not ERS.

So I've got my entity incorrect?

Cerebus · June 26, 2015

Since she works for NT, she's part of TRS not ERS.

Staff members at NT are part of ERS.

Harry · June 26, 2015

If this gets resolved, will our marketing get better?

@Quoner lol

Edited June 26, 2015 by Harry

SilverEagle · June 26, 2015

Staff members at NT are part of ERS.

That must have changed since back in 1973 when I worked for the University for one year, and had money taken out of my check going to TRS.

Now, I certainly wasn't in a "staff" position, but I was an employee of NT.

Edited June 26, 2015 by SilverEagle

Cerebus · June 26, 2015

That must have changed since back in 1973 when I worked for the University for one year, and had money taken out of my check going to TRS.

Now, I certainly wasn't in a "staff" position, but I was an employee of NT.

Both TRS and ERS are administrated by TRS. Most communication you get from the will be from "TRS", but ERS is the retirement program for staff.

SilverEagle · June 26, 2015

Both TRS and ERS are administrated by TRS. Most communication you get from the will be from "TRS", but ERS is the retirement program for staff.

I merged my University time with my State of Texas (ERS) time when I retired. All my communication comes from ERS.

oldguystudent · June 26, 2015

So now that we've got our administrative alphabet soup sorted out, does the entity in charge of retirement benefits have to retroactively recognize the marriage and bestow benefits?

SilverEagle · June 26, 2015

So now that we've got our administrative alphabet soup sorted out, does the entity in charge of retirement benefits have to retroactively recognize the marriage and bestow benefits?

Well, I don't know if ERS has to retroactively recognize benefits, but the supreme court ruling says that the State of Texas has to retroactively recognize all same sex marriages from other states.

oldguystudent · June 26, 2015

So I would imagine that worst case, they would have to provide benefits going forward, right?

SilverEagle · June 26, 2015

So I would imagine that worst case, they would have to provide benefits going forward, right?

My best guess is.......yep.

But here is something that I'm very curious about. How will the insurance companies calculate the health insurance rates for "Employee and family" when "Employee and family" starts with adults of the same sex? If they have a lower rate for two men who are married than two women that are married (or vise versa) then I see another round of law suits happening.

Edited June 26, 2015 by SilverEagle

Harry · June 26, 2015

Let me tell you this, this mandate will further weaken already strapped state and county budgets... the outcome will likely be a lessening of the benefits in total either through lowering the employer contribution and/or increasing deductibles and copays etc. I think it is a good thing but it comes at a price. I also would hope that Ms. Leliaert will drop her lawsuit against her employer now that the SCOTUS has given their decision.

Cerebus · July 1, 2015

Benefits enrollment for same-sex spouses of Texas Employees Group Benefits Program members begins July 1, 2015

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on June 26, 2015, regarding same-sex marriage, state agency and higher education employees and retired employees eligible for the Texas Employees Group Benefits Program (GBP) will be able to enroll their same-sex spouses and dependent children of those spouses in the same coverages and services, and at the same cost, as opposite-sex spouses.
Enrollment will begin on July 1, 2015

For already existing same-sex marriages that took place in other states, the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing those marriages in Texas will be considered a Qualifying Life Event (QLE) by ERS. The QLE period for this event – the time in which someone can enroll a same-sex spouse and/or dependent stepchildren outside of his or her annual enrollment period – is June 26 - July 25, 2015. The effective date for coverage will be July 1, 2015. Evidence of insurability (EOI) will not be required to enroll in Dependent Term Life Insurance in connection with the QLE.
For new marriages occurring on and after June 26, 2015, the standard QLE period (within 30 days from the date of the marriage) will apply. For marriages occurring during the Summer Enrollment period, a QLE should be used. As with all coverages added through the QLE process, coverage will be effective the first day of the month following the QLE date.

Participants who are not enrolled in Medicare may add a spouse and/or dependent stepchildren during the Summer Enrollment period that is currently underway and ends on July 31, 2015. A spouse or dependent stepchild enrolled during the Summer Enrollment period will have coverage beginning September 1, 2015. EOI will be required to elect Dependent Term Life Insurance when enrolling in coverage during Summer Enrollment, outside the 30-day QLE enrollment period.
Retirees who participate in Medicare will have an enrollment period this fall. At that time, a Medicare-eligible retiree may add his or her spouse as part of the Fall Enrollment opportunity. If a Medicare-eligible retiree would like to add a same-sex spouse before then, beginning July 1, he or she can contact ERS to have the spouse added during the QLE period or may log into ERS OnLine to complete the online QLE enrollment process.

As of 2011, ERS requires each GBP member to verify a dependent’s eligibility. Everyone enrolling a new dependent will be notified to send documentation that shows each dependent’s eligibility. Find more information on the dependent verification process.
ERS maintains the enrollment and eligibility system for GBP benefits. ERS is notifying all third-party administrators of GBP programs (such as UnitedHealthcare for HealthSelectSM of Texas, or Humana for HealthSelect Medicare AdvantageSM) about these dependent eligibility changes. We will require that they accept these enrollments, issue ID cards for them and make other administrative changes, as needed.
For questions, please call (877) 275-4377, or contact your benefits coordinator for individual guidance.

oldguystudent · July 1, 2015

My best guess is.......yep.
But here is something that I'm very curious about. How will the insurance companies calculate the health insurance rates for "Employee and family" when "Employee and family" starts with adults of the same sex? If they have a lower rate for two men who are married than two women that are married (or vise versa) then I see another round of law suits happening.

In this case, it's group coverage, so I would think it wouldn't matter, although premium rates may adjust in years going forward to take this into account.