TRENTON – Governor Jon S. Corzine today released
the below letter to United Parcel Service and urged all
companies in New Jersey to provide equal rights and
benefits to employees in civil unions, as was the
intent of the recently passed civil union
legislation.
TRENTON – Governor Jon S. Corzine today released
the below letter to United Parcel Service and urged all
New Jersey corporations to provide equal rights and
benefits to employees in civil unions, as was the
intent of the recently passed civil union
legislation.
July 19, 2007
Mr. Michael L. Eskew
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
United Parcel Service of America, Inc.
UPS Corporate Headquarters
55 Glenlake Parkway, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30328
On February 19, 2007, New Jersey’s civil union law
took effect. The purpose of the statute is to ensure the
equal treatment of committed, same-sex couples in
New Jersey by providing those couples who enter into
a civil union with all of the benefits, protections and
obligations of marriage. An important component of
the equality envisioned by the law is the provision of
health and other benefits to civil union partners of
employees on the same terms as are provided to
employee spouses. To accomplish this goal, the New
Jersey law mandates that employers operating in the
State provide benefits on equal terms to civil union
partners and spouses.
It has recently come to my attention that employers
who self-fund employee benefits, such your company -
- that is, companies who do not provide employee
benefits through a contract of insurance -- may assert
that federal law, namely the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and the Defense of
Marriage Act (“DOMA”), prevent enforcement against
them of the mandatory provisions of New Jersey’s civil
union statute with respect to employee benefits for
civil union partners. While these statutes arguably
provide that State anti- discrimination laws relating to
employee benefits cannot be enforced against self-
funded employers through legal action, nothing in
federal law prevents self-funded employers from
providing the civil union partners of employees with
benefits on terms equal to those provided to spouses.
It is my understanding that UPS has demonstrated
this fact by going beyond the minimum requirements
of federal law and providing benefits to the civil union
partners of non-unionized employees. I applaud you
for this decision, which represents a significant step
toward eliminating inequality for committed, same-sex
couples in New Jersey.
Equal benefits have not, however, been provided by
UPS to the civil union partners of employees
represented by collective bargaining agents. It is my
understanding that a clause in the applicable
collective bargaining agreement(s) providing benefits
to employee “spouses” has been interpreted by UPS
as not applying to civil union partners from New
Jersey. This interpretation of the contract(s) leaves a
subset of your employees, including employees who
work in New Jersey, without benefits for their civil
union partners, creating inequity at the workplace and
furthering the inequitable treatment of committed,
same-sex couples that the New Jersey law is
intended to eradicate.
To the extent that the interpretation of “spouse” in the
collective bargaining agreement(s) is based on the
status of civil union partners under New Jersey law, I
call to your attention a provision of the New Jersey civil
union statute, N.J.S.A. 37:1-33, that provides that “[w]
henever in any law, rule, regulation, judicial or
administrative proceeding or otherwise, reference is
made to . . . ‘spouse’ . . . or another word which in a
specific context denotes a marital or spousal
relationship, the same shall include a civil union
pursuant to the provisions of this act.” The quoted
provision makes plain that New Jersey law intends
that civil union partners be viewed as spouses under
all facets of New Jersey law and that a reference
to “spouse” in a legal context, including in a contract,
embraces civil union partners. This interpretation
of “spouse” as it appears in the collective bargaining
agreement(s) applicable to UPS employees who are
in a New Jersey civil union would be consistent with
New Jersey law and the intended purpose of the civil
union statute. I urge you to reconsider your company’s
reading of its collective bargaining agreement(s) on
this point to facilitate implementation of the goals of
the civil union law.
Apart from any purely legal considerations, the
provision of employee benefits to civil union partners
on the same terms as spouses would be more than a
symbolic gesture of your company’s commitment to
eliminating discrimination. Spousal benefits are a key
element of the financial and physical well-being of
working couples and their children. The provision of
those benefits can, in some cases, mean the
difference between the security of having health
insurance, the financial strain of acquiring coverage at
significant expense, or the risk of financial ruin by
remaining uninsured. Surely, as a company with a
longstanding commitment to its employees and the
community, UPS would not want to make its
employees and their families face these difficult
choices based on the subtleties of the interaction of
federal and State law, the happenstance that an
employee is in a collective bargaining unit rather than
an unrepresented position, and an unnecessarily
restrictive interpretation of a phrase in a collective
bargaining agreement(s).
Thank you in advance for your consideration of this
matter.
Sincerely yours,
Jon S. Corzine
Governor
