Subject: Threat to PA LGB Civil Rights
From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 04:47:51 EST

PERMISSION GRANTED TO RE-POST. PLEASE CONTACT [email-masked] FOR PERMISSION
TO RE-PRINT or PUBLISH ON A WEB PAGE

From Feb 1999 Planet Q

University of Pittsburgh Attacks the City's Anti-Discrimination Law to Avoid
Health Benefits to Partners of Lesbian/Gay Employees.
Pitt Asks the HRC to Dismiss the Henson Case

by Billy Hileman

	If you are married to a Pitt employee and you become ill or injured, the
University's health insurance will likely pay your medical bills. But if the
Pitt employee whom you love and with whom you have built a home is the same
sex as you, the University will allow you to check out some books from one of
its libraries to read during your recovery. Financial ruin from the medical
bills is your problem.
	That is the postion of the Trustees of the University of Pittsburgh and they
aren't budging. In fact, the Board of Trustees is so determined to deny health
benefits to same-sex partners of Pitt employees, it is willing to dismantle
every existing civil rights protection for lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB)
people in Pennsylvania. That means, to avoid adding less than 2 one-
thousandths of one percent (0.002%) of the annual budget, Pitt would prefer to
abolish anti-discrimination protections in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia,
Harrisburg, State College, Lancaster, York, Oxford, and Northampton County.
	As the 9th anniversary of passage of anti-discrimination protections for
lesbian, gay, and bisexual people approaches, Pittsburgh's Human Relations
Commission (HRC) is being asked by Pitt to un-do it's own powers to protect
LGB citizen's from discrimination by dismissing the Henson case.
	The Henson case is a complaint filed with the HRC in 1996 by Deborah M.
Henson alleging that the University of Pittsburgh discriminated against her in
employment on the basis of sexual orientation. Henson requested health
insurance for her same-sex domestic partner of nearly a decade, but the
University denied her request.
	Henson is being represented by an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
lawyer Christine Biancheria. Biancheria argues that Pitt violated the law by
establishing an eligibility requirement for partner health benefits that
lesbian and gay employees and their partners cannot meet " marriage.
	Pitt's lawyers counter that denying benefits was not based on sexual
orientation. They say that Henson's same-sex partner is simply not a `spouse,'
and add that no domestic partner, `same-sex or opposite sex, is eligible for
benefits coverage...'
	However, Biancheria claims that you don't have to dig very deep to uncover
the Board of Trustee's motives for creating a benefit eligibility requirement
only heterosexuals can meet. The University does not want to have the
reputation of `doing right by its gay and lesbian employees,' says Biancheria.
In general, the Trustees feel that being viewed as supportive of equal
treatment of lesbians and gays won't sit well with major donors to the
University.
	When the issue of domestic partner (DP) benefits was discussed by the
Trustees in 1993, then Board member James Flaherty called the use of funds for
DP benefits a `very extreme measure.' He also referred to a same-sex
relationship as an `illicit relationship.' In 1993 the University established
DP benefits that only included bereavement leave, limited tuition remission,
and facility privileges such as use of the gym and libraries. Health benefits
were not included. Flaherty voted against the limited DP benefits because it
would be `a special reward for being homosexual, and I'm totally against it.'
Flaherty is currently a Judge for the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
	Also in 1993, the Human Resources department of the University calculated
cost estimates for domestic partnerships. The report was submitted by Human
Resources director John M. Wilds to Vice Chancellor Ben J. Tuchi. Wilds'
calculations employed 1990 U.S. census figures, University faculty/staff
population, and University enrollment in `medical insurance husband/wife
options.' However, the conclusions appear to be deliberately deceitful,
lumping same-sex and opposite-sex couples into one group and calling them
`same-same couples.' At the same time, calling married couples `opposite sex
couples.' The result of the report is that it appears to say DP benefits will
add nearly $3 million to the University's budget, instead of $50,000 " even
though the real figure is probably less than $13,000.
	The crafty Human Resources document was debunked by Biancheria during the
deposition of Nancy Gilkes on October 15, 1998. Gilkes is the Benefits Manager
for the Human Resources department.
	Here is what Biancheria discovered. The 1990 Census identified that 7% of
U.S. households comprised unmarried couples (same-sex and different-sex
couples combined without distinction). The University faculty/staff population
as of 10/92 was 7,600. Only 808 (11%) employees were enrolled in the medical
insurance husband/wife options. The total annual cost of the medical insurance
husband/wife options is $2,860,230.
	Then Human Resources extrapolated to domestic partners as follows. First, 7%
of the 7,600 employees (0.07 x 7,600 = 532) are likely to be in unmarried
domestic partnerships (same-sex and different-sex couples combined without
distinction). Second, 11% of the 532 DP employees (0.11 x 532 = 59) are likely
to apply for DP benefits. Remember, these 59 people include people involved in
same-sex and different-sex partnerships. Human Resources estimated that the
added cost for the DP benefits for these 59 people would be $50,286. The
bottom line " $2,860,230 for spousal health benefits and $50,286 for DP health
benefits, gay and straight.
	Biancheria noticed something funny about the DP cost estimates report. The
cover sheet which summarized the annual cost estimates of the DP health
benefits identified the married couples as `Opposite Sex Couples' and the
unmarried couples, (same-sex and different-sex couples combined without
distinction) as `Same Sex Couples.' The report seemed to imply that opposite
sex (unmarried) DP health benefits would cost Pitt $2,860,230 and same-sex DP
benefits would cost $50,286.
	They almost got away with it but Biancheria discovered the ploy much to the
surprise of Pitt's lawyers during the Gilkes deposition. Biancheria told
Planet Q that it even appeared that Pitt's lawyers were fooled by the wording
and misleading totals.
	Using the University's numbers to complete the math further lowers the
financial impact of DP health benefits. First, Pitt's limited DP policy allows
only for same-sex couples. In fact, a 1995 University letter authored by Vice
Chancellor Ben J. Tuchi actually helps Henson's claim, albeit unintentionally.
In the letter to Barbara Shore, Chair of the Anti-Discriminatory Policies
Committee of the University, Tuchi overrules the Committee and states  that
health benefits will not be extend to domestic partners and `The University
declines to [extend domestic partner benefits to unmarried heterosexual
partners] because heterosexual couples can legally enter into marriage...'
	Only 15 same-sex couples have registered for the limited DP benefits.
Therefore, Pitt is fighting the Henson case to save less than $13,000 (15/59 x
$50,286 =  $12,785). This amount is less than 2 one-thousandths of one percent
(0.002%) of Pitt's annual budget ($12,785/$802,000,000 = 0.000016 = 0.0016%).
	In their motion to dismiss the case, Pitt lawyers make several arguments
explaining why Pitt did not violate the city code that protects against
discrimination based on sexual orientation. Then, in one of its final
arguments, Pitt claims that `The relief that Henson requests would exceed the
city's legislative authority as granted by the PHRA (Pennsylvania Human
Relations Act).
	They claim that Pittsburgh's 1990 amendment that added sexual orientation to
the list of protected classes was more that the city could do. According to
Pitt's lawyers, `The PHRA provides that local municipalities have the
authority to establish local human relations commissions with powers and
duties `similar' to those of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (the
`PHRC').' The PHRC does not hear anti-discrimination claims based on sexual
orientation because sexual orientation is not included among sex, race,
ethnicity, religion and other protected classes in the law at the state level.
In other words, if the HRC or an appellate court ruled in favor of Pitt on
this argument, it would be a ruling against the several cities and one county
that have amended anti-discrimination laws to include sexual orientation.
	According to Biancheria the threat to civil rights protections for LGB people
in Pittsburgh and other parts of Pennsylvania is based on pulling parts of the
state law out of context. Biancheria contends the PHRA gives the authority to
Pittsburgh to establish an HRC `without any restriction as to the substantive
protections' Pittsburgh's commission may wish to pursue. Additionally, the
word `similar' was not used to limit the City's authority to add protected
classes to the list. Instead, it is used to describe `powers and duties' which
refers operational and procedural components, such as subpoena power and the
authority to hold public hearings, according to Biancheria.
	Planet Q tried to contact Judge Flaherty for comment, but his assistant said
the Judge could not comment on a case that may be appealed the Commonwealth
Court. This paper asked Ken Service of the University's News and Information
office if the Board of Trustees had hostility towards the LGB community of
Pittsburgh or its civil rights. Service said they would have no comment while
the case is being litigated.
	If the HRC denies the motion to dismiss, it will be several months before a
public hearing is held. Keep reading Planet Q for updates. ©PLANET Q