Is this illegal discrimination?
December 16, 2022 11:26 AM Subscribe
My husband’s company is having a destination “retreat” and they are also paying for spouses to attend. Only legally married spouses. People’s long term unmarried partners or newer relationships are not going to be paid for. This feels illegal to me- is it?
The company is fully remote but located in California with employees throughout the USA.
The company is fully remote but located in California with employees throughout the USA.
Discrimination against the unwed is not something legally restricted that I know of, no. It's possible there's a factor involved given the very specific demographics of the group that this rule tends to discriminate against a particular protected class, but I suspect that's a longshot.
posted by restless_nomad at 11:52 AM on December 16, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad at 11:52 AM on December 16, 2022 [3 favorites]
If they're not literally checking certificates go get that ticket
posted by ominous_paws at 12:02 PM on December 16, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by ominous_paws at 12:02 PM on December 16, 2022 [1 favorite]
Human Resources and/or the payroll department probably knows if you are legally married, so much as I believe they should pay for you, I think you may end up paying for it if you try to claim you are married.
posted by Glinn at 12:07 PM on December 16, 2022 [15 favorites]
posted by Glinn at 12:07 PM on December 16, 2022 [15 favorites]
Best answer: Discrimination against the unwed is not something legally restricted that I know of, no.
Discrimination on the basis of family status and marital statuus is definitely against the human rights code in Ontario. The company isn't in Ontario, so that's not directly relevant, but my point is this is a basis of discrimination that is recognized as wrong in some places. It's not outside the realm of possibility that it's prohibited in California. I think it's worth a 10 minute consult with an employment or human rights lawyer in California.
I would not lie about your legal marital status since lying to gain some material benefit is pretty much the definition of fraud.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:10 PM on December 16, 2022 [10 favorites]
Discrimination on the basis of family status and marital statuus is definitely against the human rights code in Ontario. The company isn't in Ontario, so that's not directly relevant, but my point is this is a basis of discrimination that is recognized as wrong in some places. It's not outside the realm of possibility that it's prohibited in California. I think it's worth a 10 minute consult with an employment or human rights lawyer in California.
I would not lie about your legal marital status since lying to gain some material benefit is pretty much the definition of fraud.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:10 PM on December 16, 2022 [10 favorites]
Human Resources and/or the payroll department probably knows if you are legally married, so much as I believe they should pay for you, I think you may end up paying for it if you try to claim you are married.
yeah, I'm all for better to ask forgiveness etc, but is it worth it re: the company? it's pretty easy to find out if you're married, and you have to maintain the lie for as long as you work for them (or want references to your honesty)
posted by lalochezia at 12:10 PM on December 16, 2022 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: To clarify: We are ourselves two legally married men and likely planning not to attend anyway as part of our ban on Florida due to... Florida reasons.
I didn't think to google "marital status discrimination" and thanks to that wording I found California's law about it, and this would definitely be illegal. However, marital status is not protected by federal law so that wouldn't apply in all states where they have employees, unless California's protections apply to employees elsewhere.
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 12:30 PM on December 16, 2022 [4 favorites]
I didn't think to google "marital status discrimination" and thanks to that wording I found California's law about it, and this would definitely be illegal. However, marital status is not protected by federal law so that wouldn't apply in all states where they have employees, unless California's protections apply to employees elsewhere.
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 12:30 PM on December 16, 2022 [4 favorites]
Even if discrimination against marital status is illegal where the company is based, they’re not discriminating when it comes to hiring. There’s no law against discriminating when it comes to who to invite on a retreat as far as I know.
posted by whitelily at 12:32 PM on December 16, 2022 [8 favorites]
posted by whitelily at 12:32 PM on December 16, 2022 [8 favorites]
This is one of the reasons gay marriage was such a big issue. Prior to legalized gay marriage, long-term partners had no way to access benefits like these, because they weren't recognized as spouses.
You might be able to make an argument for common-law marriage, but the point of this is the same as at wedding: they're paying for the retreat, and they don't want to spend money on some rando one employee met on Tinder a week and a half ago. The whole point of a marriage is to publicly express commitment to each other. Someone might be committed to their long-term partner, but the company has no real way to know that, and they don't really want to spend time trying to figure out exactly how committed their unmarried employees are to potential +1s. They'd rather just check a box and move on to whatever's next on the agenda.
IANAL, but my reading of the law you linked is that it doesn't apply to this situation. They're not refusing to send employees on the retreat, just partners of employees. All employees seem to be welcome regardless of marital status.
posted by kevinbelt at 12:37 PM on December 16, 2022 [6 favorites]
You might be able to make an argument for common-law marriage, but the point of this is the same as at wedding: they're paying for the retreat, and they don't want to spend money on some rando one employee met on Tinder a week and a half ago. The whole point of a marriage is to publicly express commitment to each other. Someone might be committed to their long-term partner, but the company has no real way to know that, and they don't really want to spend time trying to figure out exactly how committed their unmarried employees are to potential +1s. They'd rather just check a box and move on to whatever's next on the agenda.
IANAL, but my reading of the law you linked is that it doesn't apply to this situation. They're not refusing to send employees on the retreat, just partners of employees. All employees seem to be welcome regardless of marital status.
posted by kevinbelt at 12:37 PM on December 16, 2022 [6 favorites]
FMLA still does not protect people in civil unions and domestic partnerships and that's federal law, so unless there's is another law in California statue that prohibits this, you are most likely out of luck.
posted by AlexiaSky at 12:40 PM on December 16, 2022
posted by AlexiaSky at 12:40 PM on December 16, 2022
Response by poster: Whitelily: Check that link I shared. It includes discrimination that occurs during employment.
It is illegal for an employer to do any of the following based on your marital status or non-marital status:
Refuse to hire you
Refuse to select you for a training program
Demote you
Fire you
Pay you less
Reduce your salary
Deny equal pay in violation of The California Equal Pay Act
Deny a promotion
Deny reinstatement
Deny benefits
Force you to quit
Harass you
Discriminate against you in any way
That last line seems to cover "married people get to bring a +1 on a company retreat and unmarried people do not" because it's a type of benefit (free plane ticket) being denied unmarried folks.
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 12:45 PM on December 16, 2022
It is illegal for an employer to do any of the following based on your marital status or non-marital status:
Refuse to hire you
Refuse to select you for a training program
Demote you
Fire you
Pay you less
Reduce your salary
Deny equal pay in violation of The California Equal Pay Act
Deny a promotion
Deny reinstatement
Deny benefits
Force you to quit
Harass you
Discriminate against you in any way
That last line seems to cover "married people get to bring a +1 on a company retreat and unmarried people do not" because it's a type of benefit (free plane ticket) being denied unmarried folks.
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 12:45 PM on December 16, 2022
Response by poster: Update from the husband (Oh, did I mention my husband is this company's HR manager? So he's... you know, supposed to tell the CEO information like this):
Having been informed of the law, CEO says "I've already made my decision."
*shrug emoji*
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 12:47 PM on December 16, 2022
Having been informed of the law, CEO says "I've already made my decision."
*shrug emoji*
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 12:47 PM on December 16, 2022
It's fairly common for US employers to offer health insurance for legally married partners but not long-term but unmarried partners. Following your read of "a type of benefit (free plane ticket) being denied unmarried folks" it seems like the same type of situation. IANAL, but I'm not aware of health insurance for spouses only being challenged as discrimination.
I'm not saying the company's decision is right or fair! I just have a hard time imagining it being considered legal discrimination.
posted by verity kindle at 1:20 PM on December 16, 2022 [9 favorites]
I'm not saying the company's decision is right or fair! I just have a hard time imagining it being considered legal discrimination.
posted by verity kindle at 1:20 PM on December 16, 2022 [9 favorites]
Best answer: From an accounting, not an HR, point of view this is a discretionary bonus being granted to some employees.
They're probably totally in their right to do that and I wonder if those employees will see that reflected in their W2 at the end of the year as extra income. Hell, even my $20 Walmart gift card from the three-legged race at the summer picnic got stuck on me that way.
posted by JoeZydeco at 1:28 PM on December 16, 2022 [2 favorites]
They're probably totally in their right to do that and I wonder if those employees will see that reflected in their W2 at the end of the year as extra income. Hell, even my $20 Walmart gift card from the three-legged race at the summer picnic got stuck on me that way.
posted by JoeZydeco at 1:28 PM on December 16, 2022 [2 favorites]
...Discriminate against you in any way
That last line seems to cover "married people get to bring a +1 on a company retreat and unmarried people do not" because it's a type of benefit (free plane ticket) being denied unmarried folks.
That doesn't seem like a slam dunk. There are ways in which employers treat married vs non-married employees [differently] that are legal - providing health insurance for a person's spouse or domestic partner or child, but not providing health insurance for a single person's +1 if there's no legal relationship there.
The page you link to is a law firm's page, so they're probably not spelling out all the nuance involved in discrimination law, but just trying to get people in the door.
(Jinx, verity kindle.)
posted by mistersix at 1:28 PM on December 16, 2022 [5 favorites]
That last line seems to cover "married people get to bring a +1 on a company retreat and unmarried people do not" because it's a type of benefit (free plane ticket) being denied unmarried folks.
That doesn't seem like a slam dunk. There are ways in which employers treat married vs non-married employees [differently] that are legal - providing health insurance for a person's spouse or domestic partner or child, but not providing health insurance for a single person's +1 if there's no legal relationship there.
The page you link to is a law firm's page, so they're probably not spelling out all the nuance involved in discrimination law, but just trying to get people in the door.
(Jinx, verity kindle.)
posted by mistersix at 1:28 PM on December 16, 2022 [5 favorites]
Response by poster: I really wanted this to be a slam dunk because I hate this CEO, but I guess I'll have to hate her on the merits and not like, extra, because of this.
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 1:48 PM on December 16, 2022 [12 favorites]
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 1:48 PM on December 16, 2022 [12 favorites]
Mazel Tov! The Respect for Marriage Act is now law as of three days ago!
The history of civil rights in this country is, in many ways, a litigious history, and even if you didn't want to pursue the issue to the nth degree, most lawyers will talk to you free for a half hour or so, to give you an overall sense of whether you have a claim, and how you might be able to fight it. It might be worth calling an employment and/or civil rights lawyer if only to pay someone to send a letter on your husband's behalf on legal letterhead!? I don't know, but don't be shy!
posted by Violet Blue at 2:56 PM on December 16, 2022
The history of civil rights in this country is, in many ways, a litigious history, and even if you didn't want to pursue the issue to the nth degree, most lawyers will talk to you free for a half hour or so, to give you an overall sense of whether you have a claim, and how you might be able to fight it. It might be worth calling an employment and/or civil rights lawyer if only to pay someone to send a letter on your husband's behalf on legal letterhead!? I don't know, but don't be shy!
posted by Violet Blue at 2:56 PM on December 16, 2022
Seems the same as allowing employees to add their spouses to the company health insurance plan but not their boyfriends/girlfriends. Since that's not considered illegal discrimination, I don't see how this would be either.
posted by Jacqueline at 4:16 PM on December 16, 2022 [9 favorites]
posted by Jacqueline at 4:16 PM on December 16, 2022 [9 favorites]
married people get to bring a +1 on a company retreat
but they don't. a plus-one invitation is applied to anyone you choose. a married person can't bring a boyfriend or a sibling or a friend or an acquaintance any more than an unmarried person can, even though married people may have all those things. their spouse is the only other person invited or permitted to come with them. is this just pointless petty detail-picking? no, because:
People’s long term unmarried partners or newer relationships are not going to be paid for.
thank god, because that would be much nastier to the excluded people. you think it wouldn't be much more insulting and alienating to be a single person disallowed a guest, in this scenario, than it is to be a single-or-partnered-but-unmarried person in the existing situation? because it would be. if you think it is wrong to only include spouses, how on earth could it be right to only include guests who are romantic/sexual partners, of whatever formality and duration? this is a work retreat, not a...whatever.
(disclaimer: I am not married and enjoy the company of co-workers' spouses as little as anyone.)
posted by queenofbithynia at 5:45 PM on December 16, 2022 [9 favorites]
but they don't. a plus-one invitation is applied to anyone you choose. a married person can't bring a boyfriend or a sibling or a friend or an acquaintance any more than an unmarried person can, even though married people may have all those things. their spouse is the only other person invited or permitted to come with them. is this just pointless petty detail-picking? no, because:
People’s long term unmarried partners or newer relationships are not going to be paid for.
thank god, because that would be much nastier to the excluded people. you think it wouldn't be much more insulting and alienating to be a single person disallowed a guest, in this scenario, than it is to be a single-or-partnered-but-unmarried person in the existing situation? because it would be. if you think it is wrong to only include spouses, how on earth could it be right to only include guests who are romantic/sexual partners, of whatever formality and duration? this is a work retreat, not a...whatever.
(disclaimer: I am not married and enjoy the company of co-workers' spouses as little as anyone.)
posted by queenofbithynia at 5:45 PM on December 16, 2022 [9 favorites]
You can still hate the CEO because it's weird for your company to theoretically be willing to pay for twice as many people to travel, but only if they are legally married partners of the employees, which is frankly none of your company's business. It makes sense to say no one below drinking age for liability reasons, but if you want to bring a casual partner or friend, who cares? Your company should not. But isn't breaking the law, just being intrusive. So hate away.
posted by emjaybee at 6:22 PM on December 16, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by emjaybee at 6:22 PM on December 16, 2022 [3 favorites]
Before same-sex marriage became legal in the US, it was increasingly common for companies and state governments to offer benefits to same-sex domestic partners. You could even register your domestic partnership with the state. Once it became legal for same-sex couples to marry, companies began dropping domestic partner benefits.
I was most aware of this trend in Massachusetts, but I believe it was true around the US. The attitude was, "you can get married now. If you want the benefit, get married."
I'd be surprised if this was a problem, but if you want a reliable answer consult a labor attorney in your jurisdiction.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 6:34 PM on December 16, 2022 [1 favorite]
I was most aware of this trend in Massachusetts, but I believe it was true around the US. The attitude was, "you can get married now. If you want the benefit, get married."
I'd be surprised if this was a problem, but if you want a reliable answer consult a labor attorney in your jurisdiction.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 6:34 PM on December 16, 2022 [1 favorite]
Frankly, I'm surprised they're paying for ANY spouses to go to this thing. The company can do whatever the hell they want on that topic, though.
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:54 PM on December 16, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:54 PM on December 16, 2022 [5 favorites]
I think if the working partner wants to effect change, probably it would be good as a post-mortem discussion.
The question shouldn't be "how does everyone get equal dollars" because as noted, this probably falls under a discretionary bonus and isn't, to my understanding, the same as compensation (salary, benefits, bonuses tied to performance, etc.)
The question really is about values and making sure that people feel welcome. As noted above, this policy is not good for single people. I can think of a lot of reasons this retreat would be hard for members of the company - people with eldercare responsibilities, single parents who not only can't bring a friend but have to pay for childcare. I don't think, again, that's a legal issue because this is a kind of bonus situation. But it is a work culture issue, and a serious one.
I was listening to the Work Appropriate podcast lately which talked about a company that tried to get its annual training/-in-person meeting right and they did it in the summer and set up onsite child care, but I'm not sure even they factored in things like petcare, eldercare,etc. However, I think their willingness to engage with the issue, which really comes down to...is your company welcoming to people who are not described as, basically, "Breadwinner, generally male, in a marriage with someone who handles all the domestic/unpaid responsibilities, generally female."
So maybe this can spark a bit of a shift in thinking, both about what constitutes "an invitation that leaves everyone who isn't traditionally married feeling second-best" and also "what are the barriers that work-related travel sets up and how can we meet our goals and reward people as well without making it lousy for the very people we're trying to keep motivated and engaged."
Good luck! Sorry this retreat is more the negative example sort.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:14 AM on December 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
The question shouldn't be "how does everyone get equal dollars" because as noted, this probably falls under a discretionary bonus and isn't, to my understanding, the same as compensation (salary, benefits, bonuses tied to performance, etc.)
The question really is about values and making sure that people feel welcome. As noted above, this policy is not good for single people. I can think of a lot of reasons this retreat would be hard for members of the company - people with eldercare responsibilities, single parents who not only can't bring a friend but have to pay for childcare. I don't think, again, that's a legal issue because this is a kind of bonus situation. But it is a work culture issue, and a serious one.
I was listening to the Work Appropriate podcast lately which talked about a company that tried to get its annual training/-in-person meeting right and they did it in the summer and set up onsite child care, but I'm not sure even they factored in things like petcare, eldercare,etc. However, I think their willingness to engage with the issue, which really comes down to...is your company welcoming to people who are not described as, basically, "Breadwinner, generally male, in a marriage with someone who handles all the domestic/unpaid responsibilities, generally female."
So maybe this can spark a bit of a shift in thinking, both about what constitutes "an invitation that leaves everyone who isn't traditionally married feeling second-best" and also "what are the barriers that work-related travel sets up and how can we meet our goals and reward people as well without making it lousy for the very people we're trying to keep motivated and engaged."
Good luck! Sorry this retreat is more the negative example sort.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:14 AM on December 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by hydra77 at 11:51 AM on December 16, 2022 [1 favorite]