Report: KU should offer benefits to employees’ domestic partners

Especially because Kansas University policy prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, KU should provide domestic partner benefits to employees, a new report says.

The University Senate Domestic Partner Benefits Committee shared its report Tuesday with the University Senate Executive Committee. Executive Committee members agreed to prepare a resolution urging KU’s top officials to change university policy on the matter, noting that the issue would then be in the administration’s hands.

The report, completed in February, underlines and updates a similar report from 2010.

That report recommended the same thing for the same reasons — to avoid discriminating and to remain competitive for hiring — but the suggestion went nowhere, said committee chairwoman Margaret Severson, a professor of social work.

“We haven’t made any progress at KU since the 2010 report, while many of our peer institutions have made progress,” she said.

KU’s anti-discrimination policy specifically prohibits discrimination toward KU employees, students, volunteers and affiliates based on sexual orientation, marital status and other categories.

That can be construed to support the provision of domestic partner benefits, though KU “continues to discriminate against KU faculty and employees with domestic partners,” the report states. “Further, Kansas state statutes and Board of Regents’ policy have not changed in this regard over time and thus set the tone for discriminatory practice.”

Of KU’s 10 peer institutions in the university’s Bold Aspirations strategic plan, nine offer a range of domestic partner benefits — although in some cases that term is not used, according to the report. Of those nine, eight offer medical insurance coverage. Other benefits include life insurance, family leave and tuition benefits.

The other peer school that does not offer domestic partner benefits is the University of Virginia, according to the report.

The only category in which KU offers benefits is use of recreational facilities, Severson said.

Kansas Board of Regents policy does allow for bereavement leave in the case of the death of a close family member or other qualified adult, defined as someone with a committed personal relationship living in the employee’s household.

Severson said domestic partner benefits should apply to both same-sex and heterosexual couples who remain committed but unmarried, so such a change would be needed even if the U.S. Supreme Court rules in support of same-sex marriage.

“It’s a good time to make a statement about the fact that we value people and their partners, whoever they happen to be,” she said.

The university has cited state and federal laws, as well as challenging tax and regulatory implications to providing domestic partner benefits, as roadblocks, according to the report.

Another hurdle is a lack of data, the report says.

“Obviously, this is critical information that goes to the determination of the potential impact of offering domestic partner benefits,” the report says. “Anecdotally, many of our peer institutions identify recruitment and retention as driving issues behind the development of their policies.”

University Senate President Jonathan Mayhew, professor in the department of Spanish and Portuguese, said his own department has lost employees because of the state’s generally unwelcoming climate toward LGBT persons.

“It’s not just some abstract thing that would be nice to have,” Mayhew said of adding domestic partner benefits. “It actually has real-life effects on the hiring.”