In October 2002, Governor Gray Davis signed and legislatively approved AB 25 which added new protections for domestic partners in numerous California Codes: Civil Code, Code of Civil Procedure, Family Code, Government Code, Health and Safety Code, Insurance Code, Labor Code, Probate Code, Revenue & Taxation Code, Unemployment Insurance Code. Carol Migden was the original sponsor of the legislation which became effective in January 2002.

The express purpose for the Act, and the first stated purpose, was to establish a statutory cause of action for wrongful death for domestic partners. Those who have kept abreast of the news are aware that this statutory enactment was intended to deal with the questions arising from the rights of Sharon Smith after the death of her partner, Dianne Whipple.

The legislation includes within the definition of "Domestic Partners" both those same sex couples who have established this status under Family Code Section 297, as well as male-female cohabitants over the age of 62 who meet certain requirements.

Enclosed with this paper are copies of the following forms:

In addition, this paper includes those Code sections which apply to California employers:

Insurance carriers must now provide group health and medical insurance coverage plans that extend benefits to domestic partners in their disability policies. Section 10 of AB 25 has amended the Health and Safety Code to provide as follows:

The statute imposes liability to the policy carrier, but does not impose any liability on the employer who fails to provide the notice mandated by subparagraph (b) of this the new Code section.

An unresolved issue is whether the employer's failure to provide notice to the carrier violates any other statute. Is the employer's failure a form of either (a) sexual orientation discrimination or (b) marital status discrimination under the Fair Employment & Housing Act? Or may the employer claim it did not discriminate because it failed to provide notice both for same-sex couples, as well as for over 62 year old heterosexual couples?

Insurance carriers must now provide group disability insurance coverage that extends to domestic partners in their disability policies. Section 11 of AB 25 has added to the Insurance Code the following provision:

The statute imposes liability to the disability policy carrier, but does not impose any liability on the employer who fails to provide the notice mandated by the new Code section.

The same unresolved issue exists for group disability benefits as exists for group medical and health plans, namely whether the employer's failure to provide notice to the carrier violates any other statute. Is the employer's failure a form of either (a) sexual orientation discrimination or (b) marital status discrimination under the Fair Employment & Housing Act? Or may the employer claim it did not discriminate because its failures to provide notice occurred both for same-sex couples, as well as over 62 year old heterosexual couples?

Employers who have sick leave benefits (either paid or unpaid) must allow their employees to use such sick leave time off, not just for children, parents, and spouse, but also now for domestic partners. Section 12 of AB 25 has amended the Labor Code as follows:

The same conditions and restrictions which apply to the employee's use of personal sick leave also apply to the use of sick leave for any child, parent, spouse, domestic partner or child of a domestic partner.

The amended Labor Code does not require the following for employers:

Employers will not have their UI benefits accounts charged for employees who quit their jobs to join their domestic partners at a new, non-commute locale. Section 57 of AB 25 has amended the Unemployment Insurance Code as follows:

In addition, Unemployment Insurance Code §1256 now reads as follows:

In short, the law affords registered domestic partners the right to receive unemployment benefits when they leave a job position to join their partner at a new location where commuting is impractical and a job transfer is not available. Under UI Section 1032, benefits paid to a domestic partner claimant as a result of this departure, are not charged to the employer, and under Section 1256, such a quit is considered a “good cause” quit.

Assembly Assistant Speaker Pro Tempore Christine Kehoe has introduced AB 1080, which parallels San Francisco's Equal Benefits Ordinance. If AB 1080 passes, this new statute would require that California employers who contract with the State of California provide equal benefits to domestic partners of employees as are provided to spouses of employees. The State of California would not be able to contract with employers until they certified their equal benefits status for spouses and domestic partners.

The State of California also provides equal treatment for State employees spouses and domestic partners, and this law would put State recipients of funds in the same category. According to the supporters of the legislation, hundreds of thousands of employees would be affected by the statute. Conservative groups have targeted this specific statute for opposition, claiming that the bill would advance the “homosexual agenda” on a nation that should instead emphasize family rights.