Company Cancels Domestic Partner Health Insurance For 9/11 Survivor

[ccharles000]

(Boise, Idaho) Robert Ryan was one of the lucky ones, escaping the World Trade Center on 9/11 with his life. But he continues to suffer from mental and physical problems that require regular medical care and expensive medications.

His life partner Ralph Martinelli was a district sales manager for Konica Minolta, based in New Jersey, and Ryan was covered as a domestic partner under the company's health plan.

But that coverage came to an end after Martinelli was transferred last year to Konica Minolta's Idaho operation.

Konica Minolta (KMBS) says it only offers insurance to domestic partners or legally married same-sex partners in states where those relationships are registered.

Martinelli and Ryan have been registered domestic partners in New Jersey since 2005, and KMBS allowed Martinelli to cover Ryan when the couple lived in New Jersey.

Idaho has no such registry.

Due to the cost of medical insurance, Ryan says he may have to go without the care he requires if Konica Minolta continues to prevent Martinelli from extending benefits to him.

"I’m still working at the same company, doing the same job. Why shouldn’t I be able to cover my partner in Idaho like I did in New Jersey? This would never happen to a married couple," said Martinelli.

"Konica wants everyone to think they care about their gay employees, but the way Konica is interpreting its policy is so restrictive that many employees are shut out of the coverage."

Typically, companies that wish to offer domestic partnership benefits to employees living in states that do not recognize same-sex relationships either accept a marriage, civil union or domestic partnership certificate from another state, or have the employee submit an affidavit attesting to the partnership.

Monday the American Civil Liberties Union sent a demand letter to Konica's head office in New Jersey urging the company to interpret its policy on domestic partner health insurance so that more employees will have access to the insurance.

"Konica Minolta wants all the good will that comes with providing domestic partner insurance, but they clearly don’t want to have to provide the benefits. Otherwise they would never be interpreting its policy in such a restrictive way," said Jack Van Valkenburgh, Executive Director of the ACLU of Idaho.

"Companies have been providing domestic partner coverage for many years now. The only possible reason for interpreting the policy the way that Konica does is to make it harder for employees to be able to provide coverage for their partners."

Martinelli said he and Ryan moved to Idaho so that Ryan, who experienced mental health trauma as a survivor of the attacks of September 11th, 2001, could find some relief away from the daily reminder of the attacks.

On September 11 Ryan managed the insurance licensing division at Morgan Stanley, and was in his office on the 74th floor of the South Tower of the World Trade Center when the first airplane struck the North Tower.

While he was evacuating, Ryan became separated from the employees he supervised, and later was trampled by a crowd after the second airplane hit his office building, only four floors above where he was working that morning.

After the attack he was unable to work due to the trauma, went on disability for one year, and spent his retirement savings to stay afloat.

He met Martinelli in 2004 and the couple registered as domestic partners in New Jersey the following year.

"Underlying all of this is the confusion and mistrust engendered by terms like ‘civil union’ and ‘domestic partnership’ as opposed to 'marriage,'" said Ed Barocas, Legal Director the ACLU of New Jersey.

"Same-sex couples are asked to prove that their relationships aren’t imaginary every time they move, and employers take advantage of the lack of uniformity to treat people unfairly."

Konica Minolta has not responded to the ACLU letter.

©365Gay.com 2008

[Kurovski]

1. K&R. (nt)

[hulklogan]

2. Konica Minolta = assholes n/t

[noamnety]

3. The connection between this and 9/11 escapes me

This is a bigoted policy of Konica's (and of the US as a whole), but the 9/11 tie in the context of this article seems like nationalistic tripe, especially as part of the headline. There's that little undercurrent like maybe we should be extra outraged because he was in 9/11. It's enough that he has medical needs and they are transferring his partner (against his will, no less) cutting off his insurance.

[Creideiki]

4. Yes and no

There's some level of general outrage that should happen just because civilly recognized partnerships of some form aren't available uniformly across the country.

However, we do generally allow for some specific level of increased outrage for special classes--small children, wartime veterans, and 9/11 survivors. This story is generally about restricting benefits to two men that have a recognized relationship in one state, but not the other. Specifically, this story has to do with one of those special classes of victim that tend to generate specialized outrage.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. The man's health

Was harmed by being present for the WTC destruction. It is a fact. He was there. Do you think he should claim otherwise, to please your sensibilities? He should lie, and the article should lie? People who survived that day and the clean up workers have a pile of health issues that will last a lifetime. That is just a fact, and there are thousands of such people. Innocent bystanders. Busboys and prep cooks even. Screwed for life, and you think they should, what, say they are sick from too much fun and good times?
And this is exactly why Civil Union laws in the hands of the States are discriminatory and unacceptable. If the details of the story pulls on heartstrings more due to 9-11, I'm glad to see them use it. Stoked in fact. Any means.

[noamnety]

6. Never suggested they should lie.

I always love when people make up nonsense, and then attribute it to the people they are debating with.

Just suggesting that they shouldn't act like he deserves special privileges for health care as a result of it. I'm questioning why it's the headline, as if the point is that he was in 9/11, rather than the point being that his country and company are discriminating against him.

If I hadn't seen 9/11 sensationalized for the purpose of riling people up, and where that led us, I wouldn't be so cautious about relying on it now in order to rile people up.

[Zuiderelle]

7. It's the "hook." All good stories have one. Otherwise, it wouldn't even get publicity.

I'm glad it has such an emotional hook. Now people may start to realize that this is happening all over the country and start to reexamine their objections to gay marriage (which would protect us from this sort of discrimination). And why will they know about it? Because this story has a 9/11 angle, and that's fine by me.