University of Missouri
Intercampus Faculty Council
Report on Domestic Partner Benefits
2012
Introduction
The current document represents work presented in response to Interim President Owens’
suggestion in May of 2011 that faculty of Intercampus Faculty Council develop a business case for
inclusion of domestic partners, in this case same-sex domestic partners, in the University of
Missouri benefits package for employees. Thus, although faculty requested that inclusion of
domestic partners be considered based on equality and fairness and all faculty recognize the
inequality and discrimination of the current policy practiced by the University of Missouri, the
current report primarily focuses on the impact of this policy on best business practices already in
effect for most Universities and Fortune 500 Companies, with which we compete for the best
employees.
Table of Content
Impact on National Competition for Faculty
Competition for Staff and Administrative Support
Competitive Disadvantage to Students
Designation of Domestic Partner Status
Domestic Partner Benefits: Costs
1
4
7
8
9
Mainstream Inclusion
9
Domestic Partner Benefits: Cost and Utilization (from HRC 2011)
11
List of Tables
Table 1: Partial List of College and Universities with DPB
Table 2: College and Universities in Missouri with DPB
Table 3: University of Missouri Comparator Schools
A: MU Comparator Schools (AAU) with DPB
B: Missouri S&T Comparator Schools with DPB
C: UM St. Louis Comparator Schools with DPB
D. UM Kansas City Comparator Schools with DPB
Table 4: 2009, % of Fortune 500 and other Large Employers with DPB
Table 5: Employers in Technology Sector with DPB
Table 6: Employers in Banking/Financial Sector with DPB
Table 7: Law Firms with DPB (AMLAW)
Table 8: Employers in Food/Agriculture Sector with DPB
Table 9: Employers with Corporate Headquarters in Missouri with DPB
Table 10: Employers in Computer/Software Sector with DPB
Table 11: Employers in the Pharmaceutical Sector with DPB
Table 12: Employers in Aerospace Industry with DPB
12
2
19
21
22
23
4
24
26
30
36
39
41
45
47
Appendix: Letters of Support and Resolutions
MU Missouri Student Associate Senate
MU Missouri Student Association Senate Resolution
MU Graduate Professional Council Resolution
MU Athletic Director, Michael Alden
MU Status of Women (2008)
MU Chancellor Brady Deaton (2008)
MU Chancellor Brady Deaton
MU Faculty Council Resolution (2010)
MU Faculty Council Letter to President Owens (2011)
MU Council of Deans
MU Strategic Planning and Resource Advisory Council
UMKC Faculty Senate Resolution
UMKC Faculty Senate Letter to President Owens
UMKC Council of Deans
UMKC Student Affairs & Enrollment Management Leadership
UMKC Chancellor’s Advisory Board to the Women’s Center
UMKC Athletic Director, Timothy Hall
UMSL Senate Report on DPB
UMSL resolution on DPB
Missouri Association of Faculty Senates
AAUP Missouri Conference Position on DPB, David Robinson, President
48
51
53
55
56
57
58
59
60
62
63
66
67
68
70
75
54
79
85
86
88
Impact on National Competition for Faculty
Domestic partner benefits (DPB) are rapidly becoming the norm for compensation packages in
higher education, as well as the private sector. It is estimated that nearly 400 institutes of
higher education in the United States offer domestic partner benefits, including medical health
coverage, sick leave, bereavement leave and in some cases FEMLA and COBRA. All of the Ivy
League schools as well as the top 10 ranked universities in the country offer domestic partner
benefits and have for nearly 20 years. Because same-sex partners are precluded from marriage
or legal recognition in many states, the number of schools that include same-sex DPB in their
compensation package has grown significantly over the last 10 years as universities and colleges
recognize the added competitive advantage in attracting not just high quality LGBT1 faculty
members, but minorities in general, and all non-LGBT faculty members who feel strongly about
equality.
Domestic partner benefits in many of institutions also include opposite-sex as well as same-sex
partners. As a result of the changing
demographics of the “family” over the last
several decades, as described recently in the
2010 Pew Report on “The Decline of Marriage
and Rise of New Families”
(http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1802/declinemarriage-rise-new-families), nearly 50% of
universities and colleges that offer domestic
partner benefits offer it to both same and
opposite sex couples. The data from Pew study
suggest nearly 50% of people responding
consider either same (45%) or opposite sex
(43%) couples as “family”. These numbers
increase considerably with the addition of
children with 80% of responders viewing
unmarried opposite couples with children as a family and 63% consider same-sex partners with
children as family. Clearly opinions are changing regarding the definition of “family” and most
public and private sector businesses are recognizing the need and advantages of offering
benefits without the stipulation of a marriage license.
Recognition of the competitive recruiting and retention advantage, as well as equality issues
associated with offering domestic partner benefits without a marriage stipulation has resulted
in a nearly nationwide adoption of domestic partner benefits. DPB are no longer restricted to
1
LGBT, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender
1
universities on the more liberal coasts but includes schools throughout the United States
(identified in at least 47 of the 50 states) including Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky,
Alabama, Georgia and Texas; states notorious for their conservative stance on gay issues. In
states like Kansas and Texas, DPB are limited to private institutions as state law prohibits
offering domestic partner benefits primarily to limit sex-same recognition. However, employees
of public universities in both states have submitted petitions requesting reconsideration of DPB
and more recently requested salary adjustments/bonuses to qualified domestic partners as
compensation for unequal benefits.
DPB Reports from U of Texas & Kansas
www.utexas.edu/staff/pefsa/DPBreport.pdf
www2.ku.edu/~unigov/TFDPB.pdf - 2010-03-12
A partial list of universities and colleges across the nation that offer DPB follows this section
(Table 1). Within the state of Missouri, Washington University in St. Louis, one of the elite
universities in the United States, was among the first to offer DPB and the first in the State of
Missouri (1994). More recently other Missouri Universities and Colleges have included this
benefit including Westminster College in 2009 and Stephens College in 2011, even under
difficult financial times (Table 2: Missouri Schools with DPB). Of those institutions which report
the date of inception of domestic partner health benefits, the average number of years this
benefit has been in effect is 11 years with the longest being 21 years (University of Vermont).
Thus, the University of Missouri has been behind on this issue for a very long time compared to
peer institutions.
Table 2
Missouri Institutions of Higher Education with Domestic Partner Benefits
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Westminster College (Fulton)
William Woods College (Fulton)
Stephens College (Columbia)
Drury College (Springfield)
Avila College (Kansas City, MO)
Shawnee Mission Community College (Kansas City, KS)
Webster University (St. Louis)
Washington University (St. Louis)
Metropolitan Community College (St. Louis)
St. Louis College of Pharmacy
2
Compensation to domestic partners, including same-sex partners also is not limited to secular
schools but is now offered at several universities and colleges with religious affiliations;
notably, University of Denver, Marquette University, Pacific Lutheran University, Southern
Methodist University, University of San Diego, Furman, Elon University and many others that
recognize the recruiting advantage of a non-discriminatory compensation package.
Of the US News and World report ranked Top 120 Colleges and Universities, 73 (60%) offer
DPB. Of the comparator universities for the UM four campuses, 80% (95/119) offer domestic
partner benefits (Table 3a-d). Mizzou, as a member of the AAU boldly stands out as one of only
5 of the 61 AAU schools that do not offer DPB with three of those schools in states (Kansas and
Texas) that prohibit benefits by law. Thus, MU appears to voluntarily discriminate. These
numbers do not include The University of Nebraska which was recently removed from the AAU.
Nebraska also does not offer DPB and will be the only school in the Big 10 to not offer this
benefit. Nebraska’s removal from the AAU was based on research productivity although
Nebraska claims it should have scored better on “qualitative issues” (Chronicle of Higher
Education). It is unclear what these qualitative issues are but it is not hard to imagine that if not
now, soon, one qualitative index could be how well a member adheres to a policy of nondiscrimination.
To assess whether lack of domestic partner benefits has impacted faculty recruitment, primarily
of same-sex coupled, the MU Equity Office conducted a survey of MU department chairs for
anecdotal evidence. Seven specific incidents of “lost hires” were reported between 2007 and
2009. Given that most same-sex couples do not self-report, most likely did not disclose their
reasons for not accepting or pursuing the position. Many others may have examined our human
resource policy which requests a marriage license and simply not applied. The fact that
Department Chairs remembered these events and the unlikely and infrequent cases for selfreporting by the LGBT community suggests that the small number of lost hires really represents
just the tip of the ice-berg. Clearly Chairs and Divisional Deans recognize the significance of
these lost hires and the Council of Deans from two of our four campuses have expressed this
concern in writing (see “Letters” in Appendix).
3
Faculty Lost Hires (2007-2010)
Assistant Professor, School of Social Work
Tenure-track: Human Environmental Sciences; September 2007- August 2008
The applicant said that she had a partner and wanted partner benefits. She obtained an offer from another
university (U of Louisville) that has partner benefits so she accepted that position.
We had not yet made an offer but she was our top candidate and we were about to make the offer. But she knew
that we did not have partner benefits.
Female, White/Caucasian, 40's
Assistant Professor
Tenure-track; School of Social Work; Human Environmental Sciences; September 2008 - August 2009
Met candidate at national meeting for screening interviews. She said at that time that she had a partner and
would need partner benefits or a job for partner. Partner has children. We brought candidate to campus for
interview and made an offer. She brought partner to Columbia to look for a job but didn't find anything suitable.
Candidate declined offer. In this case if we had partner benefits it might not have been enough unless partner
benefits would also include partner's children.
Female; White/Caucasian, 30's
Assistant professor, Women and gender studies
Tenure-track; September 2006 - August 2007
All I recall is that the faculty member informed us that she no longer wanted to be considered because of the lack
of partner benefit policy. I also have a faculty member who is currently looking for a job because of the lack of a
policy. Withdrew after applying - before action on application
Female; Black/African American, 20's
Professor, British Literature
English, September 2009- August 2010
Expressed interest in MU, but changed mind when I said there were no same-sex benefits here at this time.
Refused to apply
Female, White/Caucasian, 40's
Competition for Staff and Administrative Support
Each year, the Human Rights Campaign ranks the top 1000 private sector companies in the
United States for their inclusion policies on LGBT issues including domestic partner benefits.
These top tiered companies want to be recognized for their diversity efforts to improve
recruitment of the best talent and thus welcome and seek inclusion in the Human Rights
Campaign “Corporate Equity Index”. Table 4 below includes the data from the CEI for 2009.
Table 4
2009 CEI: Employers Responding with DPB
Fortune 100
Fortune 500
Fortune 1000
AMLAW
83
293
404
153
(83%)
(59%)
(40%)
(77%)
4
The data for 2012 CEI indicates 412 of the Fortune 1000 now offer DPB. Thus the majority of
employers (59%) with more than 5000 employees offer domestic partner benefits. For
perspective, from 2003-2009, 93 additional Fortune 500 companies have added DPB to the
compensation package. This number continues to rise although as more states approve gay
marriage (currently 6 states) or adopt civil unions (currently 12 states), corporations have seen
the need to offer DPBs decline as they recognize the legality of the union. For example, Illinois
recently legalized civil unions allowing Northwestern University to drop DPB.
The Human Rights Campaign Corporate Equity Index also allows any company with more than
500 employees to enter their data on equity issues. This database is searchable by policy or
industry. Of the employers responding in 2009, 9290 private sector companies with more than
500 employees offer domestic partner health insurance. These companies are competitors for
some of our best talent and include the technology sector (Table 5), financials (Table 6), legal
(Table 7) and agriculture/food (Table 8) to name just a few. We tend to consider the
agriculture business as conservative but industries in this sector such as ConAgra Foods, Cargill
Inc, Anheuser-Busch, and Nestle Purina plus other large corporations in the food industry
recognize the competitive advantage and offer DPB to their employees. These businesses
compete with the University of Missouri for quality administrators, food handlers, accountants
and countless more job categories. This is clearly just one sector example.
In the state of Missouri, 34 companies (Table 9) with corporate headquarters in the state offer
domestic partner benefits including companies the University of Missouri “partners” with such
as Express Scripts, Cerner, H&R Block, and Monsanto. Thus at MU Hospitals, Cerner employees
working side by side with MU employees have more benefit options making Cerner
employment more advantageous. Lack of DPB clearly positions the UM campuses at a
competitive disadvantage when hiring local talent in the computer technology sector (Table 10)
or pharmaceutical industry (Table 11) and may impact our ability to move successfully into the
Health Industry Corridor in the Kansas City or St. Louis areas. The pharmaceutical industry, in
addition to offering larger salaries, uniformly offers domestic partner benefits (Table 11). In
computer technology, this disadvantaged is heightened by companies such as IBM, Apple,
Google, Microsoft, Blackboard, Cisco, Dell, and PeopleSoft, which emphasize and support
diversity and DPB as part of their mission and all have a presence on our campuses.
In addition to competition from corporations with headquarters in Missouri, we also compete
locally for talent with other companies that offer DPB including Kraft Foods, Frito Lay/Quaker
Oats, State Farm Insurance, Sprint, Century Link, AT&T, 3M, Lowes, Home Depot, Sears, J.C.
Penney, Macy, IBM, TIAA-CREF, Target, Walgreens, the postal system, all major financial
corporations and national banks, as well as, the Cities of Columbia, St Louis and Kansas City and
Jackson County. Our Hospital and medical school in Columbia are disadvantage in hiring nurses
5
and medical support staff because their direct competitor, Boone Hospital offers domestic
partner benefits. It is clear; the University of Missouri is soon to be a very small minority of
employers that do NOT offer domestic partner benefits. Lack of DPB does impact hiring of UM
administrators. The MU Equity Office Survey identified three significant lost administrative hires
because of our DPB policy.
Administrative Lost Hires (2007-2010)
Chair of a department in the College of Education
Tenured position, September 2006 - August 2007
Candidate did not apply for a position as a department chair in the College of Education. Candidate was successfully
recruited to be Associate Dean of Education in a major Big Ten University. She did not apply because there were no partner
benefits at the University of Missouri.
Female, White/Caucasian, 40's
Director of Development Research
Administrator - department head or higher
Development; September 2008 - August 2009
During a trip the Association of Prospect Researchers for Advancement (APRA)in August 2008 I attended the conference to
recruit for a new director of development research in the Office of Development. When I returned I started looking through
some of the possible recruits that I had identified. One of the possible recruits was an associate director of development
research at a Big 10 University. In September I started doing some background checks on her and determined that she was a
very good recruit, somebody with the skills, talent and leadership I was looking for in a candidate. I started to pursue her
with an initial telephone interview, which went well. After that discussion she became more interested and we had a followup discussion where she started asking about benefits, the university and the city of Columbia. During the conversation she
mentioned that she had a partner and that it would be important that they have benefits because it may be a while before
her partner could get a position and she inquired about domestic partnership benefits. Once I told her that we did not have
domestic benefits she wanted to think about applying for the position. After some she thought she called back and said that
because we didn't have domestic benefits that she couldn't consider the position because she couldn't risk moving here and
not have benefits for her partner who may not be able to find a position immediately and that they had a child. Refused to
apply
Female, White/Caucasian, 40's
Vice Chair position at the School of Medicine
Non-tenurable ranked faculty. September 2008 - August 2009
I took on the leadership of a department. I had anticipated bringing one of my strongest colleague from my previous
institution to serve as vice chair of clinical services. He was very interested in pursuing the position and we discussed having
him interview here. He asked me about domestic partnership benefits, which I assumed existed here, since they had been at
my previous institutions for nearly 20 years. When I found out they did not apply here I told my colleague. He declined the
interview for financial reasons (needing health insurance for his partner with a preexisting condition) but his partner also
persuaded him not to apply to a "hostile" institution. Refused to apply
Male, White/Caucasian, 40's
6
Competitive Disadvantage to Students
As educators, we take great pride in the quality and accomplishments of our students and an
important consideration is their successful entry and productivity in the work force. It is now
evident that the modern work force sought by most all employment sectors requires an
understanding of and respect for diversity. University of Missouri students are exposed to and
obtain knowledge of diversity issues through direct classroom instruction in the social and
political sciences. In addition, most Universities and Colleges, including those in the AAU,
require students to complete 3-6 credits of coursework in areas that address diversity issues.
This information and understanding is essential if our students are to compete and perform
successfully in the modern job market. Below are several quotes from Fortune 500 companies
that were sent to the Human Rights Campaign for the Corporate Equity Index evaluation about
diversity of their work force and impact of diversity on their services.
Ameriprise Financial Inc.
Jason Buss, Vice President of Talent Acquisition and Diversity
"Our business is built on relationships and on meeting the unique needs of our clients. We couldn’t do this without the
varied backgrounds and perspectives that our employees bring to the workplace. Diversity enriches our corporate culture
and helps us deliver the innovative ideas and financial solutions that make a difference in our clients’ lives.”
Hallmark Cards Inc.
Engineering
Bob Bloss, Senior Vice President – Human Resources
"Hallmark is honored to have earned a top rating on the Human Rights Campaign Foundation's Corporate Equality Index
for theTechnology
second time. The recognition by HRC as a 'best place to work' during our centennial year reflects our ongoing
commitment to diversity in our workforce and to creating a workplace where our employees feel comfortable bringing their
full selves
to work."
Pharmaceuticals
Esurance Inc.
Gary Tolman, Chief Executive Officer
“At Esurance we believe that diversity and inclusion are key drivers of creativity and innovation in the workplace.
Maintaining a diverse, inclusive work environment is an ongoing process and the responsibility of all our associates, and
we have worked hard to keep our Human Rights Campaign 100-percent rating for the fourth year in a row. This award is
recognition of our associates’ commitment to these principles and their dedication in applying them in our everyday
interactions with our customers and in our local communities.”
Greenberg Traurig LLP
Cesar L. Alvarez, Executive Chairman
"Greenberg Traurig is proud to have a place on the Corporate Equality Index among other corporate leaders in diversity.
We are committed to a culture where collaboration and the pursuit of excellence is available to each of our approximately
1800 attorneys and the members of our business staff working in 32 communities in the United States, Europe and Asia.
Diversity can open the door to the new ideas and points of view that often fuel creativity and innovation in business.
Beyond simply fostering diversity, Greenberg Traurig focuses on developing leaders and as such, we are proud of our
proven track record of opening doors, hiring lawyers and staff from all backgrounds, and promoting them to the highest
positions of leadership in the firm."
GlaxoSmithKline plc
Andrew Witty, CEO
“As a leading global healthcare company conducting business in diverse cultures, environments, and communities,
GlaxoSmithKline must be a leader in the practice and application of equality and inclusion for all GSK employees and the
global communities that we serve. We are committed to equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employees in
our workplace and are proud supporters of the Human Rights Campaign.”
7
Our greatest concern as educators of the next generation of employees is that the reputation of
the University of Missouri as an institution that discriminates will reflect negatively on our
students. We have serious concern that employers will question our student’s awareness and
respect for diversity issues thus impacting their ability to compete for positions in corporations
that value diversity. The University of Missouri rapidly is becoming marginalized on this issue.
The students recognize the impact that the University of Missouri’s reputation on diversity
issues can have on their future and have issued a statement in support of domestic partners
benefits (MSA Letter and Resolution, GSA Resolution attached).
The discriminatory policies of the University of Missouri may also impact our ability to garner
external resources to accomplish our missions of education, research and economic
development. As the University of Missouri becomes recognized for its non-equitable policies,
the potential exists for restrictions on federal funds (NIH, NSF, USDA) and withholding of
private funding from corporate partners to support our research and training missions.
Considerable research dollars are obtained from the aeronautics and space industry (Table 12),
all of which have strong diversity statements and offer domestic partner benefits. Many of
these research dollars support training of graduate and postdoctoral fellows. Similar funding
concerns exist for R&D and training in high tech computer and software companies (Table 10),
pharmaceuticals (Table 11), and medical equipment specialties (Table 13) where faculty and
students rely on corporate grant support from companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Monsanto,
Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bayer Corp., Pfizer, Merck and Novartis to meet their research and
training mission.
Designation of Domestic Partner Status
Employers do not need to require documentation of domestic partner eligibility however, if an
employer does require documentation, it can either define its own requirements or rely on
existing legal documentation such as domestic partner registrations. However, if an employer
requires documentation for partner benefits, they usually request documentation for spousal
benefits as well. Recommendations for Proof of Relationship from The Human Rights Campaign
are included below but many schools have created their own documentation criteria. The
University of Michigan, for example, after approving DPB, was prohibited by state law from
offering DPB to same-sex couples. The University modified its dependent benefit to include an
“Other Qualified Adult” if you do not enroll a spouse. They then proceeded to identify those
“Adults” who do not qualify such as parents, grandparents, renters, employees etc. The “Other
Adult” must demonstrate co-habitation for 6 months. Other similar programs include “Legally
Domiciled Adult” or “Plus-One” status which makes benefits available to an adult living with the
employee. The employer may then further define that adult to exclude parents, grandparents
etc., and thereby controlling costs.
8
Recommended Proof of
Relationship

Partnership affidavit (as defined by the
employer/insurer)

Municipal domestic partnership registration

State domestic partnership registration

State civil union license

State marriage license

Marriage licenses issued in other countries
Partnership affidavits frequently request documentation demonstrating co-habitation and/or joint
financial accounts for specified periods of time. Similarly documentation would be required to
terminate DPB similar to that following divorce. It is recommended, however, that institutions
recognize documentation such as a legal marriage license from a state that allows same-sex
marriage or other government-recognized proof of same-sex relationship and not require employees
to go through the additional burden of completing a domestic partnership affidavit.
Domestic Partner Benefits: Costs
A recent assessment of the costs of not having DPB to employees was calculated by faculty at
UMSL. Their report (see Appendix), based on 2010 costs demonstrate that the University of
Missouri contributes $4196 each year to cover a spouse. In the spirit of a total compensation
package, this is compensation not available to all employees. The increased cost of offering
same-sex DPB to partners and families has been determined for many institutions and
estimated to be 1-3% of the total benefit package, usually closer to 1%. The costs increases if
same and opposite sex partners are included although only same-sex partners are precluded
from legalizing their relationship. Because domestic partners are not recognized as federal
dependents, these additional benefits come with an added tax burden for employees with
covered partners resulting in some universities, most recently Yale and Columbia University,
compensating employees for the tax loss to ensure all employees receive the same
compensation.
Mainstream Inclusion
We acknowledge that issues surrounding domestic partner benefits may not exist at the
forefront of issues facing many members of the University administration or Board of Curators.
To that end we have included links and documentation demonstrating how mainstream this
issue has become for human resource, pension and health care administrators.
9
TIAA-CREF has published a booklet entitled “Domestic Partnerships, Financial Considerations
for Couples” (https://www3.tiaa-cref.org/bookstore/detail.do?id=177). This booklet describes
best practices for investments, pensions, legal considerations for home ownership, health care
considerations and even nursing home care. The Center for Disease Control as part of their
“Healthy People 2020” campaign has included resources for the LGBT community and
recognizes the difficulties socially marginalized groups have in obtaining health care services
(http://www.cdc.gov/lgbthealth/links.htm). The department of Health and Human Services
issued rulings regarding patients’ rights to choose their own visitors, thus prohibiting hospitals
that receive federal funding from refusing visitation by a same-sex partner. Imagine not being
able to sit at the side of someone you loved for 20 years as they die of cancer. As the LGBT
community ages, and represents the first generation of LGBT individuals to live somewhat
“openly”, AARP has stepped-up to acknowledge the needs of this group
(http://www.aarp.org/relationships/friends-family/aarp-pride/). Specific documentation,
available on the AARP website describe estate planning, long term care and just the general
“Social Hurdles” for aging LGBT.
10
Domestic Partner Benefits: Cost and Utilization
After more than a decade of experience with employers offering domestic partner health benefits, the cost to
most employers has been negligible. Coverage for domestic partners increases the number of insured
individuals enrolled in the health insurance plan, but that coverage is no more expensive than for other
individuals and enrollment overall is far lower than original estimates.
Overall Impact on Benefits Cost
A 2005 Hewitt Associates study found that the majority of employers — 64 percent — experience a total
financial impact of less than 1 percent of total benefits cost, 88 percent experience financial impacts of 2
percent or less and only 5 percent experience financial impacts of 3 percent or greater of total benefits cost.
An earlier, 1997 Hewitt Associates study found the impact on employers' costs was "minimal, with the addition
of domestic partners, regardless of whether coverage was extended to same-sex or opposite-sex domestic
partners. Companies report increases in medical claims of less than 1 percent after domestic partner coverage
was introduced."
Similar research by the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies Research Director M.V. Lee Badgett
found that most employers that offer domestic partner benefits to same-sex partners found expenses rose no
more than 1 percent. For employers that offer them to same- and opposite-sex partners, expenses rose no
more than 2 percent. The analysis is included in our Business Cost Impact of Marriage for Same-Sex
Couples publication from 2004.
Cost of Domestic Partner Coverage Relative to Other Dependents
A 2000 Hewitt Associates survey confirmed that coverage for domestic partners is no more expensive
than coverage for spouses or other dependents, despite early concerns about the health needs of samesex partners relative to other dependents.
Experts have posed several possible reasons for this: employees eligible for domestic partner coverage tend to
be young and relatively healthy; HIV/AIDS risks are lower and less costly than original estimates; and samesex domestic partners are less likely to become pregnant.[i]
Utilization / Enrollment
Rates of enrollment have not been particularly high. Possible explanations most commonly cited for this are
that same-sex domestic partners are likely already covered by their own employer, or that the employee is
simply unwilling to disclose their sexual orientation for fear of discrimination.
A 1993 Segal Co. report found that typically less than 2 percent of eligible employees enrolled.
A 1995 survey of employers by the International Society of Certified Employee Benefits Specialists found
that 75 percent of companies with domestic partner policies reported an enrollment rate of 2 percent or less.
A 1996 Towers Perrin report found that less than 1 percent of eligible employees have enrolled their
partners, and medical claims rose by less than 1 percent after domestic partner coverage was introduced.
A 2000 study by Hewitt Associates found an average of 1.2 percent of eligible employees elected coverage
for a domestic partner and that 85 percent of employers reported a cost increase of less than 1 percent.
A 2005 study by Hewitt Associates found an average of 1 percent of eligible employees elected coverage for
a domestic partner and that an average of 1 percent of employees elected coverage for dependents of a
domestic partner.
11
Table 1
Universities and Colleges with Domestic Partner Health/Medical Benefits
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
University/College Name
City
Agnes Scott College
Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Albuquerque Technical Vocational Institute
Allegheny College
American University, , D.C.
Amherst College
Arcadia University (Beaver College)
Antioch
Augsburg College
Aurora University
Baldwin-Wallace College
Ball State University
Bates College
Baylor College of Medicine
Beloit College
Bentley College
Bloomfield College
Bowdoin College
Bradford College
Brandeis University
Brooklyn Law School
Broward County Community College
Brown University
Bryn Mawr College,
Bucknell University
Butler University
California Academy of Science
California College Of The Arts
California Institute of Technology (Caltech)
California Institute of the Arts
California State University
California Western
Carleton College
Carnegie Mellon University,
Case Western Reserve University
Central Florida Community College
Central Michigan University
Centre College
Chatham College
City University of New York
Decatur
New York
Albuquerque
Meadville
Washington
Amherst,
Glenside
Yellow Springs
Minneapolis
Aurora,
Berea
Muncie
Lewiston,
Houston
Beloit,
Waltham
Bloomfield,
Brunswick,
New York
Providence
Bryn Mawr
Lewisburg
Indianapolis
San Francisco,
Pasadena
Santa Clarita
Long Beach
Northfield,
Pittsburgh
Cleveland
Mt. Pleasant
Danville,
Pittsburgh
New York
State Year Instituted
IL
NY
NM
PA
DC
MA
PA
OH
MN
IL
OH
IN
ME
TX
WI
MA
NJ
ME
ME
MA
NY
FL
RI
PA
PA
IN
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
MN
PA
OH
FL
MI
KY
PA
NY
2001
2004
2001
1992
1996
1999
2001
1998
2002
1998
1999
2000
1996
2002
1996
2003
2002
2000
2000
2000
2002
2001
2001
12
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
Claremont College
Clark University
Cleveland State
Colby College
College of Wooster
Colorado College
Colorado School of Mines
Columbia College
Columbia University
Columbia University Clerical Workers
Columbia University Teachers College
Connecticut State Universities-system
Cornell University
Culinary Institute of America
Dartmouth College
Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center
DeAnza Community College
Denison University
DePauw University
Dickinson College
Drexel University
Duke University
Eastern Michigan University
Einstein Medical College
Elon University
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
Emerson College
Emory University
Florida Institute of Technology
Florida International University
Florida Keys Community College
Foothill College
Franklin & Marshall College
Furman University
Garden Valley State University
General Theological Seminary (Episcopal)
George Washington University
Georgetown University
Georgia Institute of Technology
Georgia State University
Gettysburg College
Golden Gate University
Grinnell College
Guilford College
Gustavus Adolphus College
Claremont,
Worcester,
Cleveland
Waterville
Wooster,
Colorado Springs
Golden
Tuolumne County
New York
New York
New York
New Britain,
Ithaca
Hyde Park
Hanover
Hanover
Cupertino
Granville,
Greencastle
Carlisle
Philadelphia
Durham
Ypsilanti
New York
Elon
Daytona Beach
Boston
, Atlanta
(Melbourne,
Los Altos Hills,
Lancaster,
Greenville
Washington
Washington
Atlanta,
Atlanta,
Gettysburg,
San Francisco
Grinnell,
Greensboro
St. Peter
CA
MA
OH
ME
OH
CO
CO
CA
NY
NY
NY
CT
NY
NY
NH
NH
CA
OH
IN
PA
PA
NC
MI
NY
NC
FL
MA
GA
FL
FL
FL
CA
PA
SC
MI
DC
DC
GA
GA
PA
CA
IA
NC
MN
2004
1993
1999
1995
1994
2000
1994
1997
1995
2003
1995
1999
2003
2003
1994
1995
2001
2002
2005
1992
1994
1999
13
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Hamilton College
Hamline University, Minnesota
Harvard Law School
Harvard University
Hendrix College
Hillsborough Community College
Hiram College
Hofstra University
Hollins University
Hunter College
Illinois Institute of Technology
Illinois State University
Illinois Wesleyan University
Indiana State University
Indiana University-System, (includes
Bloomington Richmond, Fort Wayne, Kokomo,
Gary, Indianapolis, South Bend, New Albany
Campuses)
Clinton
St. Paul,
Cambridge
Cambridge
Conway
NY
MN
MA
MA
AR
Hiram
Hempstead
Roanoke
New York
Chicago
Normal
Bloomington
Terre Haute
OH
NY
VA
NY
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
2000
1995
2002
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
Iowa State University
Ithaca College
Johns Hopkins University
Johnson County Community College
Julliard School of Music
Kaplan University
Kalamazoo College
Keene State College
Kent State University-Kent Campus
Kenyon College
Kirkwood Community College
Knox College
Lafayette College
Lake-Sumter Community College
Lansing Community College
Lehigh University
Lesley College
Linfield College
Macalester College
Manatee Community College
Maricopa County Community College District
Marquette University
Mary Washington College
Maryland College of Art and Design
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
Miami University of Ohio
Miami-Dade Community College
Ames
Ithaca
Baltimore,
Shawnee Mission
New York
IA
NY
MD
KS
NY
2000
Kalamazoo
Keene
Kent
Gambier
Cedar Rapids
Galesburg
Easton
MI
NH
OH
OH
IA
IL
PA
FL
MI
PA
MA
OR
MN
FL
AZ
WI
VA
MA
MA
OH
FL
1999
2000
Lansing
Bethlehem
Cambridge
McMinnville
St. Paul,
Phoenix
Milwaukii
Fredericksburg
Silver Springs
Cambridge
1994
2000
1997
1999
2002
1999
2009
1995
1998
1998
2002
1994
2002
1998
2011
1993
1993
2004
14
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
Michigan State University
Michigan Technological University
Middlebury College
Mills College
Mission College
Modesto Junior College
Moorehead State University
Mount Holyoke College
Muhlenberg College
New Jersey Institute of Technology
New Mexico State University
New York Law School
New York University Law School
New York University
North Carolina,
North Dakota State University
Northampton Community College
Northern Illinois University
Northern Michigan University
Northwestern University
Nova Southeastern University
Oakland University
Oakton Community College
Oberlin College
Occidental College
Ohio State University
Ohio University
Okaloosa-Walton College
Oregon Health Science University
Oregon State University
Pacific Lutheran University
Palm Beach Community College
Parkland College
Pasco-Hernando Community College
Pennsylvania State University System
Pitzer College
Plymouth State University
Pomona College
Portland Community College
Portland State University
Princeton University
Purdue University
Quinnipiac University
Reed College
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
East Lansing
Houghton
Middlebury
MI
MI
VT
1998
Santa Clara
CA
CA
MN
MA
PA
NJ
NM
NY
NY
NY
NC
ND
PA
IL
MI
IL
FL
MI
IL
OH
CA
OH
OH
FL
OR
OR
WA
FL
IL
FL
PA
CA
NH
CA
OR
OR
NJ
IN
CT
OR
NY
1996
Moorhead
South Hadley
Allentown
Newark
Las Cruces
New York
New York
New York
Chapel Hill
Fargo
Bethlehem
Dekalb
Marquette
Evanston
Fort Lauderdale
Rochester
Des Plaines
Oberlin
Los Angeles
Columbus
Portland
Corvalis
Tacoma
Florida
Champaign
University Park
Claremont
Plymouth
Claremont
Portland
Portland
Princeton,
Indianapolis
Hamden
Portland
Troy
1996
2001
2004
2001
2000
2003
2001
1992
2004
2004
1998
2001
2008
2005
2005
2000
1995
1998
1994
2003
2003
2003
15
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
Rice University
Rider University, , New Jersey
Rochester Institute of Technology
Rockefeller University
Rollins College, Florida
Rush University
State University of New Jersey System: Rutgers
University New Brunswick, Camden, Newark
Salem College
San Diego State University
San Francisco Community College District
Santa Fe Community College
Sarah Lawrence College
Scripps Research Institute
Seminole Community College
Simmons College
Skidmore College
Smith College
Southern Illinois University
Southern Methodist University
Southern Oregon University
Southwestern University School of Law
Southwestern University
Springfield College
St. Olaf College
Stanford University
State University of New York System (SUNY) All
Campuses
Stetson University
Stevens Institute of Technology
Stephens College
Susquehanna University
Swarthmore College
Syracuse University
Teachers College, Columbia University
Temple University
Thomas Jefferson University & Hospital
Trinity College
Trinity University
Tufts University
Tulane University
Unext
Union College
Union Theological Seminary
University of Akron Main Campus
Houston
Lawrenceville
Rochester
New York
Winter Park
Chicago
Piscataway
TX
NJ
NY
NY
FL
IL
NJ
2000
Winston-Salem
San Diego
San Francisco
2001
Boston
Sarasota Springs
Northampton
Carbondale
Dallas
Ashland
Los Angeles
Georgetown
Springfield
Northfield
Palo Alto
Albany
NC
CA
CA
FL
NY
CA
FL
MA
NY
MA
IL
TX
OR
CA
TX
MA
MN
CA
NY
2003
Hoboken
Columbia
Selinsgrove
Swarthmore,
Syracuse
New York
Philadelphia
Philadelphia
Hartford
San Antonio
Boston
New Orleans
Deerfield
Schenectady
New York
Akron
FL
NJ
MO
PA
PA
NY
NY
PA
PA
CT
TX
MA
LA
IL
NY
NY
OH
Bronxville
San Diego
1998
2001
2004
1991
2001
2004
2002
1998
1995
2000
2002
1993
1995
1995
1995
2003
1997
2003
2000
2000
1996
16
216 University of Alabama at Birmingham
217 University of Alaska System, Alaska (Anchorage,
Fairbanks, Southeast, Juneau, Ketchikan, Sitka
Birmingham
Fairbanks
AL
AK
2010
218 University of Arizona
219 University of California System-more campuses
than need to be listed!!
220 University of Chicago
221 University of Cincinnati
222 University of Colorado System, Boulder, Denver,
Colorado Springs
223 University of Denver
224 University of Florida,, Florida
225 University of Hawaii System, Hilo, Manoa, West
O'ahu, seven community colleges
226 University of Illinois System: Chicago,
Springfield, Urbana-Champaign
227 University of Iowa
228 University of Louisville
229 University of Maine System, Augusta,
Farmington, Fort Kent, Machias, Presque Isle,
Southern Maine Law School
Tucson
AZ
CA
2005
1998
Chicago
Cincinnati
Denver
IL
OH
CO
1993
Denver
Gainsville
Manoa
CO
FL
HI
1995
2006
UrbanaChampaign
Iowa City
Louisville
Augusta
IL
2003
IA
KY
ME
1992
2006
1996
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
University of Maryland-College Park
University of Miami
University of Michigan
University of Michigan
University of Michigan
University of Minnesota
University of Montana
University of Nevada-Las Vegas and Reno
University of New England
University of New Hampshire
University of New Mexico
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of North Dakota
University of Oregon
University of Pennsylvania
University of Pittsburgh
University of Puget Sound
University of Redlands
University of Rochester
University of San Diego
University of San Francisco
University of South Florida
University of Southern California
University of Southern Indiana
College Park
Coraql Gables
Ann Arbor
Dearborn
Flint
Minneapolis
Missoula
Las Vegas
Biddeford
Durham
Albuquerque
Chapel Hill
Grand Forks
Eugene
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Tacoma
Redlands
Rochester
San Diego
San Francisco
Tampa
Evansville
MD
FL
MI
MI
MI
MN
MT
NV
ME
NH
NM
NC
ND
OR
PA
PA
WA
CA
NY
CA
CA
FL
CA
IN
2002
2000
1994
1994
1994
1993
2005
2000
2005
2002
1992
2004
2009
2010
17
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
University of Tampa
University of the Pacific
University of Toledo
University of Utah
University of Vermont
University of Washington
University of West Virginia
University of Wisconsin
University System of New Hampshire
Valencia Community College
Vanderbilt University and Medical Center
Vassar College
Wake Forest University
Washington and Lee University
Washington State University
Washington University
Wayne State University
Webster University
Wellesley College
Wesleyan University
West Virginia University
Westminster College
Wheaton College
Whitman College
William and Mary, College of
Williams College
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Wright State University
Yale University, , Connecticut
Yeshiva University
Yosemite Community College District
Youngstown State University, Ohio (2004)
Tampa
Stockton
Toledo
Salt Lake City
Burlington
Seattle
Morgantown
Madison
Durham
Nashville
Poughkeepsie
Winston-Salem
Lexington
Pullman
Saint Louis
Detroit
St. Louis
Wellesley
Middletown
Morgantown
Fulton
Norton
Walla Walla
Williamsburg
Williamstown
Worcester
Dayton
New Haven
New York
Youngstown
FL
CA
OH
UT
VT
WA
WV
WI
NH
FL
TN
NY
NC
VA
WA
MO
MI
MO
MA
CT
WV
MO
MA
WA
VA
MA
MA
OH
NY
NY
CA
OH
2009
2006
2003
1990
2001
2010
2002
2000
2000
2002
1994
1999
1994
1995
2009
1995
1997
1994
2004
This list is not inclusive. Schools continue to add domestic partner benefits with little fanfare and web pages are
sometimes difficult to navigate for obtaining this information. The majority of these data came from either 1) The Human
Rights Campaign 2011 Equity Index, 2) Partners Task Force, Box 9685, Seattle, WA 98109-0685
(http://www.buddybuddy.com/d-p-1.html) or by direct contact.
18
Table 3
2011 University of Missouri Comparator Schools
A: American Association of University Schools. Comparator Schools for Mizzou
(5 of 33 Public AAU do not have DPB)
(5 of 61 AAU do not have DPB)
AAU Public (listed on System IR)
Georgia Institute of Technology-Main Campus (Atlanta, GA)
Indiana University-Bloomington (Bloomington, IN)
Iowa State University (Ames, IA)
Michigan State University (East Lansing, MI)
Ohio State University-Main Campus (Columbus, OH)
Pennsylvania State University-Main Campus (University Park, PA)
Purdue University-Main Campus (West Lafayette, IN)
Rutgers University-New Brunswick/Piscataway (New Brunswick, NJ)
Stony Brook University (Stony Brook, NY)
SUNY at Buffalo (Buffalo, NY)
Texas A & M University (College Station, TX)
University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ)
University of California-Berkeley (Berkeley, CA)
University of California-Davis (Davis, CA)
University of California-Irvine (Irvine, CA)
University of California-Los Angeles (Los Angeles, CA)
University of California-San Diego (La Jolla, CA)
University of California-Santa Barbara (Santa Barbara, CA)
University of Colorado at Boulder (Boulder, CO)
University of Florida (Gainesville, FL)
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Champaign, IL)
University of Iowa (Iowa City, IA)
University of Kansas Main Campus (Lawrence, KS)
University of Maryland-College Park (College Park, MD)
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor (Ann Arbor, MI)
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities (Minneapolis, MN)
University of Missouri-Columbia
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Chapel Hill, NC)
University of Oregon (Eugene, OR)
University of Pittsburgh-Main Campus (Pittsburgh, PA)
University of Texas at Austin (Austin, TX)
University of Virginia-Main Campus (Charlottesville, VA)
University of Washington-Seattle Campus (Seattle, WA)
University of Wisconsin-Madison (Madison, WI)
yes (soft only)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NO
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NO
Yes
Yes
Yes
NO
Yes
Yes
Yes
NO
NO
Yes
Yes
AAU Private
Brandeis University
Brown University
California Institute of Technology
Carnegie Mellon University
Yes (marriage)
Yes
Yes
Yes
19
Case Western Reserve University
Cornell University
Columbia University
Duke University
Emory University
Harvard University
The Johns Hopkins University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
McGill University
New York University
Northwestern University
Princeton University
Rice University
Syracuse University
Stanford University
Tulane University
The University of Chicago
University of Rochester
University of Southern California
University of Toronto
Vanderbilt University
Washington University in St. Louis
Yale University
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes (marriage)
Yes
Yes (marriage)
Yes (marriage)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes (marriage)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Note: This peer group was originally developed by John Minter & Assoc. in 2005 and was approved
by the Chancellor at that time. The peer group was reviewed and approved by Chancellor Deaton in
May 2007 with no changes. In April 2010 Georgia Institute of Technology was added upon their
acceptance as a member of the Association of American Universities.
20
B: Comparator Schools for Missouri S&T
(4 out of 16 including UMS&T do not have DPB)
California Institute of Technology (Pasadena, CA)
Clarkson University (Potsdam, NY)
Colorado School of Mines (Golden, CO)
Florida Institute of Technology (Melbourne, FL)
Georgia Institute of Technology-Main Campus (Atlanta, GA)
Illinois Institute of Technology (Chicago, IL)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Cambridge, MA)
Michigan Technological University (Houghton, MI)
Missouri Institute of Science & Technology
New Jersey Institute of Technology (Newark, NJ)
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (Socorro, NM)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Troy, NY)
South Dakota School of Mines and Technology (Rapid City, SD)
Stevens Institute of Technology (Hoboken, NJ)
University of Alabama in Huntsville (Huntsville, AL)
Worcester Polytechnic Institute (Worcester, MA)
Yes
? FEMLA
Yes
Yes
Yes (soft only)
Yes
Yes - marriage
Yes
NO
Yes (DEI)*
NO
Yes (2 adult persons)
NO
Yes (civil unions)#
(Maybe 2011)
Yes - marriage
Note: This peer group was originally developed by John Minter & Assoc. in 2005 and was approved by the
Chancellor at that time. The peer group was re-examined by Chancellor Carney in May 2008; removing Iowa
State University, North Carolina State University at Raleigh, North Dakota State University-Main Campus,
Oregon State University, Purdue University-Main Campus, Texas A & M University, University of Alabama in
Huntsville, and Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University; adding California Institute of Technology,
Clarkson University, Colorado School of Mines, Florida Institute of Technology, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Polytechnic University, and South Dakota School of Mines & Technology. Upon further review in
June 2009, Polytechnic University was removed after merging with NYU, University of Alabama in Huntsville
was added.
*DEI, Designated Eligible Individual
# The state of NJ recognizes civil unions for benefits
21
C: Comparator Schools for UM St. Louis
(10 of 31 do not offer DPB)
Cleveland State University (Cleveland, OH)
Florida International University (Miami, FL)
George Mason University (Fairfax, VA)
Georgia State University (Atlanta, GA)
Illinois State University (Normal, IL)
Indiana State University (Terre Haute, IN)
Indiana University-Purdue University-Indianapolis (Indianapolis, IN)
Kent State University-Kent Campus (Kent, OH)
Northern Illinois University (Dekalb, IL)
Oakland University (Rochester Hills, MI)
Old Dominion University (Norfolk, VA)
Portland State University (Portland, OR)
San Diego State University (San Diego, CA)
University of Akron Main Campus (Akron, OH)
University of Alabama at Birmingham (Birmingham, AL)
University of Arkansas at Little Rock (Little Rock, AR)
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center (Denver, CO)
University of Houston (Houston, TX)
University of Massachusetts-Boston (Boston, MA)
University of Memphis (Memphis, TN)
University of Missouri-St Louis
University of Nevada-Las Vegas (Las Vegas, NV)
University of New Orleans (New Orleans, LA)
University of South Florida (Tampa, FL)
University of Texas at Arlington (Arlington, TX)
University of Toledo (Toledo, OH)
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (Milwaukee, WI)
Wayne State University (Detroit, MI)
Western Michigan University (Kalamazoo, MI)
Wichita State University (Wichita, KS)
Wright State University-Main Campus (Dayton, OH)
Yes
Yes
NO
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes (2 party)
NO
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes (2011)
NO
Yes
NO
Yes (marriage)
NO
NO
Yes (soft)
NO
Yes
NO
Yes
Yes
Yes (OEP)*
NO
NO
Yes
Note: This peer group was originally developed by John Minter & Assoc. in 2005 and was approved by the
Chancellor at that time. The peer group was reviewed and approved by Chancellor George in May 2007 with
no changes.
*OEP, Other eligible person rather than domestic partner
22
D. Comparator Schools for UM Kansas City
(8 out of 25 without DPB)
Cleveland State University (Cleveland, OH)
East Tennessee State University (Johnson City, TN)
George Mason University (Fairfax, VA) #
Georgia State University (Atlanta, GA)
Indiana University-Purdue University-Indianapolis (Indianapolis, IN)
SUNY at Buffalo (Buffalo, NY)
Temple University (Philadelphia, PA)
University of Akron Main Campus (Akron, OH)
University of Alabama at Birmingham (Birmingham, AL)
University of Arkansas at Little Rock (Little Rock, AR)
University of Cincinnati (Cincinnati, OH)
University of Houston (Houston, TX)
University of Illinois at Chicago (Chicago, IL)
University of Louisville (Louisville, KY)
University of Memphis (Memphis, TN)
University of Missouri-Kansas City
University of Nevada-Reno (Reno, NV)
University of Pittsburgh-Main Campus (Pittsburgh, PA)
University of South Alabama (Mobile, AL)
University of South Florida (Tampa, FL)
University of Toledo (Toledo, OH)
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (Milwaukee, WI)
Virginia Commonwealth University (Richmond, VA)
Wayne State University (Detroit, MI)
Wright State University-Main Campus (Dayton, OH)
Yes
NO
NO
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
yes (2011)
NO
Yes
NO
Yes
Yes
NO
NO
Partial (*)
Yes
NO
Yes
Yes
Yes
NO
Yes **
Yes
Note: This peer group was originally developed by John Minter & Assoc. in 2005 and was approved by the
Chancellor at that time. The peer group was reviewed and approved by Chancellor Bailey in May 2007 with no
changes.
#From George Mason University Faculty Senate (2009) “Domestic Partner Benefits: 64% of (academic)
institutions with more than 10,000 students give domestic (i.e., unmarried) partner benefits. The
State of Virginia has refused to honor court orders to provide such benefits. The Federal government
has recently extended benefits to domestic partners. “
(*) Partial-all “voluntary benefits” or soft benefits
** Other Eligible Person (OEP) designation rather than domestic partner.
23
Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [1:0:s1]
Table 5: Technology Sector
Human Rights Campaign
1640 Rhode Island Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036
phone (202) 628-4160
fax (202) 347-5323
5/2/2011
EMPLOYER INFORMATION
For: Detail
CEI
RATING
FORTUNE
1000
RANK
93
100
100
390
461
421
80
50
30
185
312
435
279
100
100
391
218
100
30
297
194
100
30
100
73
100
90
58
100
100
50
470
10
169
62
214
160
110
EMPLOYER NAME
CITY
STATE
Advanced Micro Devices Inc.
Agilent Technologies Inc.
Applied Materials Inc.
ASML
Baxter International Inc.
Becton, Dickinson and Co.
Black & Decker Corp., The
Boston Scientific Corp.
Conexant Systems
Corning Inc.
Cummins Inc.
Dolby Laboratories Inc.
Eastman Kodak Co.
Eaton Corp.
Edwards Lifesciences
Fairchild Semiconductor Corp.
Freescale Semiconductor Inc.
Graybar Electric Company, Inc.
Hewlett-Packard Co.
Illinois Tool Works Inc.
Intel Corp.
ITT Corp.
KLA-Tencor Corp.
Medtronic Inc.
Motorola Inc.
Nokia Corp.
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Tempe
Deerfield
Franklin Lakes
Towson
Natick
Newport Beach
Corning
Columbus
San Francisco
Rochester
Cleveland
Irvine
South Portland
Austin
St. Louis
Palo Alto
Glenview
Santa Clara
White Plains
Milpitas
Minneapolis
Schaumburg
Irving
CA
CA
CA
AZ
IL
NJ
MD
MA
CA
NY
IN
CA
NY
OH
CA
ME
TX
MO
CA
IL
CA
NY
CA
MN
IL
TX
Page 1
24
Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [1:0:s1]
CEI
RATING
FORTUNE
1000
RANK
63
629
887
60
100
225
95
100
100
223
136
EMPLOYER NAME
Table 5: Technology Sector Cont
CITY
Patterson Companies (Patterson Dental
St. Paul
Supply)
Perkin-Elmer Corp.
Waltham
Polaroid Corp.
Waltham
QUALCOMM Inc.
San Diego
Siemens Corp.
New York
Siemens Energy & Automation Inc.
Alpharetta
Sony Electronics Inc.
San Diego
Tektronix Inc.
Beaverton
Texas Instruments Inc.
Dallas
Whirlpool Corp.
Benton Harbor
STATE
MN
MA
MA
CA
NY
GA
CA
OR
TX
MI
Page 2
25
Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [1:0:s1]
Table 6: Financials
Human Rights Campaign
1640 Rhode Island Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036
phone (202) 628-4160
fax (202) 347-5323
5/2/2011
EMPLOYER INFORMATION
For: Detail
CEI
RATING
FORTUNE
1000
RANK
100
100
83
100
100
88
288
298
5
100
274
100
88
217
100
83
95
100
53
100
100
95
100
100
788
144
499
465
12
615
EMPLOYER NAME
CITY
Allfirst Financial Inc.
Baltimore
American Express Co.
New York
Ameriprise Financial Inc.
Minneapolis
AmTrust Bank
Cleveland
Aon Corp.
Chicago
Bank of America Corp.
Charlotte
Bank of New York Mellon Corp., The
New York
(BNY Mellon)
Barclays Capital
New York
Bay Federal Credit Union
Capitola
BB&T Corp.
Winston-Salem
Billingsley Co.
Dallas
BNP Paribas
New York
Boston Financial Data Services
Boston
Boston Trust & Investment Management
Boston
Co. (US Trust)
Broadridge Financial Solutions Inc.
Lake Success
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
New York
Capital One Financial Corp.
McLean
CB Richard Ellis Group Inc.
Los Angeles
Chamberlin Edmonds & Associates Inc.
Atlanta
Charles Schwab Corp., The
San Francisco
Citigroup Inc.
New York
Comerica Inc.
Dallas
CoreLogic
Westlake
Credit Suisse USA Inc.
New York
STATE
MD
NY
MN
OH
IL
NC
NY
NY
CA
NC
TX
NY
MA
MA
NY
NY
VA
CA
GA
CA
NY
TX
TX
NY
Page 1
26
Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [1:0:s1]
Table 6: Financials Cont
CEI
RATING
FORTUNE
1000
RANK
100
58
35
93
286
940
675
100
54
100
81
75
50
80
100
65
100
100
75
100
248
495
4
39
493
597
9
100
100
356
30
100
100
537
221
411
655
EMPLOYER NAME
CITY
Deutsche Bank
New York
Discover Financial Services
Riverwoods
Dun & Bradstreet Corp., The
Short Hills
E*TRADE Financial Corp.
New York
eFunds Corp.
Scottsdale
Fair Isaac Corp. (FICO)
Minneapolis
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.
McLean
(Freddie Mac)
Federal National Mortgage Association
Washington
(Fannie Mae)
Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
Atlanta
Federal Reserve Bank of New York
New York
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco San Francisco
Fifth Third Bancorp
Cincinnati
Franklin Resources Inc.
San Mateo
General Electric Co.
Fairfield
Goldman Sachs Group Inc., The
New York
H&R Block Inc.
Kansas City
Harris Bankcorp Inc.
Chicago
Prospect
Household International Inc.
Heights
HSBC - North America
New York
Huntington Bancshares Inc.
Columbus
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
New York
Juniper Bank
Wilmington
KeyCorp
Cleveland
KPMG LLP
New York
Loanscapes, LLC
St. Louis
Loansurfer.com
St. Louis
M&T Bank Corp.
Buffalo
Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc.
New York
MasterCard Inc.
Purchase
MBIA Inc.
Armonk
McKinley Associates Inc.
Irvine
Mellon Global Cash Management
Los Angeles
STATE
NY
IL
NJ
NY
AZ
MN
VA
DC
GA
NY
CA
OH
CA
CT
NY
MO
IL
IL
NY
OH
NY
DE
OH
NY
MO
MO
NY
NY
NY
NY
CA
CA
Page 2
27
Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [1:0:s1]
Table 6: Financials Cont
CEI
RATING
FORTUNE
1000
RANK
95
100
95
900
70
100
497
638
100
95
100
100
90
123
266
708
60
100
354
249
30
100
55
100
380
224
872
100
90
100
100
100
121
100
326
100
19
EMPLOYER NAME
CITY
STATE
MFS Investment Management
Moody's Corp.
Morgan Stanley
Morningstar Inc.
Nettradedirect.com Corp.
Northern Trust Corp.
PHH Mortgage Corporation
Pioneer Investment Management
Shareholder Services Inc.
PNC Financial Services Group Inc., The
Principal Financial Group
Raymond James Financial Inc.
RBC Wealth Management
Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated
Salomon Smith Barney Holdings Inc.
SLM Corp. (Sallie Mae)
State Street Corp.
State Street Kansas City
SunGard Data Systems Inc.
SunTrust Banks Inc.
T. Rowe Price Associates Inc.
TD Bank, N.A.
Teachers Insurance and Annuity
Association - College Retirement
Equities Fund
Toyota Financial Services Corp.
Trillium Asset Management Corp.
U.S. Bancorp
UBS AG
UnionBanCal Corp.
Vanguard Group Inc.
Visa
Wainwright Bank & Trust Co.
Webster Financial Corp.
Wells Fargo & Co.
Boston
New York
New York
Chicago
Plainview
Chicago
Mt. Laurel
MA
NY
NY
IL
NY
IL
NJ
Medford
MA
Pittsburgh
Des Moines
St. Petersburg
Minneapolis
Milwaukee
New York
Reston
Boston
Kansas City
Wayne
Atlanta
Baltimore
Wilmington
PA
IA
FL
MN
WI
NY
VA
MA
MO
PA
GA
MD
DE
New York
NY
Torrance
Boston
Minneapolis
Stamford
San Francisco
Malvern
San Francisco
Boston
Waterbury
San Francisco
CA
MA
MN
CT
CA
PA
CA
MA
CT
CA
Page 3
28
Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [1:0:s1]
Table 6: Financials Cont
CEI
RATING
80
FORTUNE
1000
RANK
EMPLOYER NAME
CITY
STATE
Zurich North America
Schaumburg
IL
Page 4
29
Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [1:0:s1]
Table 7: Law Firms
Human Rights Campaign
1640 Rhode Island Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036
phone (202) 628-4160
fax (202) 347-5323
5/2/2011
EMPLOYER INFORMATION
For: Detail
CEI RATING
EMPLOYER NAME
CITY
STATE
100
100
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP
Alston & Bird LLP
Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C.
Andrews Kurth LLP
Arent Fox LLP
Arnold & Porter LLP
Baker & Daniels LLP
Baker & McKenzie LLP
Baker Botts LLP
Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell &
Berkowitz PC
Ballard Spahr LLP
Bingham McCutchen LLP
Briggs & Morgan
Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison
Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon
Brown Rudnick LLP
Bryan Cave LLP
Buchalter Nemer Fields & Younger
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
Cahill Gordon & Reindel
Carlton Fields PA
Cary Kane LLP
Chadbourne & Parke LLP
Chapman and Cutler LLP
Choate, Hall & Stewart LLP
Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton LLP
Washington
Atlanta
New York
Houston
Washington
Washington
Indianapolis
Chicago
Houston
DC
GA
NY
TX
DC
DC
IN
IL
TX
Memphis
TN
Philadelphia
Boston
Minneapolis
San Francisco
San Francisco
Boston
St. Louis
Los Angeles
New York
New York
Tampa
New York
New York
Chicago
Boston
New York
PA
MA
MN
CA
CA
MA
MO
CA
NY
NY
FL
NY
NY
IL
MA
NY
95
100
100
100
100
100
70
100
100
100
100
95
100
95
100
100
100
Page 1
30
Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [1:0:s1]
Table 7: Law Firms Cont
CEI RATING
EMPLOYER NAME
CITY
STATE
100
100
100
100
95
100
100
100
Clifford Chance US LLP
Covington & Burling LLP
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
Crowell & Moring LLP
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Davis, Polk & Wardwell LLP
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP
Dickinson Wright PLLC
Dickstein Shapiro LLP
DLA Piper
Dorsey & Whitney LLP
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Duane Morris LLP
Dykema Gossett PLLC
Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP
Epstein Becker & Green PC
Faegre & Benson LLP
Farella Braun & Martel Llp
Fenwick & West LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
Dunner LLP
Fish & Richardson PC
Foley & Lardner LLP
Foley Hoag LLP
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
Frost Brown Todd LLC
Fulbright & Jaworski LLP
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Goodwin Procter LLP
Gordon & Rees LLP
Greenberg Traurig LLP
Hale & Door
Hancock Rothert Bunshoft LLP
Hanson Bridgett Marcus Vlahos & Rudy Llp
Haynes and Boone LLP
New York
Washington
New York
Washington
Seattle
New York
New York
New York
Detroit
Washington
Baltimore
Minneapolis
Philadelphia
Philadelphia
Detroit
Boston
New York
Minneapolis
San Francisco
Mountain View
NY
DC
NY
DC
WA
NY
NY
NY
MI
DC
MD
MN
PA
PA
MI
MA
NY
MN
CA
CA
Washington
DC
Boston
Milwaukee
Boston
New York
Cincinnati
Houston
Los Angeles
Boston
San Francisco
Miami
Boston
San Francisco
San Francisco
Dallas
MA
WI
MA
NY
OH
TX
CA
MA
CA
FL
MA
CA
CA
TX
100
100
100
100
100
75
100
80
95
100
100
100
85
100
100
95
100
100
100
95
100
100
Page 2
31
Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [1:0:s1]
Table 7: Law Firms Cont
CEI RATING
EMPLOYER NAME
CITY
STATE
95
100
100
90
100
60
48
100
Herrick Feinstein LLP
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
Hogan Lovells US LLP
Holland & Hart LLP
Holland & Knight LLP
Holme Roberts & Owen LLP
Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC
Howrey LLP
Hughes Hubbard and Reed
Hunton & Williams LLP
Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP
Jackson, Tufts, Cole & Black
Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro LLP
Jenner & Block LLP
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue
K&L Gates LLP
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
Kaye Scholer LLP
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
King & Spalding LLP
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
Kutak Rock LLP
Latham & Watkins LLP
Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Lindquist & Vennum PLLP
Littler Mendelson PC
Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP
Luce Forward Hamilton & Scripps LLP
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP
Mayer Brown LLP
Mayor, Day, Caldwell & Keeton L.L.P.
McCarter & English LLP
McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen LLP
New York
Chicago
Washington
Denver
Washington
Denver
Kalamazoo
Washington
New York
Richmond
Kansas City
San Jose
Los Angeles
Chicago
Cleveland
Pittsburgh
Chicago
New York
New York
Atlanta
Atlanta
Chicago
New York
Omaha
New York
Los Angeles
Minneapolis
San Francisco
Chicago
San Diego
Los Angeles
Chicago
Houston
Newark
San Francisco
NY
IL
DC
CO
DC
CO
MI
DC
NY
VA
MO
CA
CA
IL
OH
PA
IL
NY
NY
GA
GA
IL
NY
NE
NY
CA
MN
CA
IL
CA
CA
IL
TX
NJ
CA
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
95
95
100
100
85
100
80
100
75
85
100
100
90
Page 3
32
Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [1:0:s1]
Table 7: Law Firms Cont
CEI RATING
EMPLOYER NAME
CITY
STATE
100
95
80
100
McDermott Will & Emery LLP
McGuireWoods LLP
McKenna, Long & Aldridge LLP
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo
PC
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
Morrison & Foerster LLP
Munro, Nelson, Pearl & McCown
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
Nixon Peabody LLP
Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliot
O'Melveny & Myers LLP
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
Patton Boggs LLP
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
Pepper Hamilton LLP
Perkins Coie LLP
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro
Polsinelli Shughart PC
Proskauer Rose LLP
Quarles & Brady LLP
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP
Reed Smith LLP
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP
Rogers & Wells
Ropes & Gray LLP
Saul Ewing LLP
Schiff Hardin LLP
Schulte, Roth & Zabel LLP
Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Shearman & Sterling LLP
Chicago
Richmond
Atlanta
New York
IL
VA
GA
NY
Boston
MA
Philadelphia
San Francisco
San Francisco
Columbia
New York
Los Angeles
Washington
San Francisco
New York
Washington
Los Angeles
New York
Philadelphia
Seattle
New York
San Francisco
Kansas City
New York
Milwaukee
Los Angeles
Pittsburgh
Minneapolis
New York
Boston
Philadelphia
Chicago
New York
San Francisco
Chicago
New York
PA
CA
CA
SC
NY
CA
DC
CA
NY
DC
CA
NY
PA
WA
NY
CA
MO
NY
WI
CA
PA
MN
NY
MA
PA
IL
NY
CA
IL
NY
100
100
100
75
100
100
100
100
80
100
90
100
100
100
95
100
100
95
100
100
68
100
80
100
100
100
Page 4
33
Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [1:0:s1]
Table 7: Law Firms Cont
CEI RATING
EMPLOYER NAME
CITY
STATE
100
100
100
95
100
100
100
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP
Sidley Austin LLP
Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett LLP
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal LLP
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey LLP
Steefel Levitt & Weiss
Steptoe & Johnson LLP
Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP
Stoel Rives LLP
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
Susman, Rosenfeld & Meyer LLP
Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP
Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault L.L.P.
Thelen, Marin, Johnson & Bridges
Thompson Coburn LLP
Thompson Hine LLP
Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP
Troutman Sanders LLP
Ulmer & Berne LLP
Venable LLP
Vinson & Elkins LLP
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease LLP
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz LLP
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
White & Case LLP
Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP
Wiley Rein LLP
Williams Mullen PC
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC
Winston & Strawn LLP
Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts
Los Angeles
Kansas City
Chicago
New York
New York
Chicago
Cleveland
San Francisco
Washington
Kansas City
Portland
New York
Beverly Hills
Atlanta
Boston
San Francisco
St. Louis
Cleveland
San Francisco
Atlanta
Cleveland
Washington
Houston
Columbus
New York
New York
New York
Chicago
Washington
Richmond
New York
Washington
Palo Alto
Chicago
New York
CA
MO
IL
NY
NY
IL
OH
CA
DC
MO
OR
NY
CA
GA
MA
CA
MO
OH
CA
GA
OH
DC
TX
OH
NY
NY
NY
IL
DC
VA
NY
DC
CA
IL
NY
90
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
85
100
100
100
80
80
100
100
100
100
Page 5
34
Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [1:0:s1]
Table 7: Law Firms Cont
CEI RATING
EMPLOYER NAME
CITY
STATE
65
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice PLLC
Winston-Salem
NC
Page 6
35
Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [1:0:s1]
Table 8: Food & Agriculture
Human Rights Campaign
1640 Rhode Island Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036
phone (202) 628-4160
fax (202) 347-5323
5/2/2011
EMPLOYER INFORMATION
For: Detail
CEI
RATING
78
100
90
40
100
100
73
40
100
100
100
100
50
95
90
80
73
100
100
45
95
78
FORTUNE
1000
RANK
189
27
551
729
721
299
72
113
178
18
311
208
331
EMPLOYER NAME
CITY
STATE
7-Eleven Inc.
Ahold USA Inc.
Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc.
Aramark Corp.
Archer Daniels Midland Co.
Brinker International Inc.
Brown-Forman Corp.
Burger King Corp.
C&S Wholesale Grocers Inc.
Campbell Soup Co.
Cargill Inc.
Coca-Cola Co., The
Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc.
Compass Group USA Inc.
ConAgra Foods Inc.
CVS Caremark Corp.
Darden Restaurants Inc.
Dean Foods Co.
Delhaize America Inc.
Diageo North America
Dallas
Quincy
St. Louis
Philadelphia
Decatur
Dallas
Louisville
Miami
Keene
Camden
Wayzata
Atlanta
Atlanta
Charlotte
Omaha
Woonsocket
Orlando
Dallas
Salisbury
Norwalk
Westlake
Village
Columbus
Healdsburg
Modesto
Salt Lake City
TX
MA
MO
PA
IL
TX
KY
FL
NH
NJ
MN
GA
GA
NC
NE
RI
FL
TX
NC
CT
Dole Food Co. Inc.
Donatos Pizzeria Corp.
Dunkin Brands Inc.
E&J Gallo Winery
Gastronomy Inc.
CA
OH
CA
CA
UT
Page 1
36
Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [1:0:s1]
Table 8: Food & Agriculture Cont
CEI
RATING
100
30
75
68
85
FORTUNE
1000
RANK
155
233
100
100
395
184
95
75
100
73
85
100
75
53
23
226
108
78
100
50
85
95
100
89
52
180
100
100
100
45
58
241
47
100
100
85
32
284
EMPLOYER NAME
CITY
General Mills Inc.
Minneapolis
Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc.
Waterbury
H.E. Butt Grocery Co.
San Antonio
H.J. Heinz Co.
Pittsburgh
Hain Celestial Group Inc.
Melville
Hard Rock Café
Orlando
Heineken USA
White Plains
Hershey Co., The
Hershey
Kellogg Co.
Battle Creek
Kendall-Jackson Wine Estates Ltd.
Santa Rosa
Kraft Foods Inc.
Northfield
Kroger Co., The
Cincinnati
Land O'Lakes Inc.
Arden Hills
Mars Inc.
Mt. Olive
McDonald's Corp.
Oak Brook
MillerCoors LLC
Chicago
Nestlé Purina PetCare Co.
St. Louis
Oscar Mayer Foods
Madison
Palm Management Corp.
Washington
PepsiCo Inc.
Purchase
QuikTrip Corporation
Tulsa
Rite Aid Corp.
Camp Hill
Safeway Inc.
Pleasanton
Sara Lee Corp.
Downers Grove
Seafood Restaurants NW, LLC
Edmonds
(Skipper's, Seattle Crab Co.)
Sodexo Inc.
Gaithersburg
Starbucks Corp.
Seattle
Supervalu Inc.
Eden Prairie
Trader Joe's Co.
Monrovia
U.S. Foodservice Inc.
Rosemont
Englewood
Unilever
Cliffs
Walgreen Co.
Deerfield
Whole Foods Market Inc.
Austin
STATE
MN
VT
TX
PA
NY
FL
NY
PA
MI
CA
IL
OH
MN
NJ
IL
IL
MO
WI
DC
NY
OK
PA
CA
IL
WA
MD
WA
MN
CA
IL
NJ
IL
TX
Page 2
37
Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [1:0:s1]
Table 8: Food & Agriculture Cont
CEI
RATING
65
FORTUNE
1000
RANK
216
EMPLOYER NAME
CITY
STATE
Wild Oats Markets Inc.
Yum! Brands Inc.
Boulder
Louisville
CO
KY
Page 3
38
Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [1:0:s1]
Table 9: Corporations Headquartered in Missouri
Human Rights Campaign
1640 Rhode Island Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036
phone (202) 628-4160
fax (202) 347-5323
4/18/2011
EMPLOYER INFORMATION
For: Detail
CEI
RATING
FORTUNE
1000
RANK
100
70
100
75
100
740
320
73
944
80
30
30
65
100
770
96
470
493
100
100
75
95
197
EMPLOYER NAME
CITY
STATE
AMC Entertainment Inc.
Ameren Corp.
Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc.
Brown Shoe Company, Inc.
Bryan Cave LLP
Kansas City
St. Louis
St. Louis
St. Louis
St. Louis
North Kansas
City
Chesterfield
St Louis
St. Louis
St. Louis
St. Louis
Kansas City
St. Louis
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
St. Louis
St. Louis
St. Louis
Bridgeton
St. Louis
St. Louis
Kansas City
St. Louis
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
Cerner Corp.
Cms Communications
Data Research Associates Inc
Design Consultants, Inc.
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co.
Express Scripts Inc.
Fred Pryor Seminars/Careertrack
Graybar Electric Company, Inc.
H&R Block Inc.
Hallmark Cards Inc.
HNTB Companies
Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP
Jacobs Civil Inc.
Loanscapes, LLC
Loansurfer.com
Midwest Library Service
Monsanto Co.
Nestlé Purina PetCare Co.
Polsinelli Shughart PC
Progressive Medical Inc
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
Page 1
39
Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [1:0:s1]
Table 9: Corporations Headquartered in Missouri Cont
CEI
RATING
100
100
100
FORTUNE
1000
RANK
EMPLOYER NAME
CITY
STATE
Pulitzer Inc.
Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP
Sizewise Rentals Llc
Smithkline Beecham Consumer
Products
SSM Health Care System
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
State Street Kansas City
Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP
Thompson Coburn LLP
Washington University in St. Louis
Webster University
St. Louis
Kansas City
Kansas City
MO
MO
MO
Kansas City
MO
St. Louis
St. Louis
Kansas City
Kansas City
St. Louis
St. Louis
St. Louis
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
Page 2
40
Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [1:0:s1]
Table 10: Computer technology/software Sector
Human Rights Campaign
1640 Rhode Island Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036
phone (202) 628-4160
fax (202) 347-5323
4/25/2011
EMPLOYER INFORMATION
For: Detail
CEI
RATING
FORTUNE
1000
RANK
50
95
60
100
657
341
43
100
56
100
926
265
85
65
142
100
872
83
788
EMPLOYER NAME
CITY
STATE
Acer Inc.
Acxiom Corp.
Adaptec Inc.
Adobe Systems Inc.
Affiliated Computer Services
Alcatel-Lucent
Allscripts-Misys Healthcare Solutions
Inc.
American Management Systems Inc.
(AMS)
Apple Inc.
ArborText Inc.
Arise Communications Inc.
Auspex Systems Inc.
Autodesk Inc.
Automatic Data Processing Inc.
Avanade Inc.
Avaya Inc.
Avnet Inc.
BEA Systems Inc.
BearingPoint, Inc.
Blackboard Inc.
BMC Software Inc.
Borland Software Corp
Broadbase Information Systems
Broadridge Financial Solutions Inc.
Irvine
Little Rock
Milipitas
San Jose
Dallas
Murray Hill
CA
AR
CA
CA
TX
NJ
Chicago
IL
Fairfax
VA
Cupertino
Ann Arbor
Oakland
Santa Clara
San Rafael
Roseland
Seattle
Basking Ridge
Phoenix
San Jose
McLean
Washington
Houston
Cupertino
Menlo Park
Lake Success
CA
MI
CA
CA
CA
NJ
WA
NJ
AZ
CA
VA
DC
TX
CA
CA
NY
Page 1
41
Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [1:0:s1]
Table 10: Computer technology/software Sector Cont
CEI
RATING
FORTUNE
1000
RANK
482
100
EMPLOYER NAME
CITY
STATE
BroadVision Inc.
CA Inc.
Cadence Design Systems
Candle Corp.
CDW Corp.
Centigram Communications Corp.
Ceridian Corp.
Redwood City
Islandia
San Jose
Santa Monica
Vernon Hills
San Jose
Minneapolis
North Kansas
City
San Jose
Fort
Lauderdale
Dallas
Falls Church
Detroit
Austin
Corning
Round Rock
Maynard
San Diego
Short Hills
St. Petersburg
Redwood City
San Mateo
Hopkinton
Madison
Emeryville
San Francisco
Lanham
Palo Alto
San Diego
Dallas
Jacksonville
Oakdale
Santa Ana
CA
NY
CA
CA
IL
CA
MN
73
944
Cerner Corp.
100
58
Cisco Systems Inc.
971
Citrix Systems Inc.
85
93
138
100
100
391
38
35
940
100
494
95
166
100
10
88
88
923
80
Compucom Systems
Computer Sciences Corp. (CSC)
Compuware Corp.
Convio Inc.
Corning Inc.
Dell Inc.
Digital Equipment Corp.
Digitaria Interactive Inc.
Dun & Bradstreet Corp., The
EDiX Corp.
Electronic Arts Inc.
Elibrium Inc.
EMC Corp.
Epic Systems Corp.
Extensity Inc.
Game Performance Labs (GPLABS)
Group 1 Software
Hewlett-Packard Co.
HNC Software
i2 Technologies
Idea Integration
Imation Corp.
Ingram Micro
MO
CA
FL
TX
VA
MI
TX
NY
TX
MA
CA
NJ
FL
CA
CA
MA
WI
CA
CA
MD
CA
CA
TX
FL
MN
CA
Page 2
42
Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [1:0:s1]
Table 10: Computer technology/software Sector Cont
CEI
RATING
FORTUNE
1000
RANK
100
20
100
610
939
50
100
100
526
53
857
100
100
100
100
36
110
451
574
85
100
105
100
53
70
375
EMPLOYER NAME
CITY
Interface Software Inc.
Oak Brook
Intergraph Corp.
Madison
Intermedia Partners
San Francisco
International Business Machines Corp.
Armonk
(IBM)
Intuit Inc.
Mountain View
Itron Inc.
Liberty Lake
Keane Inc.
Boston
LexisNexis Group
Miamisburg
Lexmark International Inc.
Lexington
Linuxcare Inc.
San Francisco
LogicaCMG
Lexington
Lotus Development Corp.
Cambridge
Macromedia Inc.
San Francisco
MarketDerby
San Francisco
McAfee Inc.
Santa Clara
Medical Information Technology Inc.
Westwood
(Meditech)
Medstat Group
Ann Arbor
Mentor Graphics Corp.
Wilsonville
Microsoft Corp.
Redmond
Motorola Inc.
Schaumburg
NCR Corp.
Duluth
NetApp Inc.
Sunnyvale
Noblestar Systems
Reston
Nortel Networks Corp.
Richardson
Novell Inc.
Waltham
Colorado
NxTrend Technology
Springs
Oracle Corp.
Redwood City
Oven Digital Inc.
New York
Pearson Inc.
New York
PeopleSoft Inc.
Pleasanton
Perot Systems Corp.
Plano
Pitney Bowes Inc.
Stamford
STATE
IL
AL
CA
NY
CA
WA
MA
OH
KY
CA
MA
MA
CA
CA
CA
MA
MI
OR
WA
IL
GA
CA
VA
TX
MA
CO
CA
NY
NY
CA
TX
CT
Page 3
43
Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [1:0:s1]
Table 10: Computer technology/software Sector Cont
CEI
RATING
100
FORTUNE
1000
RANK
225
100
100
45
60
40
75
30
1000
380
100
353
100
109
70
452
30
304
100
152
EMPLOYER NAME
Primix Solutions
QUALCOMM Inc.
Quantum Corp.
Quark Inc.
Rational Software Corp.
S1 Corp.
Sabre Holdings Inc.
CITY
Watertown
San Diego
Milpitas
Denver
Cupertino
Atlanta
Southlake
Newtown
SAP America Inc.
Square
SAS Institute Inc.
Cary
Science Applications International Corp.
San Diego
Seagate Technology LLC
Scotts Valley
Silicon Graphics Inc.
Mountain View
Software House International
Somerset
SRA International Inc.
Fairfax
SunGard Data Systems Inc.
Wayne
Sybase
Emeryville
Symantec Corp.
Mountain View
Tanning Technology Corp.
Denver
Tech Data Corp.
Clearwater
TIBCO Software Inc.
Palo Alto
Trilogy Software
Austin
Unisys Corp.
Blue Bell
Vignette Corp.
Austin
Western Digital Corp.
Lake Forest
WRQ Inc.
Seattle
Xerox Corp.
Norwalk
STATE
MA
CA
CA
CO
CA
GA
TX
PA
NC
CA
CA
CA
NJ
VA
PA
CA
CA
CO
FL
CA
TX
PA
TX
CA
WA
CT
Page 4
44
Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [1:0:s1]
Table 11: Pharmaceutical Sector
Human Rights Campaign
1640 Rhode Island Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036
phone (202) 628-4160
fax (202) 347-5323
5/2/2011
EMPLOYER INFORMATION
For: Detail
CEI
RATING
FORTUNE
1000
RANK
85
70
63
80
80
85
100
100
100
75
90
100
EMPLOYER NAME
CITY
STATE
75
Abbott Laboratories
ALZA Corp.
IL
CA
159
Amgen Inc.
Abbott Park
Mountain View
Thousand
Oaks
Deerfield
Wilmington
Deerfield
Pittsburgh
Montville
Bridgewater
Ridgefield
New York
Dublin
San Diego
Woonsocket
Indianapolis
Cambridge
Research
Triangle Park
Lake Forest
Rockville
Westbrook
Seattle
Carlsbad
New Brunswick
San Francisco
185
114
17
18
112
458
100
Astellas Pharma US, Inc.
AstraZeneca PLC
Baxter International Inc.
Bayer Corp.
Berlex, Inc.
Biovail Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corp.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
Cardinal Health Inc.
CareFusion Corp.
CVS Caremark Corp.
Eli Lilly & Co.
Genzyme Corp.
GlaxoSmithKline plc
100
527
100
70
33
14
Hospira Inc.
Human Genome Sciences
IDEXX Laboratories Inc.
Immunex Corp.
Isis Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Johnson & Johnson
McKesson Corp.
CA
IL
DE
IL
PA
NJ
NJ
CT
NY
OH
CA
RI
IN
MA
NC
IL
MD
ME
WA
CA
NJ
CA
Page 1
45
Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [1:0:s1]
Table 11: Pharmaceutical Sector Cont
CEI
RATING
100
100
100
65
80
FORTUNE
1000
RANK
85
40
EMPLOYER NAME
CITY
STATE
MedImmune Inc
Gaithersburg
Whitehouse
Station
East Hanover
New York
Bridgewater
Lake Forest
Madison
MD
Merck & Co. Inc.
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
Pfizer Inc.
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC
TAP Pharmaceutical Products Inc.
Wyeth
NJ
NJ
NY
NJ
IL
NJ
Page 2
46
Evaluating unlicensed DynamicPDF feature. Click here for details. [1:0:s1]
Table 12: Aerospace Industry
Human Rights Campaign
1640 Rhode Island Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036
phone (202) 628-4160
fax (202) 347-5323
4/25/2011
EMPLOYER INFORMATION
For: Detail
CEI
RATING
FORTUNE
1000
RANK
EMPLOYER NAME
CITY
STATE
El Segundo
Minneapolis
Chicago
Charlotte
Morris
Township
Bethesda
Los Angeles
Waltham
Cedar Rapids
Providence
Hartford
CA
MN
IL
NC
65
100
30
454
28
334
Aerospace Corp, The
Alliant Techsystems Inc.
Boeing Co.
Goodrich Corp.
100
74
Honeywell International Inc.
100
100
100
95
35
100
44
61
95
462
220
37
Lockheed Martin Corp.
Northrop Grumman Corp.
Raytheon Co.
Rockwell Collins Inc.
Textron Inc.
United Technologies Corp.
NJ
MD
CA
MA
IA
RI
CT
Page 1
47
48
49
50
Missouri Students Association
University of Missouri
Bill #50A Resolution in Support of Offering Domestic Partner Benefits for University Faculty and
Staff
PURPOSE: To encourage the University of Missouri to offer domestic partner benefits for
faculty and staff.
WHEREAS, the University has a stated goal of creating an open, welcoming, and diverse
campus, and
WHEREAS, according to MU Equity, it is “against University policy to treat a person
differently from others because of that person’s sexual orientation, or to exclude a person from
participation in, or deny a person the benefits of, a University program or activity on that basis,”
and
WHEREAS, despite being a strategic goal in 2002 and now in 2011, the University still does not
offer benefits for the domestic partners of faculty and staff, and
WHEREAS, the University has the distinction of being one of only 62 American Association of
Universities (AAU), and
WHEREAS, the University is one of only six AAU members that does not offer domestic
partner benefits (DPB), and
WHEREAS, the University is the largest employer in Columbia, and
WHEREAS, other workplace competitors in Columbia (Boone Hospital, IBM, Cerner, Kraft
Foods, Quaker Oates, and Barnes and Noble to name just a few) offer domestic partner benefits
while the University does not, and
WHEREAS, the University’s approach to sexual orientation through policies of intolerance,
such as denial of DPB, threatens to undermine its stated position on diversity among the AAU,
and
WHEREAS, last year, Faculty Council unanimously passed a resolution urging that DP benefits
be adopted for the University, and
51
WHEREAS, full benefits would be estimated to cost the university, at most, 1-2% of the total
benefit budget, and
WHEREAS, cost cannot be the overriding consideration in this matter, and
WHEREAS, the University cannot use finances as an excuse to discriminate, and
WHEREAS, the adoption of DP benefits is at the core of the University’s mission and stated
goals to encourage respect and diversity, and
WHEREAS, the One Mizzou campaign is a student lead initiative endorsed by students, faculty,
staff, and administrators that seeks to create a climate campus of respect and responsibility, and
WHEREAS, the adoption of DP benefits is a tangible step toward creating this climate on
campus,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that MSA Senate, on behalf of the nearly 25,000
undergraduates at the University of Missouri, strongly urges the Board of Curators and the UM
President to offer domestic partner benefits to faculty and staff at the University of Missouri.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sen. Tyler Ricketts
Student Affairs, Chairman
Eric Woods
MSA President
52
Graduate Professional Council
University of Missouri
Resolution 1011-02
A Resolution in Support of Offering Domestic Partner Benefits for Faculty and Staff of the
University of Missouri System
PURPOSE: To encourage the University of Missouri system to offer domestic partner (DP)
benefits for faculty and staff.
WHEREAS, MU through the Chancellor’s Diversity Initiative, has a stated mission and vision
of creating an inclusive, welcoming, and diverse campus, and
WHEREAS, according to MU Equity, it is “against University policy to treat a person
differently from others because of that person’s sexual orientation, or to exclude a person from
participation in, or deny a person the benefits of, a University program or activity on that basis,”
and
WHEREAS, despite being a strategic goal in 2002 and now in 2011, MU still does not offer
benefits for domestic partners of faculty and staff, and
WHEREAS, MU has the distinction of being one of only 62 American Association of
Universities (AAU), and
WHEREAS, MU is one of only six AAU members that does not offer DP benefits, and
WHEREAS, MU’s approach to sexual orientation through policies of inequity, such as denial of
DP benefits threatens to undermine its stated position on diversity among the AAU, and
WHEREAS, MU is the largest employer in Columbia, and
WHEREAS, other workplace competitors in Columbia (Boone Hospital, IBM, Cerner, Kraft
Foods, Quaker Oates, and Barnes and Noble, to name just a few) offer DP benefits while MU
does not, and
WHEREAS, last year the Faculty Council unanimously passed a resolution urging that DP
benefits be adopted for the University of Missouri system, and
WHEREAS, full benefits for domestic partners would be estimated to cost the university system
only an additional 1-2% of the current benefit budget, and
53
WHEREAS, cost should not be the superseding consideration in this matter, and
WHEREAS, MU and the university system cannot use finances as an excuse to discriminate,
and
WHEREAS, the adoption of DP benefits is at the core of MU’s mission and stated goals to
encourage respect and diversity, and
WHEREAS, the One Mizzou campaign is a student lead initiative endorsed by students, faculty,
staff, and administrators that seeks to create a climate of respect and responsibility on campus,
and
WHEREAS, the adoption of DP benefits is a tangible step toward creating this climate on
campus,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Graduate Professional Council, on behalf of the
over 7,500 graduate and professional students at MU, strongly urges the Board of Curators and
the President of the University of Missouri System to offer domestic partner benefits to faculty
and staff in the University of Missouri system.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kristofferson Culmer
GPC President
Graham McCaulley
GPC Vice President
Sarah Zurhellen
Secretary
Matthew Kotovsky
Treasurer
Jacob Holt
Programming and Publicity Coordinator
Kayley-Jean McNamara
National Issues Coordinator
Luke Russell
State Issues Coordinator
54
55
56
57
58
University of Missouri
Faculty Council
Meeting on February 18, 2010
Resolution
Whereas, employers compensate employees through more than just wages and salary by
providing benefits such as health insurance and tuition reduction, with the traditional
benefits structure including an employee’s opposite-sex spouse and children;
Whereas, more than 300 institutions of higher education in the USA, including all
members of the “Big 10” and most members of the “Big 12”, have same-sex domestic
partner benefits included as part of their employee benefits package, with the University
of Missouri System being one of only a few that does not offer such benefits to its faculty
and staff;
Whereas, as a result of this inequity, University of Missouri may be less able to attract
and retain the best faculty and staff, and whereas this inequity simply is contrary to a
sense of human fairness;
Therefore, be it resolved that the Faculty Council of the University of Missouri’s flagship
campus strongly recommends that same-sex partners of active University of Missouri
employees be allowed access to all of the same rights, privileges, and benefits to which
opposite-sex spouses currently are entitled.
Also, that Chair Rubin communicate this resolution to University of Missouri System
President Gary Forsee as well as to Vice-President for Human Resources Betsy
Rodriguez.
Submitted by: Leah Cohn (College of Veterinary Medicine, chair, Diversity
Enhancement Committee) and James Tarr (Education, chair, Faculty Affairs Committee).
59
60
61
We urge you to amend university policy to allow us to extend benefits to domestic partners
of faculty and staff.
Quality scholars come to the University of Missouri not only from around the world, but
from all walks of life. Our University takes pride in the breadth and diversity of its faculty
scholars and staff. However, we are becoming increasingly disadvantaged in attracting and
retaining the very best faculty and staff because of the university’s policy of prohibiting
them from sharing normal employee benefits with their domestic partners, particularly
same-sex domestic partners who are prohibited by law from legalizing their relationship.
We have been advised by Betsy Rodriguez, UM Vice President for Human Resources, that
extending benefits programs to same-sex domestic partners would have minimal
economic impact on the university. However, the lack of domestic partner benefits has
resulted already in the loss of several quality academics who refused to take positions at
Missouri without domestic partner benefits. We can only speculate how many other fine
scholars have declined to apply for jobs here when they find that the University of Missouri
is one of only 5 of the 61 AAU research institutions that does not offer domestic partner
benefits. Clearly, they have many other options at institutions willing to provide equal
benefits.
In this time of economic challenge, we need every advantage possible to recruit and retain
the highest quality faculty and staff for which this university is recognized.
Robert Churchill
Daniel Clay
James Cogswell
Lawrence Dessem
Joan Gabel
Stephen Jorgensen
George Justice
Judith Miller
Dean Mills
Michael O’Brien
Richard Oliver
Neil Olson
Thomas Payne
James Thompson
62
63
64
65
Sense of the Senate Resolution
University of Missouri-Kansas City
Unanimously Approved on March 16, 2010
Resolution
Whereas, employers compensate employees through more than just wages and salary by
providing benefits such as health insurance and tuition reduction, with the traditional
benefits structure including an employee’s opposite-sex spouse and children;
Whereas, more than 300 institutions of higher education in the USA, including 51 of 60
AAU institutions, have same-sex domestic partner benefits included as part of their
employee benefits package, with the University of Missouri System being one of only a
few research universities that does not offer such benefits to its faculty and staff;
Whereas, as a result of this inequity, the University of Missouri is hampered in its efforts
to attract and retain the best faculty and staff;
And, whereas this inequity in extending benefits runs counter to our published values of
non-discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, class, religion, sexual orientation,
age, disability, and rank;
Therefore, be it resolved that the Faculty Senate of the University of Missouri-Kansas
City strongly recommends that same-sex partners of University of Missouri employees be
allowed access to all of the same rights, privileges, and benefits to which opposite-sex
spouses currently are entitled.
The Chair of the Faculty Senate shall communicate this Sense of the Faculty Senate
Resolution to University of Missouri System President Gary Forsee and Vice-President
for Human Resources Betsy Rodriguez.
66
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Stephen Owens
Interim UM President, University of Missouri
UM Board of Curators
The UMKC Faculty Senate seriously takes our University’s stated goal of creating an open, welcoming,
and diverse campus very seriously. The University of Missouri prohibits discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation. To quote from MU Equity “It is against University policy to treat a person differently
from others because of that person’s sexual orientation, or to exclude a person from participation in, or
deny a person the benefits of, a University program or activity on that basis.” We even claim on our letterhead that we are an “Equal Opportunity Employer.” Sadly, the evidence does not support these claims.
Despite being identified as one of the University’s strategic goals in 2002 and now again in 2011, we still
offer no benefits for the domestic partners of our faculty and staff.
Our University has the distinction of being one of only 62 American Association of University (AAU)
members. Yet, MU is one of only six AAU members that does not provide domestic partner benefits
(DPB) to our faculty and staff. As one of the largest employers in Kansas City and Jackson County, it is
disturbing that our workplace competitors offer domestic partner benefits while we do not. The
University’s narrow approach to sexual orientation, through policies of intolerance such as denial of DPB,
threatens to seriously undermine its stated position on diversity among the AAU and our ability to compete
locally and nationally for outstanding faculty and staff.
As you know, last year the UMKC Faculty Senate unanimously passed a resolution urging that such DP
benefits be adapted for our University. We understand that full benefits would be estimated to cost the
system, at most, from 1-2% of the total benefit budget and it would be expected to help recruitment. Some
say the cost would be negligible relative to the total benefit costs but this cannot be the overriding
consideration.
Our faculty and staff have been without pay increases for three years, we have had to justify our very
existence, and we have had to economize past the point where we feel each and every cut. We
understand fully that the University is facing challenging times. Yet we also believe that MU cannot use
finances as an excuse to discriminate. As Missouri’s premier institution of higher education, the UM
system cannot continue the hypocrisy of denying a group of employees equal access to benefits while
claiming the moral high ground. This strategy, while politically expedient, will cost the system in stature, in
capacity to attract and retain top faculty and staff, in productivity of current employees who feel
discriminated against and disenfranchised, and in loyalty of alumnae who regardless of their own sexual
orientation find the current MU policy of discrimination shameful and disappointing.
The failure of our University to pursue equal benefits for all employees has consequences beyond the
economic. The failure of our University to pursue justice in this matter extends to the very humanity of our
community – respect and responsibility for ensuring a culture within which discovery and excellence can
flourish. We urge you in the strongest possible terms to do everything in your power to implement these
benefits as soon as possible, and stand up for what is morally right.
Sincerely,
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
The Case for Domestic Partner Benefits
in the University of Missouri System
Mark Pope, Ed.D., Professor and Chair, Counseling and Family Therapy
Zuleyma Tang-Martinez, Ph.D., Professor, Biology
University of Missouri – Saint Louis
79
Chancellor’s Cultural Diversity Initiative
2
The Case for Domestic Partner Benefits
at the University of Missouri
1. Employers compensate employees through more than just wages and salary by
providing benefits such as health insurance and dental care, with the traditional benefits
structure including an employee’s opposite-sex spouse and children.
2. An ever-growing number of employers, including the majority of Fortune 500
companies and many public and private universities and colleges, further extend these
benefits to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) employees and their families
by including an employee's same-sex partner and their children (termed “domestic
partner benefits”).
3. All 16 of our comparator universities, according to Betsy Rodriguez, UM System
Vice-President for Human Resources, provide some form of domestic partner benefits to
faculty and/or staff.
4. Extending health benefits to the same-sex spouses/partners of active University of
Missouri employees is a humane and equitable response to the needs of University
community members who have same sex spouses or partners, but who are not able to
include their spouses or partners on their insurance policies because their relationships
are not officially recognized.
Definitions
5. Domestic partners are generally defined as two individuals who are in a committed
relationship and are responsible for each other's financial and emotional well-being.
6. Employers have also created their own definitions of "domestic partner" for the
purposes of benefits eligibility, although they increasingly allow government-based
recognition of same-sex relationships (marriage license, civil union or domestic partner
certificate) to satisfy their requirements. Employers typically require that the partners are
emotionally and financially interdependent, do not have a different domestic partner or
spouse, have reached the age of consent, and are not related.
Data
7. Five states and the District of Columbia in the US allow for same-sex marriages
(Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, including one state that borders
Missouri - Iowa) with marriages conducted in California still legal if conducted between
mid-June 2008 to November 2008. There are no residency requirements in any of those
jurisdictions.
8. There are statewide domestic partner laws in eight states (California, Hawaii, Maine,
Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Washington) and the District of Columbia.
80
Chancellor’s Cultural Diversity Initiative
3
9. Saint Louis City, Saint Louis County, Kansas City, and Columbia have domestic
partner registries for same-sex couples in Missouri.
10. In business and industry, more than 80% of Fortune 100 companies and a majority of
Fortune 500 companies offer family coverage to lesbian and gay employees (Lambda
Legal Impact, Winter 2010).
11. Even Wake Forest University, a Southern Baptist-affiliated college located in North
Carolina, has given health and tuition benefits to the partners of gay employees since
9/1/2000 (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2000, August 15).
Effects
12. In MetLife’s 2007 "Study of Employee Benefits Trends," 80% of employees who
were "highly satisfied" with their benefits expressed strong job satisfaction, 70% said
their benefits package was a reason for joining their current employer, 83% said it was a
factor in staying with the business, and more than half of employers rank "retaining
employees" as their top benefits goal. For those GLBT employees with partners and
children not eligible for those benefits, this disparity in compensation and perceived
value is profound.
13. As a result of this inequity, LGBT employees commonly switch to employers with
inclusive health insurance coverage for themselves and their families, and in the
particular case of the UM, we have lost several employees, with candidates increasingly
asking for these benefits during the application or interview process (Heavin, 2009).
Employers each year report more cases to the Human Rights Campaign Foundation
where they made an offer to an applicant, but were turned down when the applicant found
out the employer did not offer same-sex partner benefits.
14. Without access to such healthcare benefits, university employees are potentially at
risk for the financial and emotional stressors. This can have a detrimental effect upon
their work performance.
15. Domestic partner benefits are not disproportionately expensive, but rather sound
fiscal policy that allows employers to recruit and retain top talent, and to improve
employee morale and productivity. Employers are healthier and happier when they are
not forced to worry that, without coverage, a loved one’s accident or serious illness could
force their household to the brink of financial ruin (Lambda Legal Impact, Winter 2010).
Details
16. According to the University of Missouri System Human Resources Policy Manual,
Employment, HR-102: Equal Opportunity Program, Compensation and Benefits: All
University compensation and benefit programs are to be administered without regard to
race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, age, disability, and status as
81
Chancellor’s Cultural Diversity Initiative
4
Vietnam era veteran - http://www.umsystem.edu/ums/departments/hr/manual/102.shtml.
It appears to us, therefore, that the UMSL is in violation of it’s own policies.
17. All that is being requested here is fair access for LGBT staff and faculty to the same
benefits that are offered to others in the UMSL community. Some family benefits
offered to University employees are fully-funded by the employee and some are not.
Employees (both faculty and staff) should not be discriminated against on the basis of
sexual orientation in employment and benefits per the campus policy.
18. The table below gives you some idea of the differences in how different people are
treated regarding the benefits between opposite sex and same sex couples at the
University of Missouri – Saint Louis. Monthly healthcare coverage costs for employees
of UMSL for 2010 are below. For opposite-sex couples, the University contributes
annually $4,196.40 ($638.80 - 289.10 X 12 months) in additional monies toward the
healthcare insurance of opposite-sex partners. And there is an even greater discrepancy
since the university does not even offer access to these benefits to the partners and
families of LGBT employees. Even if such individual medical insurance policies were
available (and they are not always even available depending on the employment status of
the partner), the cost for a comparable policy from a health insurance company that offers
individual policies (as opposed to a group policy) would be substantially higher than
those from the university. Again, the LGBT couple gets hit harder and realistically may
not even be able to find, let alone afford, such an individual policy.
Monthly Medical Insurance Premium Costs at UMSL
Employee pays
University pays
Total cost
Employee
$106.94
$289.10
$396.04
Employee+Spouse $236.26
$638.80
$875.06
19. Benefits that are partially-funded by the University and that are only available to
opposite-sex spouses include:
1) Medical coverage;
1) Optometric evaluations and eyewear discounts;
2) Dental coverage;
3) Prescription coverage;
4) Family leave to care for partner and children who are ill or who have died;
5) Educational assistance tuition reimbursement (50% off);
6) Access to library and recreational facilities;
7) 75% and 100% joint and survivor annuity pension (option)
20. Other benefits that are fully-funded by the employee, but are still only available to
opposite-sex spouses include:
1) Long term care insurance;
2) Accidental death and dismemberment insurance;
3) Spouse life insurance;
82
Chancellor’s Cultural Diversity Initiative
5
21. Other universities have offered the following benefits to same-sex couples and their
families:
1) Medical benefits including dental, optometric, mental health, prescriptions,
etc.;
2) Tuition;
3) Sick/funeral/parenting leave;
4) Optional life insurance;
5) Paid bereavement leave for death of a partner’s relative;
6) Survivor benefits;
7) Access to email services;
8) Housing for same-sex committed couples who are students;
9) Sporting events;
10) Post-retirement benefits;
11) Equal pension options.
22. Documentation of same-sex relationships have included:
1) Proof of marriage; or
2) Proof of domestic partnership or civil union; or
3) A duly executed and notarized affidavit including some or all of the following
(none of these is required of legally married couples):
a) In relationship for continuous 6 (12) months;
b) Sole partner, intend to remain so indefinitely;
c) Neither is married to anyone else;
d) No other partner, marriage, etc., in the past 6 months;
e) Both at least 18 years of age;
f) Mentally competent to consent to contract when the partnership began;
g) Not related by blood closer than laws allow for marriage;
h) Cohabit, and plan to do so indefinitely;
i) Engaged in a committed relationship of mutual caring and support;
j) Jointly responsible for common welfare and living expenses (jointly
responsible (but not necessarily equally responsible) for
basic living expenses, meaning food, shelter and any other
expenses resulting from the partnership);
k) Not in the relationship solely for the purpose of obtaining benefit
coverage;
l) Couples provide documentation that includes one or more of the
following: (however, partners who possess valid marriage
license or domestic partner certificate are not required to
produce additional documentation)
i. Joint mortgage, lease, or rental agreement;
ii. Designation of partner as beneficiary for employee’s life
insurance or retirement account;
iii. Designation of the partner as primary beneficiary in the
employee’s will;
iv. Joint ownership of motor vehicle, joint checking, or joint credit
account.
83
Chancellor’s Cultural Diversity Initiative
6
References:
Heavin, J. (2009, November 2). MU domestic partner benefits ‘on the radar’:
Some say policy hurts recruiting. Columbia, MO: Columbia Daily Tribune,
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/nov/02/mu-domestic-partner-benefits-onthe-radar/
Lambda Legal Impact (2010, Winter). Arizona’s anti-family reversal. pp. 9-10.
Leatherman, C. (2000, August 15). Southern Baptist-affiliated Wake Forest U.
extends benefits to partners of gay employees. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
84
Chancellor’s Cultural Diversity Initiative
7
University of Missouri - Saint Louis
University Assembly and Faculty Senate
Meeting on 11/10/2009
Resolution
Whereas, employers compensate employees through more than just wages and salary by
providing benefits such as health insurance and dental care, with the traditional benefits
structure including an employee’s opposite-sex spouse and children;
Whereas, all of the University of Missouri System comparator universities have domestic
partner benefits included as part of their employee benefits package, with the University
of Missouri System being the only one that does not offer such benefits to its faculty and
staff;
Whereas, as a result of this inequity, University of Missouri faculty and staff job
applicants have declined job offers and employees have left their positions with the
University and have taken positions with other employers that offer such domestic
partner health insurance coverage for themselves and their families;
Therefore, be it resolved that the University Assembly and Faculty Senate of the
University of Missouri - Saint Louis strongly recommends that same-sex spouses/partners
of active University of Missouri - Saint Louis employees be allowed access to all of the
same rights, privileges, and benefits to which opposite-sex spouses currently are entitled.
Also, that Chair Keefer communicate this resolution to University of Missouri System
President Gary Forsee as well as to Vice-President for Human Resources Betsy
Rodriguez.
Submitted by: Mark Pope (Counseling and Family Therapy) and Zuleyma TangMartinez (Biology).
Resolution passed unanimously on 11/10/2009.
85
86
87
88
15 May 2011
To: University of Missouri Board of Curators boardofcurators@umsystem.edu
From: David K. Robinson, President, Missouri Conference of AAUP (American Association of
University Professors) drobinso@truman.edu http://www.moaaup.org
RE: AAUP policy recommendations related to domestic-partner benefits
CC: UM-C Faculty Council Chair, Leona Rubin RubinL@missouri.edu
UM Interim President Stephen J. Owens umpresident@umsystem.edu
UM Vice-President for Human Resources, Betsy Rodriguez rodriguezea@umsystem.edu
It has come to our attention that Faculty Council of University of Missouri-Columbia and
other representative bodies in the UM system have, for some time now, been studying the issue
of providing benefits to domestic partners of faculty and staff. Some of these groups have also
passed resolutions asking the university administration and Board of Curators to extend to samesex partners access to all of the rights, privileges, and benefits to which opposite-sex spouses
currently are entitled. As their research has shown, this practice has already become standard in
many, probably most, of their peer institutions.
In this memo I want merely to point out that these efforts toward equitable treatment of
employees reflect a long-held goal of the American Association of University Professors
(AAUP). Our organization is best known for upholding the standards of academic freedom,
tenure, and shared governance; most universities, including University of Missouri, reference
those standards in their faculty handbooks and other policies. As part of shared governance,
faculty bodies have the responsibility to advise administration and governing bodies concerning
practices that create the best environment for their research and learning communities and that
will attract diverse and productive students, faculty, and staff. All of our general policy
statements are readily available through the AAUP website: http://www.aaup.org
The national and state levels of AAUP share the goal of faculty governance bodies of the
University of Missouri, to provide equal treatment for same-sex partners and families, and we are
prepared to offer any information and assistance that will support this effort. Just as a beginning,
we refer you to our Committee on Sexual Diversity & Gender Identity (see below) and to an
excellent article by Lori Messinger (U. Kansas) from the 2009 volume of our association
magazine (see end of this memo). The information in the latter is already somewhat dated, in that
much progress has since been made in this direction, but the article may answer some questions
about the challenges that you anticipate as you implement such a change on UM campuses.
Once again, let me offer my assistance and that of our national organization, if we can be
of any help to the University of Missouri, on this matter and on any others of mutual interest.
*********
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/issues/sexdiv/
Committee on Sexual Diversity & Gender Identity
89
The AAUP advocates the fair and equal treatment of all members of the higher education
community. It supports and encourages diversity among students, faculty and administrators.
In October 1976, the Association’s Council adopted the following statement on discrimination
(revised in 1994 and 1995):
The Association is committed to use its procedures and to take measures, including censure,
against colleges and universities practicing illegal or unconstitutional discrimination, or
discrimination on a basis not demonstrably related to the job function involved, including, but
not limited to, age, sex, disability, race, religion, national origin, marital status, or sexual
orientation.
Because of continuing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the Association has
established a standing committee to deal specifically with the issue, the Committee on Sexual
Diversity and Gender Identity. http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/comm/#sdgi The function of the
committee is to research and monitor discrimination based on sexual orientation and to educate
members of the higher education community and the public on issues relating to sexual diversity
and gender identity. The SDGI committee works with other Association committees
(government relations, governance, and Committee A, for example) to promote fair and inclusive
policies on these matters on campuses and in the legislatures.
Staff liaison to AAUP Committee on Sexual Diversity & Gender Identity: Martin D. Snyder
msnyder@aaup.org
*********
Lori Messinger, “Creating LGBTQ-Friendly Campuses,” Academe 95:5 (September-October
2009).
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2009/SO/Feat/Mess.htm
90