Employee benefits in line to be extended

The high court's decision acknowledged that married couples, under the law, have enormous advantages. In its 50-page ruling, the court included a long list of employer benefits that could be extended to gay couples who are permitted to marry, including pensions for state and municipal employees, health care through the state's Medicaid program for low-income workers, and health, life insurance, and bereavement benefits for the spouses of private-sector employees in Massachusetts.

"This is a groundbreaking decision, and it will have broad and deep implications for employers in Massachusetts and nationally," said Andrew Sherman, senior vice president of The Segal Co., a benefits consulting firm.

The decision is also expected to encourage same-sex couples in New Jersey and other states to pursue separate lawsuits raising employment issues that must ultimately be resolved by the US Supreme Court. Yesterday's ruling said that barring gay couples from marrying is unconstitutional in Massachusetts, but it runs counter to the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which defines marriage strictly as a "legal union between one man and one woman."

Lawyers and consultants said obstacles remain to an immediate expansion of employer benefits to gay employees' partners and families. The court gave state lawmakers a 180-day period to find a way to enact its ruling through legislation. Some benefits will also not be affected by the ruling, which does not apply to traditional retirement plans, 401(k)s, Social Security, and some health benefits that are regulated by federal law.

The ruling would probably have a broad impact on other legal matters that take a financial and emotional toll on gay couples in Massachusetts. For example, a husband or wife is automatically eligible for a transfer of property, without paying state estate taxes, if a spouse dies. Gay partners must be explicitly named as a beneficiary in the will and are required to pay the state's estate tax, which is capped at 16 percent.

"If you don't have a will, your spouse stands in line, first and foremost -- and your children -- to receive the estate," said attorney Peter Zupcofska, a partner with Bingham McCutchen in Boston. Many couples "don't have wills," he said.

The court's ruling is "a huge relief," said Stuart Wells, a consultant who said he plans to marry his partner of eight years, Lane Bourn. "I can put my partner on my benefits. I don't have to check if a company offers domestic partner benefits. In the eyes of the law, I can stop carrying all those legal documents in my glove compartment, and if I get hit by a car, Lane can come and see me in the emergency room."

Specialists predicted that the first employee benefit to be expanded will be health coverage, which is often provided by state-regulated insurers. Health care benefits are a major issue for gay couples. Employers have not been required to offer them to gay employees' partners, though one-third of Fortune 500 companies now do. Small employers are less likely to offer the benefits.

Alfred Gray, a lawyer with the Boston law firm Greenberg Traurig, said the marriage ruling would require employers to extend health benefits to gay employees' spouses and children. For example, if a lesbian couple has a baby, the employer does not currently cover a child who is the biological offspring of the employee's partner. Under the ruling, an employer would be required to do so. Bereavement policies would also be expanded, he said.

"This decision has the potential to really expand benefits to a far greater extent than a lot of people realize," Gray said.

The ruling could raise questions at companies that were in the vanguard of offering benefits to gay partners, such as John Hancock. Page Palmer, senior vice president of human resources, said the reason the insurer extended benefits to gay employees' partners was because they were barred by law from marrying.

John Hancock did not extend health coverage to partners of unmarried heterosexual couples, she said.

A ruling in favor of gay marriage, Palmer said in an interview last summer, would require a review of the company's benefits for 5,000 employees, most of them in Boston; forty-four employees at the time had signed up for domestic-partner benefits.

"We would have to reconsider whether we would provide coverage" to gay employees who do not choose to marry their partners.

The ruling's effect on pension benefits is unclear. When a married heterosexual employee dies, federal law requires that pension benefits continue to be paid to their spouse. Those benefits would not be guaranteed to same-sex spouses under the ruling, which is limited to Massachusetts. But Robert Webb of the Boston law firm Nutter McClennen & Fish said, "I wouldn't be surprised if one or more gay couples, once they get married, goes into federal court and tries to assert a claim."

Kimberly Blanton can be reached at blanton@globe.com.