The University of Arkansas System has reversed a decision to include same-sex couples in health benefits offered to spouses.
In a memorandum distributed to campuses Tuesday, the UA System's general counsel, Fred Harrison, cited a decision Friday by the Arkansas Supreme Court to stay a lower court's ruling that had struck down a 2004 state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
The UA System had been the only state employer known to revise health benefits to include same-sex married couples, doing so on Thursday. However, coverage wouldn't have taken effect until June 1.
This initial decision by the UA System came amid a period of legal confusion that began with Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza's May 9 ruling striking down the ban on gay marriage and then subsequent appeals and requests for stays.
Probably fewer than 15 employees had begun enrollment to receive benefits for a same-sex partner, said Ben Beaumont, a spokesman for the UA System, though he said no precise numbers were available.
The UA System has about 16,500 employees enrolled in health benefits. The system includes six universities, including the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, five two-year colleges, plus other units.
Reaction was mixed from gay UA System employees.
"I'm just so disappointed. I mean, it's just sad," said Bridget Mosley, an epidemiologist with UAMS. She and her partner, Holcomb, were married May 12 in Pulaski County.
"I was in the throes of looking at our benefits and trying to decide what plan we were going to get, and then to be told that's not going to be offered to you, it's just a slap in the face," Mosley said.
The couple have three children, and Bridget Mosley said having the entire family on one plan would have saved between $400 and $500 a month.
Travis Hefley, an administrative specialist at UA-Fayetteville, married his partner in 2012 in Massachusetts, a state that recognizes same-sex marriages. The couple would have been eligible for health benefits under the UA policy.
"I'm not upset with the university's decision at all," said Hefley. "I know they were just kind of doing the right thing and making sure they were following all the rules, as well."
J.D. DiLoreto, a development assistant with the University of Arkansas' Dale Bumpers College of Agricultural, Food and Life Sciences, lives with his partner but is not married. He wrote in an email that while he was disappointed by the news Tuesday, "I do understand the predicament that the stay puts the university in."
He added, "I can say that I'm really proud that they were the first institution of its kind in the state to step up and say that they would honor the marriages" unless a stay was put in place.
Hefley said he wasn't surprised at the news Tuesday, and Harrison's memo extending eligibility to same-sex couples had noted that the UA System was doing so pending what would be said by the Arkansas Supreme Court.
The state's highest court did not elaborate on its reasoning in granting the stay. However, Harrison in his memo Tuesday cited wording in the state's petition requesting the stay.
Harrison wrote that the state argued in part that "'the Court should suspend judicial alteration of the status quo on the important issues at stake in this litigation by staying any order that alters the status quo pending appeal.'"
"Accordingly, I am of the opinion that any same-sex couples married in Arkansas before the Stay and any same-sex couples married in another state recognized same-sex marriages shall not be eligible for benefits under the University's medical benefit plan or other benefits of the University depending on marital status, until this case runs its course," Harrison wrote.
The memo continued: "By granting the Stay petition, the Supreme Court implicitly suspended judicial alteration of the status quo under Judge Piazza's opinion and final order."
A section on 05/21/2014