Pretty Low - But Not Surprised

[Maui]

Here is a link that shows a little more about her story. They were together for 30 years and she worked for FedEx for several years while she battled cancer.

http://www.nclrights.org/press-room...x-spouses-26-years-of-service-to-the-company/

Here is the actual complaint that has been filed:

http://www.nclrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Schuett-Complaint.pdf

 

[oldngray]

Here is a link that shows a little more about her story. They were together for 30 years and she worked for FedEx for several years while she battled cancer.

http://www.nclrights.org/press-room...x-spouses-26-years-of-service-to-the-company/

That source was National Center for Lesbian Rights who are representing that woman in her suit and that was their interpretation of the law, so I would be cautious of its claims.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Very interesting read. I may have to rethink my position on this issue.

 

[Maui]

That source was National Center for Lesbian Rights who are representing that woman in her suit and that was their interpretation of the law, so I would be cautious of its claims.

Check out the second link I added. It is the formal complaint.

The filing is a legal document. I know the former employee and can attest that all the information included is true.

 

[Maui]

This whole thing had to be well known by the employee the whole time she was working w/FDX. I once had a conversation with a lesbian co-worker about this exact thing, that X does not recognize gay partnerships and that her partner would never get any of the bennefits if my co-worker were to pass. This was years ago, she was well aware of it although, she didn't like it.

Please read the complaint I linked to earlier. Among other things, FedEx did not give them a straight answer as to whether or not the benefit would be paid. Additionally, had Lesly chosen to retire she could have chosen a joint annuity and received benefits. However, she was told not to retire by HCMP to keep her medical costs down.

 

[oldngray]

Check out the second link I added. It is the formal complaint.

The filing is a legal document. I know the former employee and can attest that all the information included is true.

Wait and see how it plays out in court but I think FedEx followed the letter of the law and did all they were legally required to do.

 

[Maui]

Wait and see how it plays out in court but I think FedEx followed the letter of the law and did all they were legally required to do.

Perhaps. The recommendation of the HCMP to wait on retirement means the complainant will likely get at least what would have been paid had Lesly chosen "early" retirement.

This is also part of a much larger conversation about the discriminatory nature of the law with respect to LGBT citizens. FedEx may be right on the the letter of the federal law, but certainly not the spirit of CA law.

Time will tell the outcome. In the meantime, a family lost a loved one and their main source of income and could have already been receiving the retirement Lesly earned if she were given all the relevant information prior to her passing. I think FedEx was trying to do right by her family in keeping her employed to pay medical, but it had the negative result of taking away earned benefits and leaving the family with nothing even after 26 years.

The federal law was discriminatory and unconstitutional. These are the kinds of results when politicians put hate and bigotry above love and family.

 

[vantexan]

...but it had the negative result of taking away earned benefits and leaving the family with nothing even after 26 years.

At what point could they have gotten married under California law? Why wait until the day before she died? Not to be uncaring, but do you think a life insurance company would give a dying person a policy so that their family could have something? Whether gay or straight, cohabitation shouldn't have the same weight as marriage. If it could be proved that FedEx steered her away from retiring because they knew it would get them off the hook that would be something. But proving it would be very difficult.

 

[MAKAVELI]

At what point could they have gotten married under California law? Why wait until the day before she died? Not to be uncaring, but do you think a life insurance company would give a dying person a policy so that their family could have something? Whether gay or straight, cohabitation shouldn't have the same weight as marriage. If it could be proved that FedEx steered her away from retiring because they knew it would get them off the hook that would be something. But proving it would be very difficult.

Because retirement benefits are not an insurance policy, they are earned. When they were officially married shouldn't be an issue. The couple had been together for 30 years.

 

[Maui]

At what point could they have gotten married under California law? Why wait until the day before she died? Not to be uncaring, but do you think a life insurance company would give a dying person a policy so that their family could have something? Whether gay or straight, cohabitation shouldn't have the same weight as marriage. If it could be proved that FedEx steered her away from retiring because they knew it would get them off the hook that would be something. But proving it would be very difficult.

It seems like you are a little hung up on when they were married. Can you consider the possibility that it was a function of the discriminatory laws, not their commitment to each other and their children?

To answer there was a period of a few months from March-November 2008 when they could have legally been married and they planned to be, but there was a well-funded campaign for Prop 8 to write discrimination against same-sex couples that made them illegal in CA. They were not legal again until June 2013.

The claimant is not seeking any extra compensation, just the earned benefits of 26 years of dedicated service.

 

[oldngray]

It seems like you are a little hung up on when they were married. Can you consider the possibility that it was a function of the discriminatory laws, not their commitment to each other and their children?

To answer there was a period of a few months from March-November 2008 when they could have legally been married and they planned to be, but there was a well-funded campaign for Prop 8 to write discrimination against same-sex couples that made them illegal in CA. They were not legal again until June 2013.

The claimant is not seeking any extra compensation, just the earned benefits of 26 years of dedicated service.

It is not a question of discrimination which you are hung up on but on the definition of what a marriage is. Many people including those who supported Prop 8 believed a marriage is between a man and woman. Not a question of any discrimination but of some people attempting to claim rights that didn't legally exist. Some courts have ruled to allow gay marriages despite majority opinion being against them. Until the Supreme Court makes a decision settling the issue one way or the other it is a gray area. FedEx followed what they were required to do under the law whether it was fair or not.

 

[Maui]

It is not a question of discrimination which you are hung up on but on the definition of what a marriage is. Many people including those who supported Prop 8 believed a marriage is between a man and woman. Not a question of any discrimination but of some people attempting to claim rights that didn't legally exist. Some courts have ruled to allow gay marriages despite majority opinion being against them. Until the Supreme Court makes a decision settling the issue one way or the other it is a gray area. FedEx followed what they were required to do under the law whether it was fair or not.

It actually is about discrimination. Some citizens are treated differently based on their sexual orientation.

Constitutional civil rights aren't given on a majority basis. All are equally protected under the 14th Amendment. Even so a majority of Americans actually supports same-sex marriage. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/poll-supreme-court-gay-marriage-111974.html

Oh and that link will also tell you that the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. DOMA was/is unconstitutional.

....and they were married in CA.

FedEx may win by siding with bigots. Lesly just died too damn soon. There would be no question if she died after June 26, 2013.

 

[oldngray]

It actually is about discrimination. Some citizens are treated differently based on their sexual orientation.

Constitutional civil rights aren't given in a majority basis. All are equally protected under the 14th Amendment. Even so a majority of Americans actually supports same-sex marriage. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/poll-supreme-court-gay-marriage-111974.html

Oh and that link will also tell the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. DOMA was/is unconstitutional.

....and they were married in CA.

FedEx may win by siding with bigots. Lesly just died too damn soon. There would be no question if she died after June 26, 2013.

Easy for you to name call and scream bigots and discrimination for anyone who disagrees with you. It isn't a question of equal but of special treatment that you are wanting.

 

[Maui]

Easy for you to name call and scream bigots and discrimination for anyone who disagrees with you. It isn't a question of equal but of special treatment that you are wanting.

Special treatment? That's absurd. How in the world is being treated the same as everyone else special?

By definition it is discrimination. I'm on my phone so it eliminated the definition in my previous post
dis·crim·i·na·tion
dəˌskriməˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. 1.
   the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
   "victims of racial discrimination"
   synonyms: prejudice, bias, bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness, unfairness, inequity, favoritism, one-sidedness, partisanship;
   
   So yes it is easy to call out discrimination and bigotry when it is plain as day like this.
   
   Lest we forget 2 kids are without their mother and the benefits she earned over a 26 year career. The Supreme Court struck down the law 6 days after Lesley's death saying in the Us v Windsor majority opinion:
   
   "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. "By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment."
   
   
   

 

[vantexan]

Special treatment? That's absurd. How in the world is being treated the same as everyone else special?

By definition it is discrimination. I'm on my phone so it eliminated the definition in my previous post
dis·crim·i·na·tion
dəˌskriməˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. 1.
   the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
   "victims of racial discrimination"
   synonyms: prejudice, bias, bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness, unfairness, inequity, favoritism, one-sidedness, partisanship;
   
   So yes it is easy to call out discrimination and bigotry when it is plain as day like this.
   
   Lest we forget 2 kids are without their mother and the benefits she earned over a 26 year career. The Supreme Court struck down the law 6 days after Lesley's death saying in the Us v Windsor majority opinion:
   
   "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. "By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment."
   
   

14 states still have laws against gay marriage which the Supreme Court will decide on this June I heard the other day. Problem is those states are most likely going to be forced to accept gay marriage whether the majority wants it or not. States should decide this, not have it forced upon them. You may call it bigotry, but others feel it's a religious issue and in those states at least if the majority are against it then the majority should rule. That leaves 36 states to move to if gays can't live with that. That doesn't mean they should be attacked, or denied work, etc but that concerning marriage those states define it as between a man and woman. But no, we all have to have your wishes forced on the rest of us and called bigots if we don't agree. Throwing around names like that doesn't help your cause at all and may lead to more subtle discrimination in places like those 14 states. You reap what you sow.

 

[STFXG]

14 states still have laws against gay marriage which the Supreme Court will decide on this June I heard the other day. Problem is those states are most likely going to be forced to accept gay marriage whether the majority wants it or not. States should decide this, not have it forced upon them. You may call it bigotry, but others feel it's a religious issue and in those states at least if the majority are against it then the majority should rule. That leaves 36 states to move to if gays can't live with that. That doesn't mean they should be attacked, or denied work, etc but that concerning marriage those states define it as between a man and woman. But no, we all have to have your wishes forced on the rest of us and called bigots if we don't agree. Throwing around names like that doesn't help your cause at all and may lead to more subtle discrimination in places like those 14 states. You reap what you sow.

Such nonsense.

 

[vantexan]

Such nonsense.

Right back at you.

 

[Maui]

14 states still have laws against gay marriage which the Supreme Court will decide on this June I heard the other day. Problem is those states are most likely going to be forced to accept gay marriage whether the majority wants it or not. States should decide this, not have it forced upon them. You may call it bigotry, but others feel it's a religious issue and in those states at least if the majority are against it then the majority should rule. That leaves 36 states to move to if gays can't live with that. That doesn't mean they should be attacked, or denied work, etc but that concerning marriage those states define it as between a man and woman. But no, we all have to have your wishes forced on the rest of us and called bigots if we don't agree. Throwing around names like that doesn't help your cause at all and may lead to more subtle discrimination in places like those 14 states. You reap what you sow.

Equality has won the day. BTW letting other people live their own lives and love and support whomever they choose is not forcing anything on anyone. Refusing to allow LGBTQ equality under the law WAS forcing the belies of some onto others by restricting their freedom to marry whomever they love.

Majority opinion crushed minority rights in those 14 states and was rightly ruled unconstitutional.

 

[vantexan]

Equality has won the day. BTW letting other people live their own lives and love and support whomever they choose is not forcing anything on anyone. Refusing to allow LGBTQ equality under the law WAS forcing the belies of some onto others by restricting their freedom to marry whomever they love.

Majority opinion crushed minority rights in those 14 states and was rightly ruled unconstitutional.

The beginning of the end. Great civilizations almost always cease to exist not from outside enemies but from the decadence that eats at their core. Saw a commercial for a new show that was heavy on couples kissing and grappling. The last couple were two women a few inches apart looking as if they were about to kiss. This is what it's come to, can't keep it behind closed doors, now we'll have to embrace anything and everything on our tv's. Bakers and photographers can't choose to not participate in gay weddings even if it's against their beliefs. And gays can't settle for going to those who are ok with it, they look for lives to ruin to make a point. Should've known back in 2008 that this was inevitable.

 

[calcio56]

Yo vantexan; change the channel, turn off your tv, go outside. This is the United states, a once free nation. If you don't like a person's behavior, distance yourself from the situarion. Don't infringe on freedom.