I. Introduction
a. Thesis statement
II. What is Domestic Partner explained by law
a. Regional/State Laws
b. Federal Law
c. Defense of Marriage Act
III. Cost Analysis of Benefits
a. Cost to Employer
b. Cost to Employee
IV. Pros and Cons of offering Domestic Partner Benefits
a. Employee benefits
b. Company Gains
V. Conclusion

Wal-Mart (WM) is the largest retailer in the world and operates in all 50 states. Recently passed laws that allow same sex marriage couples to marry legally and this has caused the company to reevaluate its domestic partner benefit offerings. Studies done by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) also show that 62% of fortune 500 companies offer domestic partner benefits to their employees. (Hoenig, 2013) Wal-Mart must continue to be at the front of employee relations and it will be necessary to cover all employees, regardless of lifestyle, in order to maintain those relations. It is important that we define what Domestic Partner is as defined by the government. The Office of Personnel Management states, "For purposes of ensuring consistent implementation of the President’s memorandum, a “domestic partner” is defined in OPM regulations (e.g. 5 C.F.R. § 875.213) as a person in a domestic partnership with an employee or annuitant of the same sex. The term “domestic partnership” is defined as a committed relationship between two adults, of the same sex, in which the partners— (1) are each other’s sole domestic partner and intend to remain so indefinitely. (2) Maintain a common residence, and intend to continue to do so (or would maintain a common residence but for an assignment abroad or other employment-related, financial, or similar obstacle). (3) Are at least 18 years of age and mentally competent to consent to contract. (4) Share responsibility for a significant measure of each other’s financial obligations. (5) Are not married or joined in a civil union to anyone else. (6) Are not the domestic partner of anyone else. (7) Are not related in a way that, if they were of opposite sex, would prohibit legal marriage in the U.S. jurisdiction in which the partnership was formed. (8) Are willing to certify, if required by the agency, that they understand that willful falsification of any documentation required to establish that an individual is in a domestic partnership may lead to disciplinary action and the recovery of the cost of benefits received related to such falsification. As well as constitute a criminal violation under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and that the method for securing such certification, if required, shall be determined by the agency; and (9) are willing promptly to disclose, if required by the agency, any dissolution or material change in the status of the domestic partnership." (opm.gov 2013)

Domestic partnership differs according to the geographic region of each store location. The definition of a domestic partner, according to Merriam-Webster dictionary is, “A person you live with and have a sexual relationship with but are not married to.” (M-W.com, 2013) This definition does vary in different states. For example, Article 297 of the California Family Code defines domestic partners as, “two adults who have chosen to share one another’s lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring.” (California.gov, 2013) New York defines domestic partner as, “A person at least 18 years of age who: (a) is dependent upon the employee for support as shown by either unilateral dependence or mutual interdependence. As evidenced by a nexus of factors including, but not limited to, common ownership of real or personal property, common house holding, children in common, signs of intent to marry, shared budgeting, and the length of personal relationship with the employee or, if the employee is deceased, was so dependent upon the employee immediately prior to the employee’s death.”
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed in 1996 by then President Bill Clinton was a key piece to how the federal government handled Domestic Partners prior to the Supreme Court ruling it unconstitutional. In United States v. Windsor Section 3 of DOMA, found to be unconstitutional on Jun 26, 2013 by a 5-4 vote, which prevented the recognition of same sex couples. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Due process clause protects against the arbitrary denial of rights by the US Government. The Supreme Court did not challenge section 2 of DOMA, which declares all states and territories have the right to deny recognition of marriage of same sex couples. Repealing Section 3 of DOMA allows for access of same sex couples to over 1100 federal programs and benefits. Currently only about 15 states recognize some sort of a legal Domestic Partner or Civil Union.
Cost Analysis by region
There are upsides and downsides to offering dependent benefits to all of our employees. One of the benefits will be that same sex dependents will be able to enroll in Wal-Mart’s excellent health insurance program. Many employees are not able to enroll their domestic partners into the program, which can result in steep individual premiums. There are also those who have chosen not to enroll in our program because they cannot enroll their entire family. This can be detrimental to our workforce because of injuries and sickness in the workplace. If we keep our employees healthy, we will keep our production and service rates at or above expected levels. (Findlaw.com, 2013) Another benefit is peace of mind for our employees. If our workforce can put aside any fears concerning health care they will undoubtedly be more productive during the workday. Not only will they have the peace of mind in case of an accident, but they will know that any family member is protected as well. This will also keep up our high level of employee satisfaction that is a key part of our corporation’s success. In addition, research of programs that have domestic partner benefits have shown that the cost increase associated with the offering is generally less than 1% of the overall healthcare 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." (hrc.org 2013)
As shown in the 2004 report, “The Business Cost Impact of Marriage for Same-Sex Couple” a joint publication for the Human Rights Campaign and the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, the cost for most companies to extend benefits to same-sex couple will be negligent. The report goes on to break down the cost for small business and large alike, for instance small business will see no change, and large companies of 500 or more will likely see an increase around 25,000 per year. The law in most cases does not require businesses to offer benefits to same-sex partnerships.
Another possible downside will be the public opinion towards our company in some of the regions that we operate. In historically conservative states such as Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, and Kansas, we may see a drop in approval ratings. The upside to this point is that in the historically liberal states such as California, Nevada, New York, and Massachusetts, we could see a rise in public opinion ratings.
In conclusion, the growing amount of same sex marriages in our company and the regional areas that we operate are causing Wal-Mart to study and shift some of the policies that have been in place. As the world grows and learns, we must grow and learn with it. With the federal government officially redefining what the definition of marriage is, it is only a matter of time before all states fully accept it. Eleven states and D.C. either fully changed their definition of what they consider domestic partnership or outright supported it. Wal-Mart as a global company must always be at the forefront of employee and government relations to maintain a positive sales model. Wal-Mart as a global brand and more importantly an American icon must being willing to adapt and change its policies to ensure that it always fully recognizes the rights and needs of its employees.

References

"Answers to Frequently Asked Questions for Registered Domestic Partners and Individuals in Civil Unions." Answers to Frequently Asked Questions for Registered Domestic Partners and Individuals in Civil Unions. Internal Revenue Service, 19 Sept. 2013. Web. 15 Dec. 2013. .
California.gov. (2013, December). Official California Legislative Information. Retrieved from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/
"Civil Unions & Domestic Partnership Statutes." Civil Unions and Domestic Partnership Statutes. N.p., 26 June 2013. Web. 15 Dec. 2013. .
"Domestic Partner Benefits: Cost and Utilization." Human Rights Campaign. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2013. .
Findlaw.com. (2013, December). NY Code-Section 4. Retrieved from http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/WKC/1/4
Fox, Emily Jane. "Wal-Mart to Cover Benefits for Domestic Partners." CNNMoney. Cable News Network, 27 Aug. 2013. Web. 2 Dec. 2013. .
“Frequently Asked Questions Same Sex Domestic Partner Benefits.” Frequently Asked Questions Same Sex Domestic Partner Benefits. Office of Personnel Management, Web 2013. http://www.opm.gov/faqs/QA.aspx?fid=3f64bd3d-1107-44e7-9962-c8b652848f14&pid=a9bc0ec4-5116-45e4-aff3-baab937208c7
"Frequently Asked Questions: Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)." GLAAD: Leading the Conversation for LGBT Equality. N.p., 2013. Web. 15 Dec. 2013. . Hoenig, Chris, and Barbara Frankel. "Wal-Mart to Offer Domestic-Partner Benefits." DiversityInc. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2013. . This was another article concerning Wal-Mart’s decision to offer benefits to domestic partners. This was another source for us to help show the pros and cons of benefits.
Jurevicius, Ovidijus. "SWOT Analysis of Wal-Mart." Walmart SWOT Analysis 2013. N.p., 17 May 2013. Web. 2 Dec. 2013. .
M-W.com. (2013, December). Merriam Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/domestic%20partner