Walmart Being Sued For Denying Health Insurance Benefits To Gay Employee’s Wife
Walmart, the largest retailer in the United States, is being sued in federal court for denying health insurance benefits to the spouses of gay employees, which the suit claims violated gender discrimination laws.
The lawsuit, which has been filed in U.S. District Court in Boston, is also seeking to gain nationwide class-action status.
The lawsuit has been filed on behalf of a former employee, Jackie Cote, an office manager who has worked at Walmart stores in Maine and Massachusetts since 1999. Her wife, Diana Smithson, developed cancer in 2012 and treatment led to $150,000 in medical debt, which the suit alleges hampered Smithson’s recovery….READ MORE at LiberalAmerica.org.
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
By: Andrew Bradford
Andrew Bradford is an author, academic, and political activist who lives in Atlanta. He is a Senior Writer for Liberal America and also has his own blog at deepleftfield.info
7 responses to Walmart Being Sued For Denying Health Insurance Benefits To Gay Employee’s Wife
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Warman1138 July 14th, 2015 at 18:10
There may be a lot of these situations popping up in the near future. There might also be the defense of ” religious rights ” rearing it’s ugly head again, only time will tell.
Tommie July 15th, 2015 at 00:57
I concur!
Angelo_Frank July 14th, 2015 at 18:50
Walmart will claim a religious freedom exemption.
Mike July 14th, 2015 at 19:23
You would think Walmart with it’s teams of attorneys would be smarter than this…Guess not.
Tommie July 15th, 2015 at 00:59
You would think a corporation making so much money, wouldn’t have food drives for their employees!
rg9rts July 15th, 2015 at 05:52
Not the brightest bunch
illinoisboy1977 July 15th, 2015 at 11:08
If they were legally married, at the time, Walmart had no valid reason to deny her spouse coverage. Religious exemption wouldn’t be a valid argument, here, because providing insurance coverage TO someONE isn’t the same as Hobby Lobby’s argument against providing coverage FOR someTHING. Covering a person, vs. covering a procedure: BIG legal difference. The women were already married, so covering the spouse is not “Taking part in violation of God’s law”, or whatever nonsense they want to claim.