Letter to my HR Department

Hi [HR Person],

I was reading through our Manulife insurance policy. This is the bit where the term “spouse” is defined:

“Spouse”, means an individual under the age of 70;

a) to whom you are legally married,

b) of the opposite sex with whom you have continuously cohabitated and who has been publicly represented as your spouse for a minimum of one (1) year immediately before a Loss is incurred under the Program.

I’m in a same-sex relationship. Thus, short of marrying my partner, he would never be covered by the policy under the current wording. For me, having a work place that will cover my partner and my (future) children is very important. It impacts my decision making process when I evaluate where I want to be in five years.

I thought the policy might be worded as such because the definition of common law unions in Ontario might itself be discriminatory. But nope, common law in Ontario extends to same-sex couples as well. Thus, this discrimination against my relationship is entirely Manulife’s – there is no federal or provincial law that imposes these policies unto them.

I would like for us to ask Manulife to correct their wording. This policy is discriminatory, and I know that I’m not the only person in this office that would benefit from the inclusion of gay and lesbian couples. That said, I wouldn’t want to push this issue at the expense of having Manulife reciprocate by removing this second clause entirely. My aim is to make things better, and ending up by making things worse would defeat the purpose.

Thank you,

– Julien

Thanks for sharing this with me, Julien. Now is a good time to know these things bec we are in the process of all these [redacted]…will make sure this item is in the discussion agenda for future decisions.

Thanks and hopefully all these will be sorted out.

[HR Person]

I hope so too.