Those of you who are State of Arizona employees may have drawn your attention to the open enrollment guide for 2011 employee benefits that most likely came to your mailboxes at home. We’re talking snail mail here, but the open enrollment guide is also helpfully available at the Arizona Department of Administration’s website for your reading enjoyment.

Dear readers, I could not help but draw my attention to the two-page discussion of employee benefits for domestic partners of state employees. You can also feel the love on Benefitoptions.az.gov by scrolling through to pages 5 and 6. The description helpfully summarizes that the Arizona Legislature passed a statute in 2009 excluding domestic partners of state employees from the definition of “dependent” for employee benefits purposes. An Arizona attorney general opinion later advised (if my memory serves) that the Arizona state government would do well to refrain from depriving these insureds from their benefits in the middle of an insurance year. Thus, despite the new state law, the domestic partner benefits are continuing in force for 2010.

More recently, as set forth in the open enrollment guide, the constitutionality of the new Arizona law was brought before a federal judge, who issued a temporary injunction against effectiveness of the law. This situation resulted in a sort of administrative limbo during which the State of Arizona must continue to offer benefits for the domestic partners of its employees until such time as the federal court injunction is lifted, if ever. What’s interesting is the language used in the open enrollment guide. You might observe that the open enrollment guide repeatedly admonishes the casual reader that domestic partners choose to receive these benefits at their peril, because the state reserves the right to revoke them instantly, mere moments after the federal court injunction is lifted. It’s interesting to consider whether this approach (“these benefits are available, but for heaven’s sakes, don’t sign up for them”) complies with the federal court’s injunction in the first place. Just a thought for those many clients of Michael J. Tucker, P.C., who are affected by this issue.