BERNE — A dispute in Berne — where a worker was at first given and then denied health benefits for his long-time partner — raises issues that affect unmarried cohabiting couples across the state.

Scott Green wrote a letter to The Enterprise editor this week, as November elections approach, saying he will not be voting for Berne Supervisor Kevin Crosier or town Clerk Anita Clayton.

Green alleges discrimination by the town after he lost health insurance for his partner and then was fired in September 2016.

Green had previously written to The Enterprise stating that he had maintained the parks, buildings, and grounds as a town employee, and also worked as youth coordinator and recycling administer. Green was made a full-time employee by the town board in July 2016.

Green wrote this week that he had wanted to extend his insurance benefits to his partner of 21 years, Timothy Lippert. Lippert was and still is employed part-time by the town as the building and zoning administrator.

Green said in his letter that most employers require a couple to meet certain requirements, which he and Lippert do, but there was no criteria listed in the Berne employee handbook.

Green told The Enterprise that he had been paying for his and Lippert’s insurance for nine weeks. In his letter, he noted that the benefits became available after he was promoted to a full-time position with the town after.

“I don’t believe that Anita made a mistake,” he said, of the clerk, Anita Clayton.

This past spring, The Enterprise obtained an account from Clayton through a Freedom of Information Law request, which stated that Lippert had mistakenly been added to the insurance plan, and that Crosier had written to Green that the couple instead would be responsible for additional costs not covered by the 85-percent premium offered to town workers and their dependents.

Green wrote that the he was told that the change was due to Crosier noticing the added cost when preparing the town’s 2017 budget.

According to Clayton’s account, Green had first said to her the policy was not a problem, and later said over the phone that it was not acceptable and should be changed. Clayton then transferred the call to Crosier.

A few days later, when Clayton informed Green that the insurance policy could be picked up, Green said he could not be there and that under no circumstance would he talk to Crosier without his attorney present. Green called in sick the next day.

According to Green, Crosier told him that the town did not supply domestic-partner benefits, and that two people “shacking up” did not qualify for these benefits.

Crosier told The Enterprise that the insurance policy can be found in the employee handbook.

“The insurance company doesn’t set the policy; the town does,” he said, declining further comment because he said the matter is in court.

Clayton’s written account states that Green did not arrive at Town Hall the following day, and that she and Crosier drove to the different town facilities where he worked to find him so Crosier could deliver a letter asking Green to report to him; he was eventually spotted leaving the highway garage and yelling to go to Town Hall, Clayton’s written account says.

According to a separate account from the senior town account clerk, Andrea Borst, who was filling in for Clayton, Green came into the office at the town hall stating that Borst needed to call 9-1-1, saying he was being followed.

Crosier and Clayton then arrived there and, according to Clayton’s account, Crosier attempted to give Green, who was standing with Lippert, the letter. Borst then came out of the office to say that the police dispatcher would not send anyone until they knew why. Clayton, and then Crosier, took over the call.

Law enforcement eventually arrived, and Crosier gave a sheriff’s deputy the letter to give to Green, who refused to take it. Crosier then contacted Michael Richardson, the town’s labor consultant, who dictated a termination letter for Clayton to type up, which stated that Green was to be fired for “gross insubordination.”

Both Clayton and Crosier told The Enterprise this week that they could not comment on the matter due to pending litigation, although they did not say what the litigation pertained to.

“I would love to set the record straight,” said Crosier. “But, because of pending litigation, I can’t do that at the moment.”

Green told The Enterprise he was not sure what the litigation was in reference to, but noted that he had filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights regarding the loss of insurance and subsequent dismissal. According to the Division of Human Rights, once a complaint has been filed and an investigation has begun, the person or entity that has allegedly discriminated against the complainant will be notified.

Domestic partnership

Domestic partnership is a right enacted by states or municipalities to either same-sex or opposite-sex couples, said Eric Wrubel, an attorney from the firm Warshaw, Burstein, LLP. Wrubel is an executive committee member of the Family Law section of the New York State Bar Association, and is the former chairman of the New York State Bar Association’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Committee.

According to the New York State Department of Finance, while the state does not recognize common law marriage, the state insurance law permits insurance companies to cover someone who is “chiefly dependent” on the party in question, which can be determined by shared property, housing, finances, or by the length of the relationship. However, the law does not compel an employer to request this coverage for their employees.

“While an insurer may, if requested by the employer, issue a policy covering domestic partners, the employer is not compelled to request such a policy,” the web page states.

One definition of a domestic partnership refers to these insurance benefits, or as dependence or mutual dependence on another person; however, the New York State Public Health Law also refers to a domestic partnership in terms of a formal registration as domestic partners.

According to the advocacy website Unmarried Equality, couples may register as domestic partners in the cities of Albany, Ithaca, and Rochester, and not be a resident of these cities, while in the town of Southampton a couple may register but must be residents. It is unclear if there is a residency requirement to register in the city of East Hampton and Westchester County. In Rockland and Suffolk County, as well as New York City, couples may register as domestic partners, but must either be residents or have one partner employed by the municipal government.

In Albany, couples looking to register as domestic partners may do so before the city clerk, filling out a form and declaring an oath that they meet 13 different requirements, including, as in a marriage, that the couple is not related and is not already married or in another domestic partnership. Unlike embarking on a marriage, a couple must also have lived together continuously for six months and be financially interdependent, among other requirements.

According to Wrubel, a domestic partnership does not offer the same rights as a marriage, such as a right to inheritance without a will or federal benefits. Instead, it has often been used by employers to offer health insurance to an employee’s unmarried partner. To prove a domestic partnership, this may require certain documents, or it may only require proof of a relationship between the two people.

“Each insurance company is different … ,” said Wrubel. “And what the states and local companies require is different.”

“It really applies to benefits by government agencies that are local,” said Wrubel, whose legal experience with domestic partnerships is primarily in New York City.

Wrubel said that, since the United States Supreme Court ruling in the case Obergefell v. Hodges led to the legalization of same-sex marriage throughout the United States in June 2015, he expects the need for domestic partnerships will decrease. In New York, same-sex marriage was legalized in 2011 when the Marriage Equality Act was signed into law.

However, despite the legalization of same-sex marriage, the number of married individuals in the United States has been declining, with an increasing number of people living together as unmarried partners. A 2014 study from the Pew Research Center found that the number of unmarried adults in America reached a record high in 2012, the year of the latest available data.

A study published by the Pew Research Center this spring found the number of cohabiting adults was up by about 29 percent since 2007, about half of whom were under 35, but about a quarter of cohabitors last year were over the age of 50.

A recent study for Opportunity America and AEI Brookings Working Class Group has found that a significantly higher number of poor and working-class Americans are unmarried, as opposed to their middle- and upper-class counterparts.

About 26 percent of poor Americans from age 18 to 55 are married, while about 39 percent of working-class Americans are; 56 percent of middle- and upper-class Americans are married. The study notes that a disproportionate number of poor and working-class immigrants are married, without whom the numbers would be even lower.

The Pew Research Center finds that this is also linked to education. In 2015, sixty-five percent of adults ages 25 or older with a four-year degree were married, while this number decreased to 55 percent for those with college, and 50 percent to those with a high school education. A quarter-century before, each of these groups had a marriage rate of 60 percent.

This study found that this rate varies widely by race or ethnicity; 54 percent of white adults ages 18 or older were married, 61 percent of Asians were married, and 46 percent of Hispanics and 30 percent of blacks were married.