Insurance benefits available for only some?

[crcope]

What is the name of your state? Indiana
I have been reading previous post and I understand that when a husband and wife each have insurance available to them through their prospective employers that it is legal for employer A to not cover a spouse that works at employer B, if employer B offers insurance to it's employee.

My husband and I work for the same employer. Our employer did not adopt the policy that if the employee's spouse had insurance available through their employer, the spouse could not be covered. Instead it restricts insurance benefits to those couples that both work at our agency. Other employees within the same classification and performing the same job duties but their spouse works at another place can still take advantage of full coverage from our employer for themselves, their spouse and their family. (Actually they could carry full family coverage from both insurance companies and be covered twice.) Our employers is not even indicating that my husband can carry single coverage and I can carry single coverage, it was just only one of you can enroll.

My question is this legal or is it discrimination in pay due to martial status since fringe benefits are considered compenstation of work performed ? Since this is a fringe benefit offered to all employees as a condition of employment, it would seem to me that selectively restricting the use of this fringe benefit would be illegal. If it matters, we work for a state governmental agency.

Please provide feedback. ThanksWhat is the name of your state?

 

[cbg]

Can the one who enrolls cover the other as a dependent?

 

[crcope]

yes, My husand is carrying family coverage and has me as a dependent as well as our children. Previous to this year, we have always opted not to take two single coverage or two family coverage on health insurance but we have both carried family coverage for dental and eye insurance so we all had a primary and secondary coverage and no out of pocket expenses because the cost of family coverage on those plans was worth the extra out of pocket for both of us to enroll but the cost benefit was never there for the health insurance so we didn't go for double coverage on that in prior years. It isn't we can't get insurance on each of us, it just seems unfair somehow that the agency is only saying that this effects just couples that both work for the State of Indiana and it is not effecting anyone when their spouse doesn't work for the State of Indiana

 

[cbg]

As long as you can be covered as your husband's dependent, or he yours, they are not required to allow both of you to sign up for single coverage. You both have complete access to the plan; dependents do not get less coverage that the employee whose name it's in. As far as out of pockets and deductibles go, in my experience (which is considerable) having you both under one name generally comes out BETTER for you than if you both had to complete the OOP for a single.