June 26 marks the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Courtdecision that legalized same-sex marriage across the country.

On that day, the ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges wasreleased. In a 5-4 decision, same-sex couples were guaranteed theright to marry under the Due Process Clause and the EqualProtection Clause under the 14th Amendment.

Prior to this ruling, 36 states and the District of Columbiaissued marriage licenses for same-sex couples. That meant thatemployers in 14 states were possibly at a loss as how to handleemployee benefits for same-sex spouses.

Even today, as we celebrate the anniversary of the landmarkdecision, there are still some lingering questions about what theseSupreme Court rulings mean for health care and retirementbenefits.

Todd A. Solomon, partner at McDermott Will & Emery, a lawfirm in Chicago, is an advocate for LGBT rights in theworkplace.

On the anniversary of the landmark decision, he helps us lookback at some important considerations to keep in mind for LGBTemployees in your workplace:

How have employers been affected?

According to Solomon, Obergefell v. Hodges had broadimplications for employers, especially on the health and welfareside of things. “This decision creates equality in all 50 states,”he says. “[United States v. Windsor] created marriage equality atthe federal level, but it wasn’t legal at every state.”

United States v. Windsor expanded the U.S. federalinterpretation of “marriage” and “spouse” to heterosexual couplesby declaring the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. June 26is also its anniversary, although the ruling came down in 2013.

Solomon says that after the Windsor ruling, retirement savingswere protected for same-sex couples, but not much else. It wasn’tuntil last year’s Obergefell decision that health coverage andother employer-sponsored benefits were made available to same-sexspouses.

“Employers had the right to not necessarily recognize same-sexmarriage,” he says. “But post-Obergefell, that all changes. Now all50 states recognize it, meaning all insurance codes are or will beamended so that the term ‘spouse’ includes same-sex spouse.”

He also notes that the Obergefell ruling affected taxation andbenefits because any health benefits are now exempt from state taxin all 50 states. The Family and Medical Leave Act was mostaffected by Windsor, as it is a federal mandate, and Obergefelladded no additional entitlement. Post-Windsor, all Family andMedical Leave Act coverage is the same across the board, regardlessof the gender of an employee’s spouse.

Doemployers need to offer equal benefits to all marriedemployees?

This is where things get a little tricky. For full insuranceplans, yes, equal benefits must be given to all married employees,says Solomon. But when it comes to self-insurance, or self-insuredplans where the employers pay for coverage, it’s not so simple.

“These plans aren’t subject to state law, just federal law,” hesays. “There is no benefit mandate on the welfare side. Employerscan write the plan any way they want on self-insured plans.”

This means that if an employer offers this type of coverage, itwould be relatively easy for them to put stipulations within theagreement so that some people aren’t allowed to be covered.Although this could be done for many reasons, Solomon says, doingso could spell trouble for employers.

“There is a requirement on the pension side, but not on thehealth insurance side,” he says. “But if you don’t provide thecoverage, you are up for discrimination claims.”

Solomon points out that the Employee Retirement Income SecurityAct doesn’t say you have to cover everyone, so there wouldn’tnecessarily be violations if an employer chose to limit coverage.Still, they could end up getting sued under Title VII of the CivilRights Act.

Title VII “prohibits employment discrimination based on race,color, religion, sex, and national origin.” If you’re noticing that“sexual orientation” isn’t listed, that brings us to our nextconsideration.

How will the courts handle discriminationcases?

It’s not surprising that there are still some employers thathave strong feelings about same-sex marriage. Despite the courtrulings, there may be wiggle room for these employers to not offerequal benefits.

Since Title VII doesn’t cover sexual orientation, it’s verypossible that employers may have a loophole when it comes toself-insured plans. Currently, the Equal Employment OpportunityCommission is trying to include orientation under Title VII.

Last July, the EEOC determined that “sexual orientation is, byits very nature, discrimination because of sex.” They argued:

• Sexual orientation cannot be understood without reference to aworker’s sex.

• Sexual orientation discrimination is entrenched in noncompliancewith sex stereotypes and gender norms, both of which are prohibitedsex discrimination.

• Discrimination based on orientation punishes employees based onrelationships and personal association with members of a particularsex.

• While many employers have fallen into line, it’s possible therewill still be holdouts, and that could bring a high risk oflitigation. That means in the near future, we could see morediscrimination cases pile up. Although, because of the absence ofone word (“orientation”) under Title VII, it will be interesting tosee how courts respond.

One notable example: Cote v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Before Jan. 1,2014, Wal-Mart didn’t allow employees to enroll their legal,same-sex spouses into the company’s health insurance plans, a rightgiven to legal, heterosexual spouses of Wal-Mart workers. JackieCote — a Massachusetts Wal-Mart employee and lesbian woman whomarried her wife, Dee, in 2004 — tried to enroll her spouse in theemployer-sponsored health plan in 2008. Wal-Mart denied the requestmultiple times. When Dee was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2012,the couple racked up over $150,000 in medical debt as Dee wasuninsured. In March, Dee passed away.

If you’re thinking, “But Walmart has changed its stance,” you’reright. On Jan. 1, 2014, Wal-Mart altered its policy, allowingsame-sex spouses to receive health benefits in the future. Theclass action lawsuit argues that Wal-Mart has done nothing tofairly compensate many same-sex couples who were denied coverage inthe years prior to the change.

The case is currently slated for a November trial, and by thissummer or early fall, it will be decided if the case will beclassified as class action.

What if an employer has a religious objection tosame-sex marriage?

Solomon says that between the two Supreme Court cases, employersdon’t have a whole lot of room to leverage their beliefs into soundreasoning for no spousal coverage. However, if the employer is inthe business of religion (think churches or religiousorganizations), he says that might allow a little flexibility.

“If you’re in the business of commerce and have a religiousbelief, that won’t carry any water in the benefits area,” he says.“I think there might be some room for religious exemption, but thatis very limited, if at all available.”

What’s on the horizon?

Transgender benefits is the next frontier, according toSolomon. As transgender issues continue to come to light, employerswill need to start thinking about how to adopt transitionguidelines into their employee handbooks. Solomon says largercompanies have already started to bring these benefits into thefold, but there has been little trickle down.

He says there are a few simple things employers can do to helptransgender workers with a simpler transition:

• Pronoun usage: Refer to transgender employees with the pronoun theyare comfortable with.

• Dress code: If a dress code is in place, make sure it allows forgender neutrality (i.e., don’t require women to wear skirts ordresses).

• Bathrooms: Opt for gender-neutral bathrooms or allow employees touse the bathroom they identify with.

The anniversary of these rulings serves as a reminder thatemployer benefits will continue to evolve, just like the workforceand the people that comprise it. Further change is ahead, andemployers should be prepared to adapt accordingly.