<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: In re Marriage Cases and Employment</title>
	<atom:link href="http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/in-re-marriage-cases-and-employment/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/in-re-marriage-cases-and-employment/</link>
	<description>The First Blog Dedicated To California Employment Law. Original reporting. Cradle-to-grave law tracking. Since 2004.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 12:03:21 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Amy Gahran</title>
		<link>http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/in-re-marriage-cases-and-employment/#comment-805</link>
		<dc:creator>Amy Gahran</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2008 21:27:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stormsemploymentlaw.com/?p=422#comment-805</guid>
		<description>Just wondering -- does this now mean that CA companies must cover domestic partnerships through insurance benefits? If so, are the insurance companies cooperating with that?

- Amy Gahran</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just wondering &#8212; does this now mean that CA companies must cover domestic partnerships through insurance benefits? If so, are the insurance companies cooperating with that?</p>
<p>- Amy Gahran</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
