Todd A. Solomon, partner at McDermott Will & Emery, a law firm in Chicago, is an advocate for LGBT rights in the workplace.

On the anniversary of the landmark decision, he helps us look back at some important considerations to keep in mind for LGBT employees in your workplace:

How have employers been affected?

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

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

Solomon says that after the Windsor ruling, retirement savings were protected for same-sex couples, but not much else. It wasn’t until last year’s Obergefell decision that health coverage and other employer-sponsored benefits were made available to same-sex spouses.

“Employers had the right to not necessarily recognize same-sex marriage,” he says. “But post-Obergefell, that all changes. Now all 50 states recognize it, meaning all insurance codes are or will be amended so that the term ‘spouse’ includes same-sex spouse.”

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

Do employers need to offer equal benefits to all married employees?

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

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

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

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

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

How will the courts handle discrimination cases?

It’s not surprising that there are still some employers that have strong feelings about same-sex marriage. Despite the court rulings, there may be wiggle room for these employers to not offer equal benefits.

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

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

• Sexual orientation cannot be understood without reference to a worker’s sex.
• Sexual orientation discrimination is entrenched in noncompliance with sex stereotypes and gender norms, both of which are prohibited sex discrimination.
• Discrimination based on orientation punishes employees based on relationships and personal association with members of a particular sex.
• While many employers have fallen into line, it’s possible there will still be holdouts, and that could bring a high risk of litigation. That means in the near future, we could see more discrimination cases pile up. Although, because of the absence of one word (“orientation”) under Title VII, it will be interesting to see 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 right given to legal, heterosexual spouses of Wal-Mart workers. Jackie Cote — a Massachusetts Wal-Mart employee and lesbian woman who married her wife, Dee, in 2004 — tried to enroll her spouse in the employer-sponsored health plan in 2008. Wal-Mart denied the request multiple times. When Dee was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2012, the couple racked up over $150,000 in medical debt as Dee was uninsured. In March, Dee passed away.

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

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

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

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

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

What’s on the horizon?

Transgender benefits is the next frontier, according to Solomon. As transgender issues continue to come to light, employers will need to start thinking about how to adopt transition guidelines into their employee handbooks. Solomon says larger companies have already started to bring these benefits into the fold, but there has been little trickle down.

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

• Pronoun usage: Refer to transgender employees with the pronoun they are comfortable with.
• Dress code: If a dress code is in place, make sure it allows for gender neutrality (i.e., don’t require women to wear skirts or dresses).
• Bathrooms: Opt for gender-neutral bathrooms or allow employees to use the bathroom they identify with.

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