I also called See’s Candy to ask them about the closure of their Union Square store. I spoke to Diane who was kind enough to read me the press release from their president but didn’t have much information regarding which specific benefits didn’t comply with San Francisco’s Equal Rights Ordinance.

The San Francisco Human Rights Commission helped develop the policy and is the branch of the city in charge of reviewing contracts and implementation of the Equal Rights Ordinance. I spoke with Larry Brinkin, who was kind enough to find the city’s records on See’s Candies and scour through the notes compiled from their June review.

According to the notes, there are two standing issues with their current policy. The first is that the SFHRC was told by See’s that their northern California corporate office does not provide equal benefits. The second issue is that See’s only provided partial documentation of benefits for their unionized workers. San Francisco has no way of determining whether or not benefits are being provided equally without seeing the documentation that spells out how, exactly, all their benefits are defined and distributed. Without the supporting documentation, See’s Candy was seen as not complying with the Equal Rights Ordinance and lost their lease in Union Square.

Afterwards, I called Diane again, told what I had learned, and asked if she had any additional information. She did not, but said she would pass the information along and would contact me if any new information was provided.

Now, a few caveats. If their corporate office in northern California does not provide equal benefits, that does not mean they don’t provide any benefits. That in no way let’s See’s off the hook, but it does place the burden of proof firmly on them. If they’re not providing equal benefits, which benefits are lacking? Why not provide them?

It also raises questions about their refusal to provide documentation. Are there onerous requirements to be considered a domestic partner with See’s? Are their definitions of domestic partnerships exclusive to same-sex couples and not all domestic partners? I don’t know. Perhaps it lies in their Equal Opportunity Employer hiring practices, which currently does not list sexual orientation.

See’s Candy now needs to clarify whether or not they provide equal benefits in their corporate office, and if not why, and when will they? They also need to answer why they did not provide full documentation to the SFHRC, and if they would have violated the Equal Rights Ordinance if they had.

Hopefully, See’s will answer these questions soon.