Pregnancy Discrimination ActEssay Preview: Pregnancy Discrimination ActReport this essayWomen are continually entering the workforce in various sectors. Working women face challenges in the workplace including unequal pay, sexual harassment, and promotion issues. One particular challenge women face is the fundamental right to have a family, which includes the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Managers in every organization should be familiar with this important act and the associated legal issues. In this paper, I will discuss the Pregnancy Discrimination Act by reviewing the history, presenting the employers and employees perspective, and I will conclude with suggestions for all managers and employers.
Pregnancy Discrimination Act Summary – Article 3 The Pregnancy Discrimination Act is a federal and state law that prohibits employees from discriminating against prospective female employees based on their pregnancy. Workers in a career that requires a pregnancy must be married and have one biological child to receive the benefits of a pregnancy-related health plan in addition to receiving certain Medicaid benefits. There is no federal ban on discrimination based on gender identity. However, the protections granted to a male coed under the new law also include the right to be employed by a “career representative” under the Act, as well as the right to vote. The Act prohibits discrimination in the employment of women by the employer. The law also gives employees the right to elect a health plan which, under the Act, would offer benefits to all covered employees. The law says that a female coed can never be considered as “a female employee.” There is no definition of a “female employee.” The legislation that created the new Pregnancy Discrimination Act has been widely used to discriminate against women in the workplace. But that is just one of many cases that were made known during a conference at California University of California at Berkeley last fall.
Pregnancy Discrimination Act Summary – Article 1 The new Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 2012 was issued by Congressman John B. Scalzi (R-LA), who took the floor of the House of Representatives in February to support legislation to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity at the employer or employee’s employer’s expense and other requirements of such a employer. The Federal government has recently provided several guidance relating to discrimination in the workplace. One example that federal policymakers use in their guidance is this:
We have recognized that many public policy issues have a social health value to them, and we believe that women’s rights are central to making the workplace an environment that people can thrive in. In this sense, many of the work experience issues and concerns involving human workers, many of which relate to workplace and employee health, are now being addressed. This legislation, however, is not only about addressing these issues. It addresses the underlying assumption that it is our duty to provide protection and care for all women and should be implemented with full, wide range of support. I agree with the decision to take a position requiring all women to participate in a “career representative” program to ensure equal health care and benefits opportunities for all. The law will make it harder for those with health issues and disabilities to live with access to health care and benefits and to have these benefits provided through a family physician or a private practice. Also recognizing and recognizing that women’s reproductive rights are crucial to the health of our nation, I know that the Federal government is taking the first step on implementing this legislation, which I would encourage all policy makers, and all women who have health concerns to join together.
In other words, the Federal government and Congress must both work together in order to achieve a goal of
Pregnancy Discrimination Act Summary – Article 3 The Pregnancy Discrimination Act is a federal and state law that prohibits employees from discriminating against prospective female employees based on their pregnancy. Workers in a career that requires a pregnancy must be married and have one biological child to receive the benefits of a pregnancy-related health plan in addition to receiving certain Medicaid benefits. There is no federal ban on discrimination based on gender identity. However, the protections granted to a male coed under the new law also include the right to be employed by a “career representative” under the Act, as well as the right to vote. The Act prohibits discrimination in the employment of women by the employer. The law also gives employees the right to elect a health plan which, under the Act, would offer benefits to all covered employees. The law says that a female coed can never be considered as “a female employee.” There is no definition of a “female employee.” The legislation that created the new Pregnancy Discrimination Act has been widely used to discriminate against women in the workplace. But that is just one of many cases that were made known during a conference at California University of California at Berkeley last fall.
Pregnancy Discrimination Act Summary – Article 1 The new Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 2012 was issued by Congressman John B. Scalzi (R-LA), who took the floor of the House of Representatives in February to support legislation to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity at the employer or employee’s employer’s expense and other requirements of such a employer. The Federal government has recently provided several guidance relating to discrimination in the workplace. One example that federal policymakers use in their guidance is this:
We have recognized that many public policy issues have a social health value to them, and we believe that women’s rights are central to making the workplace an environment that people can thrive in. In this sense, many of the work experience issues and concerns involving human workers, many of which relate to workplace and employee health, are now being addressed. This legislation, however, is not only about addressing these issues. It addresses the underlying assumption that it is our duty to provide protection and care for all women and should be implemented with full, wide range of support. I agree with the decision to take a position requiring all women to participate in a “career representative” program to ensure equal health care and benefits opportunities for all. The law will make it harder for those with health issues and disabilities to live with access to health care and benefits and to have these benefits provided through a family physician or a private practice. Also recognizing and recognizing that women’s reproductive rights are crucial to the health of our nation, I know that the Federal government is taking the first step on implementing this legislation, which I would encourage all policy makers, and all women who have health concerns to join together.
In other words, the Federal government and Congress must both work together in order to achieve a goal of
Pregnancy Discrimination Act Summary – Article 3 The Pregnancy Discrimination Act is a federal and state law that prohibits employees from discriminating against prospective female employees based on their pregnancy. Workers in a career that requires a pregnancy must be married and have one biological child to receive the benefits of a pregnancy-related health plan in addition to receiving certain Medicaid benefits. There is no federal ban on discrimination based on gender identity. However, the protections granted to a male coed under the new law also include the right to be employed by a “career representative” under the Act, as well as the right to vote. The Act prohibits discrimination in the employment of women by the employer. The law also gives employees the right to elect a health plan which, under the Act, would offer benefits to all covered employees. The law says that a female coed can never be considered as “a female employee.” There is no definition of a “female employee.” The legislation that created the new Pregnancy Discrimination Act has been widely used to discriminate against women in the workplace. But that is just one of many cases that were made known during a conference at California University of California at Berkeley last fall.
Pregnancy Discrimination Act Summary – Article 1 The new Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 2012 was issued by Congressman John B. Scalzi (R-LA), who took the floor of the House of Representatives in February to support legislation to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity at the employer or employee’s employer’s expense and other requirements of such a employer. The Federal government has recently provided several guidance relating to discrimination in the workplace. One example that federal policymakers use in their guidance is this:
We have recognized that many public policy issues have a social health value to them, and we believe that women’s rights are central to making the workplace an environment that people can thrive in. In this sense, many of the work experience issues and concerns involving human workers, many of which relate to workplace and employee health, are now being addressed. This legislation, however, is not only about addressing these issues. It addresses the underlying assumption that it is our duty to provide protection and care for all women and should be implemented with full, wide range of support. I agree with the decision to take a position requiring all women to participate in a “career representative” program to ensure equal health care and benefits opportunities for all. The law will make it harder for those with health issues and disabilities to live with access to health care and benefits and to have these benefits provided through a family physician or a private practice. Also recognizing and recognizing that women’s reproductive rights are crucial to the health of our nation, I know that the Federal government is taking the first step on implementing this legislation, which I would encourage all policy makers, and all women who have health concerns to join together.
In other words, the Federal government and Congress must both work together in order to achieve a goal of
HistoryIn 1976 the United States Supreme Court held that an employers failure to provide disability benefits to pregnant employees did not violate Title VIIs prohibition against sex discrimination. General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125, 97 S. Ct. 401, 50 L. Ed. 2d 343 (1976). The following year, the court held that an employer violated Title VIIs prohibition on sex discrimination when an employees seniority rights were forfeited after she returned to work from maternity leave. Nashville Gas Co. v. Satty, 434 U.S. 136, 98 S. Ct. 347, 54 L. Ed. 2d 356 (1977).
The court distinguished between the employers granting a benefit (disability benefits) and imposing a burden on pregnant employees; only the imposition of a burden would constitute an unlawful employment practice under Title VII. Under this interpretation of Title VII, an employer was free to grant male workers employment benefits that it did not provide to pregnant female employees. As a result to the two Supreme Court decisions, Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in 1978, amending Title VII to include pregnancy as a prohibited basis of discrimination. 42 U.S.C. section 2000e-2
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act is similar to the AEDA except it deals with pregnancy. The amendment to Title VII requires that an employer treat a pregnant employee the same way as an employee suffering a nonpregnancy-related, temporary disability. However, in some cases, the employer can establish a BFOQ for pregnancy-related discrimination. Terminating a pregnant employee is clearly in violation of Title VII. Also, terminating a pregnant employee because of the assumption that the employee will likely be absent from work for lengthy periods is in violation of the Act. Maldonado v. U.S. Bank [186 F.3d 759 (7th Cir. 1999)]
Employer PerspectiveException to LawEmployers have a great responsibility with their employees pregnancy issues now that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act is enacted. However, there is an exception for employers to the amended law. Employers can establish a BFOQ for pregnancy-related discrimination. BFOQ is defined as a bona fide occupational qualification, which allows an employer not to be charged with discrimination when business necessity requires that particular discrimination. A business necessity is termed as protecting the business termed through safe and efficient performance of the particular job. Preserving the business through necessity allows justification for intentional discrimination.
Case exampleAn example of the BFOQ exception for employers is Troupe v. May Dept Stores Co. case. In this case the employer was protected from the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, because the employee, Troupe, tried to use morning sickness as a valid excuse for her continual tardiness. The undeniable fact is Troupe was tardy. Her lawyer argues with great vigor that she should not be blamed–that she was genuinely ill, had a doctors excuse, and so forth. Troupes lawyers argument would be pertinent if “Troupe were arguing that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires an employer to treat an employee afflicted by morning sickness better than the employer would treat an employee who was equally tardy for some other health reason.” (emphasis added)
This argument is incorrect. If an employee who (like Troupe) does not have an employment contract cannot work because of illness, nothing in Title VII requires the employer to keep the employee on the payroll. Also, Troupe is considered an employee at will because she does not have an employment contract. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act does not allow Troupe to receive more special treatment than another employee, just because she is pregnant. However, she is protected by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to receive the same rights as other individuals who are not pregnant. Troupe v. May Dept Stores Co., No. 93-2523, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, 20 F.3d 734; 738 (7th Cir. 1994).
Employee PerspectiveDefinitionThe Pregnancy Discrimination Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)(k)) explicitly states:“The terms “because of sex” or “on the basis of sex” include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work and nothing in section 2000e-2(h) of this title shall be interpreted to permit otherwise.”
As stated in the amendment, pregnant employees have the same rights as other non-pregnant employees. There are several examples of the pregnant employees rights including medical coverage and benefits, employment continuance rather than termination, and promotions or pay increase.
Case examplesFor example in Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, the employer covered 80 percent of the cost of hospital treatment and expenses for their employees spouses or dependents, but only provided $500 dollars of coverage for spouses pregnancy-related