Supreme Court Perpetuates Harms of Pregnancy Discrimination

The United States Supreme Court on Monday in its decision in AT & T Corp. v. Hulteen perpetuated the decades-in-accruing harms of pregnancy discrimination. The Court ruled 7-2 that working women must continue to bear the harm and the lower pension benefits inflicted by systematic pregnancy discrimination prior to enactment of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in 1979. 

The case arose from the method by which AT & T calculated service credit time toward determining an employee’s pension benefits. Basically, an employee received service credit time toward his or her pension for all leaves of absence caused by medical conditions, except those caused by pregnancy. The plaintiffs, four women who were or are life-long employees of AT & T, claimed that this method exclusing pregnancy leave from the calculation of service credit time discriminates against them based on their female sex.

The Court rejected their argument based principally on its 1976 decision in General Electric Company v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125 (1976), which held that a disability benefit plan excluding disabilities related to pregnancy was not sex-based discrimination within the meaning of Title VII. The Gilbert decision departed from the decision of every appeals court that had ruled on the issue. Just two years later, Congress enacted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act “so as to make clear that it is discriminatory to treat pregnancy-related conditions less favorably than other medical conditions.”

But the Court ruled that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act did not help, because the Court majority held that the PDA applied only prospectively and did not ameliorate the discriminatory practices that Gilbert sanctioned. And so 31 years after the PDA was enacted, the Supreme Court disregards Congress’s efforts to correct the Gilbert decision and perpetuates the discrimination that the PDA was intended to eliminate.  

Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com

Pregnancy Discrimination Act Marks 30 Year Anniversary

Today marks the 30 year anniversary of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.  In recognition of this milestone, the National Partnership for Women and Families has released a report, The Pregnancy Discrimination Act: Where We Stand 30 Years Later, on the PDA’s effects and proposes some improvements.  Highlights include the following:

• charges of pregnancy discrimination to the EEOC increased 65% from 1992 to 2007 with this increase disproportionately attributable to pregnancy discrimination aimed at women of color
• working in a historically female occupation does not significant decrease the likelihood of pregnancy discrimination
• pregnancy discrimination complaints have risen at a rate faster than that by which women have entered the workforce
• overt, direct pregnancy discrimination was not as uncommon as other forms of discrimination with cases including a hotel manager who was repeatedly demoted after announcing her pregnancy and a senior management representative stated that pregnant women were inappropriate for management positions and missed to much work, a maternity clothing specialty store settled a lawsuit based on its policy of not hiring pregnant applicants and a rising star at another company was told to consider her options and had her management training canceled after she announced her pregnancy
• social science research has revealed predominant social attitudes that pregnant women should favor family over their job

Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com

Pregnancy Discrimination Act Prohibits Firing Woman For Absences Related to Receipt Of In Vitro Fertilization Treatments

    The Pregnancy Discrimination Act would be violated if a woman was fired because of absences caused by her receipt of in vitro fertilization treatments, so ruled the federal Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Hall v. Nalco Company (No. 06-3684 decided 7/16/08).  This is the first federal appeals court to decide this issue.
    The plaintiff, Hall, worked as a sales secretary.  She twice took leaves of absence to receive in vitro fertilization treatment.  The employer elected to reduce its secretarial staff and decided to let Hall go because she had “missed a lot of work due to health” and, most significantly, was cited for “absenteeism – infertility treatments.” 
    The court ruled that her firing implicated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) because the PDA prohibited discrimination based on a woman’s pregnancy, which will always be sex discrimination, as well as based on childbirth and medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth.  While both men and women can receive fertility treatments, the court observed, employees “terminated for taking time off to undergo IVF — just like those terminated for taking time off to give birth or receive other pregnancy-related care — will always be women.”  Therefore, the court concluded that Hall had presented a viable claim that she was unlawfully discriminated against based on her female sex in violation of Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com