According to the
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website, between the years of 2011 and 2014 there were forty-four cases filed for violating the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. The most common patterns of the violations often included: • The failure to equally promote pregnant women in the workplace • Refusal to hire pregnant women or quickly laying them off after the employer gains knowledge they are pregnant. • “Releasing workers who take medical leave for pregnancy related conditions” (U.S. EEOC) • “Restricting pregnant women's employment opportunities such as enforcing an involuntary leave because they are pregnant, limiting the number of hours that pregnant women are allowed to work, or not assigning them as many assignments because of their pregnant conditions” (US EEOC) • Employers creating clearances, often related to physical health, that are not required of workers who are not pregnant. • Appeasing non pregnant women's accommodations, but failing to provide pregnant women the accommodation. • Not allowing lactating mothers to return to the workplace • Punishing employees who claim they or someone close to them experienced pregnancy discrimination.
Relevant Federal Law Regarding Pregnancy Discrimination The
Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 and Family and Medical Leave Act are rooted in the precedent of several major court decisions leading up to them. The
Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) requires that employers make reasonable accommodations for any and all qualified employees who are either pregnant or require child care resources. This bill sets forward procedures to enforce the law and protect pregnant employees from these discriminatory practices.
Relevant State Law Regarding Pregnancy Discrimination In 2002, California's
Paid Family Leave (PFL) insurance program, also known as the Family Temporary Disability Insurance (FTDI) program, extended unemployment
disability compensation to cover individuals who
take time off work to bond with a new minor child. PFL covers employees who take time off to bond with their own child or their
registered domestic partner's child, or a child placed for adoption or foster-care with them or their domestic partner. California’s Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (PDLL) requires employers to provide up to four months of leave to employees who are disabled due to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Various U.S. cities have passed additional laws to protect pregnant workers. In 2014,
New York City enacted the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act which requires employers to offer reasonable accommodations "to the needs of an employee for her pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition that will allow the employee to perform the essential requisites of the job". Also in 2014,
Philadelphia amended an ordinance which actually compels employers to make reasonable workplace accommodations for female employees "affected by pregnancy" meaning pregnant women or women who have medical conditions relating to pregnancy or childbirth. Philadelphia's revised ordinance identifies several possible required accommodations, including restroom breaks, periodic rest for those whose jobs require that they stand for long periods of time, special assistance with manual labor, leave for a period of disability arising from childbirth, reassignment to a vacant position, and job restructuring. In 2015, the
Washington D.C. passed the Protecting Pregnant Workers Fairness Act of 2014 which is effective March 3, 2015. In 2018 Massachusetts did the same, with the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act going into effect on April 1, 2018.
Oregon’s Family Leave Act assists eligible employees to have up to 12 weeks of leave when it comes to having a child. In addition to this, one is able to qualify either before or after pregnancy for an additional 12 weeks depending on their pregnancy conditions.
Oregon’s Family Leave Act covers parental leave, health conditions, sick child leave, pregnancy disability leave, military family leave, and bereavement leave. However, this is often unpaid leave unless one has access to sick days, vacation or other paid leave.
Relevant Court Cases Regarding Pregnancy Discrimination The
Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 and Family and Medical Leave Act are rooted in several major court decisions leading up to them. In the 1908 case
Muller v. Oregon, Muller appealed his conviction for violating a law which limited women to 10-hour workdays in factories and laundries in Oregon, arguing it violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the decision that this law was constitutional, as the state has a compelling interest in protecting the health of women. The decision states that “healthy mothers are essential to vigorous offspring, [and therefore] the physical wellbeing of women is an object of public interest”. Consequently, women are defined as quasi-public goods, therefore giving the state the power to regulate their bodies with the police power of the State. This decision invalidates women’s choice in becoming pregnant, instead confining her to the societal role of being a mother. In this case, the initial treatment of pregnancy within the workplace can be seen as the state invades the privacy of women and allows the legislature to discriminate against women employees. This case is important because it ignores the precedent of
Lochner v New York 198 US 45 (1905). In this case, the state of New York put a limit on how long the bakers could work. This case was brought to the federal court and the court declared that it was substantive due process to have access to work as long as one needs. Therefore, states could not limit the amount of hours people could work. But, this precedent about limiting working hours which was ultimately ignored by
Muller v Oregon, because women’s role as a mother was found more important than this due process right. Next, in 1974
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, the court decides that pregnant women cannot be discriminated against arbitrarily, as this violates the due process clause. In this case, multiple pregnant or previously pregnant public school teachers challenged the constitutionality of mandatory maternity leave in both Cleveland, Ohio and Chesterfield County, Virginia. The court answered three questions within this case. First, if the termination of teachers’ employment during the fourth or fifth month of pregnancy for the sake of continuity violates the fourteenth amendment. Second, whether preventing teachers from returning to teaching until their children are three months old violates the Fourteenth Amendment. And last, if requiring a submission of a certificate of health by the mother’s physician before returning to work violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court ruled yes for the first two questions, and no for the last question. In this case, the court acted to liberalize the laws surrounding working while pregnant to some degree, but also continued to decide that the state can still regulate women’s work while pregnant. Two other cases in the 1970s ruled that pregnancy-related conditions could be excluded from benefit coverage. The outcome of these cases appear to be directly responsible for the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The first Case,
Geduldig v. Aiello (1974), ruled that the exclusion of medical benefits for pregnant women in California by the California State Disability Insurance program was non-discriminatory.While it is true that only women can become pregnant ... the [California State Disability Insurance] program divides potential recipients into two groups- pregnant women and non-pregnant persons. While the first group is exclusively female, the second group includes members of both sexes. The fiscal and actuarial benefits of the program thus accrue to members of both sexes. The second case,
General Electric v. Gilbert (1976), 429 U.S. 125, concluded that companies may exclude pregnancy-related conditions from being covered in their disability plans. The issue before the Supreme Court was if excluding pregnancy-related coverage under the company's disability plan violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There had been employees who applied for disability benefits when they took an absence due to pregnancy; but, their claims were denied. General Electric provided coverage to their employees for nonoccupational illness and injury, but pregnancy-related conditions were excluded. The Court relied on the precedent in
Geduldig and reaffirmed that the condition of pregnancy is categorized as either a pregnant person versus nonpregnant person. Therefore there is no sex based discrimination, and Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not violated. Employers may choose to exclude conditions from being covered on their disability plan. At this point, the court had fully shifted from the argument of protecting women. Instead, the court decides to completely disregard pregnancy and the effects that it can have on the ability to work, essentially deciding to no longer give protection to pregnant women. This remains the prevailing approach of the court today. Following these cases, in 1978, Congress passed The
Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act created a provision under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 that states sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is prohibited. In 2009 the Supreme Court again addressed pregnancy discrimination with their ruling in
AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen that held that maternity leave taken before the passage of the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act cannot be considered in calculating employee pension benefits, therefore essentially implying that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act is not
retroactive. In 2013
EEOC v Houston Funding 717 F.3d 425 (5th Cir. 2013) case, the EEOC went to court with Houston Funding regarding unlawfully firing an employee for lactating at work after recently having given birth. The Court of Appeals declared this was unconstitutional and illegal discrimination on the basis of sex under both Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. This decision ultimately became an important precedent that it is illegal to discharge an employee due to expressing milk or lactation. In 2014 the Supreme Court heard
Young v. United Parcel Service, in this case the
Supreme Court sought to answer the question of if the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires an employer to provide the same accommodations to a pregnant employee than to employees with similar non-pregnancy related work limitations. The court found that employers are not required to provide these same accommodations, but asserted that courts must further evaluate the issue of to what extent these employer policies work less-favorably for pregnant individuals rather than non-pregnant employees with similar limitations. ==European Union==