Bus 135 Week 4 Health And Social Care Case Study

1. A pregnant woman lacked standing to sue over a law’s potential unconstitutionally since the law applied to medical practice (and not patients) (Dawn Stacey M.Ed, n.d.)

Congress amended Title VII in 1978 by passing the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and made it clear that discrimination based on pregnancy is unlawful sex discrimination. This legislation reversed the Supreme Court's Gilbert decision in 1976. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991 which overruled several Supreme Court decisions rendered in the 1980s that had made it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in their employment discrimination suits and to recover fees and costs when they won their lawsuits (www.eeoc.gov). The amendment stated that parties can request jury trials and those successful plaintiffs can recover compensatory and punitive damages in employment discrimination cases. This amendment has

Specific issues that should be monitored over the next decade include: (1) having access to the entire care continuum and to increasing and to measure insurance coverage and; (2) Addressing disparities that affect access to healthcare (e.g., race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, age, sex, disability status, sexual orientation, gender identity, and residential location); (3) Assessing the capacity of the healthcare system to provide services for newly insured individuals; (4) Determining changes in healthcare workforce needs as new models for the delivery of primary care become more prevalent, such as the patient-centered medical home and team-based care; (5) Monitoring the increasing use of telehealth as an emerging method of delivering health

Facts of the Case: LaNisa Allen appealed the original judgment in favor of Totes/Isotoner Corporation on the issue of whether the Ohio Fair Employment Practices Act, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, prohibits an employer from discriminating against a female employee because of or on the basis of lactation. Relevant law associated includes whether Allen established a prima facie case of “sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy,” or whether she “was simply and plainly terminated as an employee at will for taking an unauthorized, extra break.” Allen’s original complaint was termination attributable to discrimination, based on pregnancy and related

Adkins v. Children 's hospital: reversed judgment that women deserved special protection in workplace and women 's minimum wage law.

Jennifer alleges that she was terminated because of her pregnancy. She neglects the fact that Greene’s discharged her because her position, junior executive secretary, is redundant to the company. It is transparently that Jennifer is a member of protected class and was dismissed. Yet Greene’s did not violate The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) under Title VII. According to Title VII 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), it is an unlawful employment practice if an employer discharges any individual because of such individual 's race,

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 is an amendment to the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Under the act, an employer cannot lawfully refuse to hire a woman if she is pregnant unless her condition makes it impossible for her to perform the major functions of the position. I think this amendment was a great achievement for all woman trying to show they are equals to men, while still trying to

Besides the previous reasons stated, one of the most common problems for women in the workplace is being discriminated against due to pregnancy. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has stated seeing a 65 percent increase in complaints about discrimination against pregnant women in the workplace between 1992 and 2007 (Chaney, 2008). Example of pregnancy discrimination are refusing to hire a pregnant woman, firing or demoting a pregnant women, denying a woman the same or similar job when she returns, or treating a pregnant employee differently than other temporarily disabled employees. Many women get laid off and even fired from their jobs because they get pregnant. Often male bosses will give excuses for these situations saying that the woman is unable to do their job or that their missing attendance will be a problem due to their pregnancy. Some bosses simply give the reason that women will not be as interested in their job once the child is born, which is an outrageous assumption to make.

Recently women’s rights and women’s equality in the workplace has come back to the fore as a topic for discussion in government agencies and the United Nations. Whilst this is a very important topic, when it comes to time off from work when a new child is born, women in the US have some provision, whereas men have none.

The need for the new law to be established began with the conflicting outcomes coming from the various levels of the court system. The courts disagreed on what constituted sex discrimination. Six different United States Courts of Appeals had ruled in favor of pregnant women saying that any employment act that would adversely affect a pregnant woman was sex discrimination as outlined by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Supporting this position was the view of the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission who also agreed that discrimination based on a pregnancy would be considered sex discrimination. However, the United States Supreme Court would change all of that with its ruling in two separate court

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act was passed by Congress in 1978 as an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There are two Supreme Court cases that were influential in demonstrating a need for the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. In 1974, the Supreme Court ruled that excluding pregnancy related disabilities from disability insurance in California did not violate equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of Title VII, as the list of exclusions also included conditions that affected both men and women . The ruling of Gedulig v. Aiello was that this exclusion did not count as sex discrimination even though the exclusion of pregnancy related disabilities is facially discriminatory to the female sex. The GE v. Gilbert case in 1976 involved

Your research on the Young v. United Parcel Services Inc. case revealed the importance of employers to comply with Title VII. Indeed, pregnancy is a condition that a company cannot simply choose to ignore in the company’s policy. In addition, Hébert’s (2016) research reveals that the case also reveals critical details about the theory of law behind cases involving pregnancy. For example, the court actually disagreed with Young about the grounds of disparate treatment theory because the theory requires proof of discriminatory intent. While the court ruled in favor of Young due to the stringent test the situation created for UPS, Hébert’s (2016) claims the disparate impact theory provides better protection for pregnancy discrimination because

Many bosses are males and they cannot truly understand the struggles that pregnant women and mothers go through. This explains the lack of accommodation for these women. The male bosses may not understand that stress is unhealthy for the baby and that it is imperative to reduce pregnant women’s work hours (Fox, 2014). The bosses also may not be accommodating when a mother has to stay home with their sick child because they cannot afford childcare. There are many other additional situations that may not come accommodated for because men have never experienced birth firsthand and are usually not the primary caregiver. These obstacles in the workforce make it less appealing for women to work while pregnant or return to work after having a

I would rate Brittany’s warmth and enthusiasm as a leader to be quite low on the scales. Due to the way that she responds to the workers, she doesn’t respond with optimism in the way that she deals with Katie the merchandising specialist for batteries, regulators, and radiators, regarding the new procurement software report for Auto Pal and to Auto Pal’s CEO Derek regarding the status of the strategic plan.

The issue of labor complications based on gender is one of the most important topics in the last few years in relation to the increasing incorporation of women in the workforce. This work’s main objective is to collect a robust number of informative sources that will allow to raise awareness about the implications of labor difficulties for women. It is imperative to emphasize that all people should be treated equally. This principle has encouraged the making of this project and exploring more about this relevant topic today.