Running Head: Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978
Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978
Michelle C. Nelson
Strayer University: Human Resource Management - BUS310002016*201004
Instructor: Carol G. Durst-Wertheim, Ph.D.
Abstract
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
…show more content…
An employee cannot be forced to take pregnancy leave if they are still willing and able to work.
An employee must be provided the same level of medical benefits, disability insurance and leave as are offered for other medical conditions or disabilities.
A male employee is entitled to health insurance coverage for his wife 's pregnancy related conditions if a female employee 's husband has comprehensive health insurance coverage.
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act does not require preferential treatment for pregnant employees. Rather, it mandates that employers treat pregnant employees the same as non-pregnant employees who are similarly situated with respect to their ability to work. The PDA expands the definition of "sex" in Title VII as follows:
"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 '; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment related purposes, including the receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work." (EEOC)
Pregnancy discrimination is still occurring today. The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) received 6,196 charges of pregnancy-based discrimination in 2009. This is a significant increase
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
The addition of sexual orientation has gone before Congress many times but it has yet to be included as a protected class. There is so much controversy surrounding gay marriage right now that I believe it is only a matter of time before employment discrimination because of sexual orientation will be the reason for the Title VII will be amended once again. The most recent additions to this law have been discriminating based upon pregnancy, sex stereotyping, and sexual harassment. Title VII states that an employer can’t refuse to hire a woman based upon the fact that she is currently pregnant or because of any pregnancy-related conditions. To be safe and to avoid any litigation in the future, an employer should never ask an individual about their marital status or a woman if she is pregnant.
Becoming a parent is beautiful yet stressful time in many people's lives. Emotions of joy and worry fill the mind of expecting parents as they work to provide a loving and financially stable home for their family. Both parents wish to actively support their child and their spouse during this time of transition, however, corporations are making this task difficult. Maternity leave is a benefit that most companies provide, but only for their female employees. Male employees are not given the same opportunity to share the responsibility of childcare with their wife or to develop a bond early on with their child. Providing fathers maternity leave would give them time to dedicate themselves to the growth of their child, allow the mother to heal from giving birth, and promote equality within the family unit and in the workplace.
After she was fired, Leger filed a lawsuit alleging that HCS Staffing was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act). After hearing both sides, a federal court ruled in favor
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
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of “race, color, sex, religion, and national origin” (Mallor, Barnes, Bowers, & Langvardt, 2012, p. 24). This law also includes discrimination due to sexual orientation. This was not addressed in the original law, but sexual orientation cases have been won under this law. Such is the case of, Heller v Columbia Edgewater Country Club, 195 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Or. 2002) (Joslin, n.d.). This lawsuit was due to a lesbian 's employer used derogatory comments, toward her, in which the court ruled in her favor. Kate 's allegation of discrimination if proved, can be filed with the company 's Human Resource department. If that does not resolve the issue, she can file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
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,
There are many issues to consider in pregnancy discrimination. The well-being of the child, the well-being of the mother, employer/employee relations, as well as gender issues. There are however several State and Federal laws that protect people against pregnancy discrimination. Two of the Federal laws are the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act.
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.
The Family and Medical Aid Act (FLMA), of 1993, provides for 12 weeks of unpaid, job protected leave for certain specified events (8). Whilst one could refer to this as maternity or paternity leave if taken because of a pregnancy, this would not be strictly true. Where maternity and paternity leave are offered around the
Within the Civil Right act was a section entitled Title VII which was created specifically to deal with matters of employment. Title VII’s objective is to prevent discrimination based upon a person’s color, national origin, gender, and religion in regards to all aspects of employment. This protection begins with the initial stages of hiring and training employees and extends up to promotions and dismissals of an employees. If a person belonged to one of the groups outlined by Title VII they became classified as a member of a protected class. (Bohlander and Snell, 101) With the establishment of sex as a protected class the foundation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act had been laid but it would take fourteen years before pregnancy itself would become protected.
When an employee has a baby they could be eligible for maternity leave and maternity pay. You have the right to maternity leave regardless of how long you've been in your job, how many hours you work, or how much you're paid. This is also the case for antenatal appointments. You are legally entitled to reasonable paid time off to attend antenatal appointments. Employees must take a minimum of 2 weeks off work (or 4 weeks if they are a factory worker).
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that it is unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire, discharge or discriminate against an individual because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Under Title VII sex discrimination is not unlawful if BFOQ can be proven as necessary for that position.
In a precedent-setting decision in 2000, the state Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a superior court ruling in Carmichael Vs. Wynn & Wynn noting in the text that "discriminatory animus was a factor in the decision not to hire a pregnant woman."