Abstract
Over the last fourteen years, pregnancy benefits issues have proved to be a surprisingly fertile ground for litigation. Specifically, there has been a host of administrative agency and court actions involving, in one form or another, the question of whether employers may accord differential benefit treatment to pregnancy—as compared with other “traditional” temporary disabilities—without violating the sex discrimination prohibition contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (“Title VII”).1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
U.S.C. §2000e et seq. Title VII prohibits covered employers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Cong. Rec. 2577 (1964); see also Comment, Civil Rights Act of 1964: An Exception To Prohibitions on Employment Discrimination, 55 Iowa L. Rev. 509, 511 (1969); Note: Discrimination in Employment: An Attempt to Interpret Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 1968 Duke L. J. 671, 676 n. 35 (hereafter cited as “1968 Duke L. J.”).
Cong. Rec. 2577–2584 (1964). Among those speaking in opposition to the amendment were Representatives Celler (D.—N.Y.), chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, Roosevelt ( D.—Cal. ), Green (D.—Ore.), and Lindsey (R.—N.Y.).
Cong. Rec. 15897 (1964). See also 55 Iowa L. Rev. at 512; 1968 Duke L. J. at 677.
Fed. Reg. 14926.
Fed. Reg. 3344.
Fed. Reg. 13367.
Fed. Reg. 6835.
This EEOC opinion letter, dated November 15, 1966, was identified and placed into evidence by former EEOC General Counsel Charles Duncan during the trial of Gilbert v. General Electric Company, 375 F. Supp. 367 (E. D. Va. 1974 ), uff’d., 519 F.2d 661 (4th Cir. 1975), rev’d., 429 U.S. 125 ( 1976 ). It stated, in part, that: The Commission’s policy with respect to pregnancy does not seek to compare an employer’s treatment of illness or injury with his treatment of maternity, since maternity is a temporary disability unique to the female sex and more or less to be anticipated during the working life of most women employees... We do not believe that an employer must provide the same fringe benefits for pregnancy as he provides for illness.
U.S. 125 (1976).
See EEOC directive to its field offices, 1977 DLR no. 10, pp. A-9 to A-11 (Jan. 14, 1977), which states that EEOC would find that an employer violates Title VII by:refusing to hire, train, assign or promote pregnant women;refusing to hire, train, assign or promote married women;refusing to hire, assign or promote women of childbearing age;enforcing mandatory maternity leaves for predetermined periods;discharging pregnant women;denying reemployment rights to women on leave for pregnancy-related reasons;denying unemployment benefits to pregnant women;denying seniority of longevity credit to women on leave for pregnancy-related reasons; denying accrued leave to pregnant women who have worked less than a stated time period;paying of lower periodic amounts to retired women according to sex-segregated actuarial tables;denying disability or medical benefits for disabilities which are unrelated to pregnancy or childbirth, whether or not they occur during a pregnancy, childbirth, or recovery from childbirth.
U.S. 136 (1977). In the Satty decision, the Court addressed itself to two issues. First, it held that an employer did not violate Title VII by denying employees the right to utilize accrued paid sick leave for pregnancy. Second, it held that Title VII was violated when an employer denied accumulated seniority to employees returning from a pregnancy leave.
P. L. 95–555, 92 Stat. 2076 (1978).
See Questions and Answers 34–37 of the “Guidelines on Sex Discrimination: Adoption of Final Interpretative Guidelines and Questions and Answers,” 44 Fed. Reg. 23804 (April 20, 1979).
H. R. Report no. 95–948, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (1978): 5.
See “AT&T Replacing Maternity Program for Its Employees,” Wall Street Journal (April 23, 1979): 32.
See Guidelines On Pregnancy And Work, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Sept. 1977): 23; and Review of NCRP Radiation Dose Limit for Embryo and Fetus in Occupationally Exposed Women,National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Report no. 53, Washington, D.C., 1977.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1980 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stillman, N.G. (1980). A Legal Perspective on Pregnancy Leave and Benefits. In: Walsh, D.C., Egdahl, R.H. (eds) Women, Work, and Health: Challenges to Corporate Policy. Industry and Health Care, vol 8. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-8077-1_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-8077-1_14
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-90478-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-4613-8077-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive