America’s Companies Fail in Providing Maternity Benefits for Pregnant Employees
Discrimination in the workplace can come in many forms. It can come in the form of discrimination based on age, disability, hair color, sex and even pregnancy. After all, it might be easy for one to understand why a woman who walked into a job interview eight months pregnant could be discriminated against. Of course, the employer would recognize that this potential job candidate would be absent from the new position in a short period of time. Even though the nation is on the decline in birth rate, pregnancy discrimination cases filed with the EEOC increased 39 percent between 1992 and 2003, this is making it one of the fastest-growing types of employment discrimination charge filed with the agency. It is growing faster than sexual harassment suits.
While there may be nothing realistically we can do about this situation Congress has dealt with issues surrounding pregnancy in the workplace for those already employed. In 1976 General Electric v. Gilbert [429 U.S. 125] it was ruled upon by the Supreme Court that General Electric’s refusal to cover pregnancy under its sick pay plan did not violate Title VII. Therefore the Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 amending Title VII by adding Section 701 (k) to Title VII. The Section says
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 receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar to their ability or inability to work.
If a pregnant employee is fired it is a violation of Title VII.
The Family Medical Leave Act was introduced and it provides employees to take up to twelve weeks of unpaid maternity leave. When comparing the United States to other countries we can see that other countries are a bit more generous. “[In a 2004] study of 168 countries, [researchers] found that 163 guarantee paid leave to women in connection with childbirth, and 45 guarantee paid paternity or parental leave. The United States guarantees no paid leave at all to new parents” . For example, in Norway and Denmark the maternity leave is 18 weeks with 100% of their wages paid. In France it is 16 to 26 weeks with 100% paid. United Kingdom allows 14 to 18 weeks at a 90% pay mark for six weeks and a flat rate after that. Australia allows for an entire year but they do not pay for leave.
Not only have women been discriminated against once they were pregnant and applying for a job there is a history of intimidating women into not getting pregnant once they secure the position. In the District of Columbia the District’s Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department had a practice of only hiring a women in the position of an EMS technician once they secured a pregnancy test with negative results. Also during training, it was reiterated to the women that if they were to become pregnant in the first year of employment they were in danger of termination of their job. Three women were hired in the district and after completion of training each of these women found out they were pregnant. Each woman had an abortion so as to not lose their position. They later took their case to court and the Justice Department reached a settle with the FEM SD that requires the District to affirm nondiscriminatory employment policies approved by the Justice Department’s Office of Justice Programs, implement training for supervisors on the rights of pregnant employees under Title VII, and regularly provide the United States with information concerning any new civil rights complaints. In addition, each of the women received $101,000 plus attorney fees.
Mailyn Pickler, a 23-year-old, was fired in December 2000 when she was 19 upon notifying her employer that she was pregnant. She worked at a dealership and they stated because of the throwing up associated with pregnancy she may become ill and damage a vehicle while driving it and thus opening them up to a lawsuit. They claimed they were being proactive instead of reactive. The EEOC argued on behalf of Pickler. Berge Ford has paid $70,000 to Pickler and agreed to provide employees with more training in pregnancy discrimination.
Since the cases of pregnancy discrimination are on the rise, this is a cause that is going to be ongoing for some time. In the earlier decades of our country’s history this was not such a prevalent issue. It was not as common then to find women in the workplace and so these issues have come to the forefront since women have taken a more assertive role in the work environment and the laws and policies of our country are catching up to the new age of business.
