Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- Foreword
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- PART I WHAT IS SEX DISCRIMINATION?
- PART II SEXUAL HARASSMENT
- PART III PREGNANT WOMEN AND MOTHERS AT WORK
- 31 Pregnant Truckers and the Problem of Light-Duty Assignments
- 32 A Big Win for Pregnant Police Officers
- 33 Undue Burden
- 34 Hard Labor: New Pregnancy Discrimination Guidance from the EEOC
- 35 Forceps Delivery: The Supreme Court Narrowly Saves the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in Young vs. UPS
- 36 The Pregnancy Discrimination Act Reaches Advanced Maternal Age
- 37 The Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act: A Time for Change?
- 38 The Supreme Court Deals a Blow to Once-Pregnant Retirees
- 39 If She Does Not Win It Is a Shame
- 40 Must Employers Who Cover Prescriptions Cover Contraception?
- 41 Fertile Ground for Discrimination
- 42 Can a Woman Be Fired for Absenteeism Related to Fertility Treatments?
- 43 Is Lactation Related to Pregnancy?
- 44 A Victory for Families, but Hardly a Panacea
- 45 A Small Step in the Right Direction: The Family and Medical Leave Act at Twenty
- 46 “Best Practices” to Promote Work-Family Balance
- PART IV FEMALE BREADWINNERS AND THE GLASS CEILING
- Conclusion
- Notes
- Index
40 - Must Employers Who Cover Prescriptions Cover Contraception?
from PART III - PREGNANT WOMEN AND MOTHERS AT WORK
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2016
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- Foreword
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- PART I WHAT IS SEX DISCRIMINATION?
- PART II SEXUAL HARASSMENT
- PART III PREGNANT WOMEN AND MOTHERS AT WORK
- 31 Pregnant Truckers and the Problem of Light-Duty Assignments
- 32 A Big Win for Pregnant Police Officers
- 33 Undue Burden
- 34 Hard Labor: New Pregnancy Discrimination Guidance from the EEOC
- 35 Forceps Delivery: The Supreme Court Narrowly Saves the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in Young vs. UPS
- 36 The Pregnancy Discrimination Act Reaches Advanced Maternal Age
- 37 The Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act: A Time for Change?
- 38 The Supreme Court Deals a Blow to Once-Pregnant Retirees
- 39 If She Does Not Win It Is a Shame
- 40 Must Employers Who Cover Prescriptions Cover Contraception?
- 41 Fertile Ground for Discrimination
- 42 Can a Woman Be Fired for Absenteeism Related to Fertility Treatments?
- 43 Is Lactation Related to Pregnancy?
- 44 A Victory for Families, but Hardly a Panacea
- 45 A Small Step in the Right Direction: The Family and Medical Leave Act at Twenty
- 46 “Best Practices” to Promote Work-Family Balance
- PART IV FEMALE BREADWINNERS AND THE GLASS CEILING
- Conclusion
- Notes
- Index
Summary
In 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that an employer need not provide insurance coverage for prescription contraceptives, which are only used by women, in order to comply with Title VII's guarantee of sex equality. This ruling directly contravenes a ruling by the EEOC. A significant loss for women, this case showcases the need for federal regulation of contraceptive coverage.
ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTION AS A WOMEN'S ISSUE
Around the turn of the twenty-first century, most women did not have insurance coverage for birth control. Indeed, studies estimated that two-thirds of large group insurance plans did not provide any coverage for oral contraceptives, the most commonly used reversible method of birth control, and nearly half did not cover any prescription contraceptive drug or device. Many plans do (and did), however, cover surgical sterilization for both men and women.
The class of prescription drugs and devices currently available to prevent pregnancy – birth control pills, Depo Provera, and intrauterine devices, to name the most common ones – are exclusively used by women. Women are, therefore, the ones hurt by the lack of insurance coverage for contraception, poor women most of all. And, obviously, the lack of access to contraception may result in unwanted pregnancy, a consequence that imposes disproportionate and unique burdens on women. It is for these reasons that access to contraception has figured prominently on the agenda for women's rights advocacy during the past decade. Fortunately, that effort has brought about many successes.
THE EEOC'S VIEW ON CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE EXCLUSION: IT IS PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION, PLAIN AND SIMPLE
Insurance coverage for contraceptives has remained an important issue on the feminist agenda. The EEOC's decision came after eighteen months of pressure from advocates for women's and workers’ rights. In June 1999, a conglomerate of public interest organizations representing those and other interests requested that the EEOC issue a policy guidance taking a position on insurance coverage for contraception. Specifically, the advocates asked that the EEOC declare that an employer's failure to provide insurance coverage for birth control is pregnancy discrimination – and so it did, though through an opinion in an individual case rather than a policy guidance.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Nine to FiveHow Gender, Sex, and Sexuality Continue to Define the American Workplace, pp. 235 - 240Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016