SHARE

November 28, 2022

Employers Seek Clarity on Reproductive Healthcare Benefits Litigation Following EEOC Commissioner Filing

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Register for free to get unlimited access to all Law.com OnPractice content.
Register Now

Following the US Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, many employers extended travel benefits to women residing in states where abortion or reproductive health procedures may now be unlawful. Recently, US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Commissioner Andrea Lucas filed a Commissioner's Charge against at least three companies alleging that doing so violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Although these charges are not public, it's believed they mirror a letter that Sharon Fast Gustafson, the former EEOC General Counsel, recently sent en masse to employers around the country also alleging such travel programs violate federal anti-discrimination laws. The EEOC has since issued a statement that Gustafson's views are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of the EEOC.

IN DEPTH


When Title VII was amended in 1978 by the Pregnancy Act amendments, language was added requiring pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions be treated equally with other medical conductions under an employer's "fringe benefit programs." Lucas asserts that providing travel benefits for those seeking abortions provides preferential treatment to women, thus constituting gender discrimination. Her contention is also that travel benefits further implicate religious discrimination by favoring those who terminate pregnancies over those who, for religious reasons, carry a child to term. Her final contention is that the provision of travel benefits violates the ADA, which she claims requires parity of benefits for those with physical disabilities.

Employers are now asking whether Lucas' and Gustafson's position may be the beginning of litigation by the EEOC or private plaintiffs and whether they can take measures to address the legal arguments being raised.

First, it is doubtful the EEOC will be suing. While Title VII and the ADA authorize a single commissioner to file a Commissioner's Charge, that Charge will be investigated like any other Charge of Discrimination. If cause is found, EEOC procedure requires in cases garnering public attention (which this most certainly is) that litigation may only be commenced if a majority of the Commissioners (minus the Commissioner who brought the Charge) vote in favor of doing so. In the absence of a quorum, then only the General Counsel of the EEOC may initiate suit. At this time, Lucas would not appear to have such votes.

Second, employers can and should draft around these contentions to prepare for private suits. Specifically, such travel benefits should cover not only abortion and/or reproductive health, but also all covered services or procedures that are unavailable within a covered individual's state of residence or area, regardless of the individual's gender, pregnancy or childbirth status, or disability status. This would make the benefits "available" to everyone.

Finally, there is a suggestion that, even with such drafting, this travel benefit will still be utilized primarily by non-Christian women, thus supporting a disparate impact claim based on religious discrimination. This is an overreach. Title VII claims require an adverse employment action such as an employee who requests but is denied a travel benefit due to her religion; here, that would be a null set.

For more information and resources, please view the McDermott interdisciplinary post-Roe working group site or contact the authors below.

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From McDermott Will & Emery

Trending in Telehealth: January 9 - 16, 2023

By Amanda Enyeart McDermott Will & Emery January 19 , 2023

Trending in Telehealth is a new weekly series from the McDermott Digital Health team where we track telehealth regulatory and legislative activity.

That Stings: Consent to Jurisdiction Must Be Effective at Filing to Invoke Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2)

By Joshua Revilla McDermott Will & Emery January 19 , 2023

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, on petition for writ of mandamus, vacated the district court’s transfer order and remanded the transfer to be considered under the clarified parameters of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1404.

Absent Expressed Rationale of Obviousness, Federal Circuit Calls for Do-Over

By Anisa Noorassa McDermott Will & Emery January 19 , 2023

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a ruling by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) where, on appeal, the US Patent & Trademark Office’s (PTO) rationale for sustaining the Board’s obviousness rejection did not reflect “the reasoning or findings the Board actually invoked.”

More From Health Care

USCIS Agrees to Bundle H-4, L-2, and EAD Applications Filed with Principal's Petition

By Kristen T. Burke Greenberg Traurig January 26 , 2023

As a result of a class action lawsuit, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has entered into a settlement agreement to “bundle” an application to extend or change H-4 or L-2 status and, if applicable, an employment authorization document (EAD) application, if the application is filed with the principal’s corresponding H-1B or L-1 petition.

5 Trends to Watch: 2023 Personal Care Products and Cosmetics Litigation

By Sylvia E. Simson Greenberg Traurig January 25 , 2023

Putative class action lawsuits asserting that personal care products and cosmetics are not “green,” “natural,” or “sustainable” despite being labeled or marketed as such are likely to continue to increase in 2023.

FinCEN Proposes Rule on Access to Beneficial Ownership Information

By Marina Olman-Pal Greenberg Traurig January 24 , 2023

On Dec. 15, 2022, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM or Proposed Rule) implementing the provisions of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) that govern access to beneficial ownership information (BOI) FinCEN collects and maintains.

Featured Stories
Closeclose
Search
Menu

Working...