Under federal law, The civil rights act of 1964 makes it illegal for an employer who employees 15 or more employees to discriminate on the basis of a persons sex. To fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin is considered illegal.

The pregnancy discrimination act of 1978 was an amendment to the civil rights act of 1964. This act states that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or other related medical conditions is considered unlawful and constitutes sex discrimination.

Washington state has its own laws on sex and pregnancy discrimination. The Washington administrative code clearly states that employee benefits provided in part or in whole by the employer must be equal for male and female employees. In is

The federal court noticed that title 7 required employers to recognize the difference between the sexes and provide equally comprehensive coverage even if that means additional benefits to cover women only expenses.

As for why title 7 applies to this case? Well is was found by both the federal court as well as the equal employment opportunity commison that since the pregnancy discrimination act bars employers from treating women differently based on the ability to become pregnant, not just if they are actually pregnant, it must cover an exclusion of prescription contraceptive devices and drugs, the very means by which a woman may beocme pregnant. The Pregnancy discrimination act does not require that employers actually cover birth control, what it does is it states that employers must provide equal insurance coverage for birth control as it does for other drugs, devices, or services not related to pregnancy.

The opposing position by Bartell was that the pregnancy law was being interpreted incorrectly, the lawyer for Bartell stated that in the Thousands of pages of the Congressional Record there is no mention of birth control. The state of not being pregnant was not covered by that law stated the lawyer. Also Bartell tried t

Some topics in this essay:
, Ms Erickson, Congressional Record, birth control, pregnancy discrimination, pregnancy discrimination act, insurance coverage, discrimination act, health insurance, female employees, sex discrimination, health insurance coverage, act 1964, civil rights, oral contraceptives, civil rights act, rights act 1964, cover birth control,