Employers Must Continue Health Benefits For Employees On Pregnancy Disability Leave

Article Information

Published on Monday, 10 October 2011 03:30

California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed into law SB 299 (effective as of January 1, 2012), which requires California employers to continue group health insurance benefits for employees on pregnancy disability leave for up to four months. Under the law prior to SB 299, California employers with five or more full-time or part-employees were required to provide up to four months of leave pregnancy disability leave. However, employers were not required to provide health insurance benefits for an employee on pregnancy disability leave unless the employee was also eligible for leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the employer was covered by the FMLA, in which case the employer was required to provide continuation of health benefits for 12 weeks. Now that SB 299 is in effect, employers with five or more employees must provide continuation of group health benefits for employees disabled by pregnancy for four months, even if the employer is not covered by the FMLA. In pertinent part, the legislation provides that it shall be unlawful “For an employer to refuse to maintain and pay for coverage for an eligible female employee who takes leave pursuant to paragraph (1) under a group health plan, as defined in Section 5000(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, for the duration of the leave, not to exceed four months over the course of a 12-month period, commencing on the date the leave taken under paragraph (1) begins, at the level and under the conditions that coverage would have been provided if the employee had continued in employment continuously for the duration of the leave. Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude an employer from maintaining and paying for coverage under a group health plan beyond four months.” As specified in the legislation, employers may require employees to continue paying their portion of the group health insurance premium. SB 299 also specifies that the “employee shall be entitled to utilize any accrued vacation leave during this period of time.” California employers should review their employee handbooks and any other policies to make sure they are compliant with the new law by January 1, 2012.  Read More.

Weight Watchers Sued for Allegedly Refusing to Hire Pregnant Job Applicant

Article Information

Published on Monday, 03 October 2011 05:32

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has charged that the WW Group, Inc. d/b/a Weight Watchers violated federal law when the company allegedly refused to hire an applicant as a group leader necause she was pregnant.  The job seeker, a long term member who had successfully met and maintained her weight goal with Weight Watchers, was encouraged by her own group leader to apply for a group leader position with Weight Watchers. However, Weight Watchers, after learning she was pregnant, allegedly told her that it did not hire pregnant women and refused to consider her further for the job.  Refusing to consider a woman for a job because she is pregnant violates Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.  EEOC Trial Attorney Nedra Campbell commented that “Maintaining a blanket policy against hiring pregnant women is a clear violation of the law. The EEOC will vigorously enforce a pregnant woman’s right to be considered for a job.” The EEOC is seeking injunctive relief intended to prevent further instances of pregnancy discrimination as well as back pay, compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the applicant. Read More.

Restaurant Allegedly Violated Title VII/Pregnancy Discrimination Act By Requiring Expectant Mothers To Stop Working

Article Information

Published on Friday, 23 September 2011 05:24

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed charges against Taqueria Rodeo de Jalisco, a Houston-based Mexican restaurant, for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex or pregnancy.  According to the EEOC, the restaurant manager told Blanca Esparza, a bus person, as well as another waitress, that they could not work beyond the seventh month of pregnancy, despite Esparza never stating that she was unable to do her job nor did her doctor put any restrictions on her ability to work. The manager admitted to EEOC investigators that he asked the women to resign, but contended that it was to look out for their best interests and protect them and their unborn children from injury. Jim Sacher, EEOC regional attorney in Houston, stated “the Supreme Court has made clear that the decision whether a pregnant woman should work rests with her. She alone, and not the employer, is responsible for making decisions that affect her safety and that of her child.”   The EEOC seeks injunctive relief, back pay with pre-judgment interest, reinstatement or front pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages, in amounts to be determined at trial. Read More. 

Understanding Pregnancy Discrimination in the Workplace

Article Information

Published on Monday, 16 May 2011 18:43

Pregnancy discrimination involves treating a woman unfavorably because of pregnancy, childbirth, or a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth. The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, such as leave and health insurance, and any other term or condition of employment. If a woman is temporarily unable to perform her job due to a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth, the employer must treat the pregnant employee the same as any other temporarily disabled employee. For example, the employer may have to provide modified tasks, alternative assignments, disability leave or unpaid leave. It is also unlawful for someone in the workplace to harass a woman because of pregnancy, childbirth, or a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth. The law does not prohibit "simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious," however, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the employee being fired or demoted). The person engaging in the harassing conduct might be the employee's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer. Pregnant employees may also have additional rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)/California Family Rights Act (CFRA) if the employee is temporarily unable to perform her job due to pregnancy or for baby bonding time following the birth....

Read More