Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Employers Can Deny Coverage for Certain Infertility Treatments
An employer's medical plan that denies coverage for certain female-only infertility procedures does not violate either the Pregnancy Disability Act (PDA) or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Second Circuit, in a ruling of first impression, concluded that neither are violated. Saks v. Franklin Covey Co., 2003 WL 122396 (2d Cir. 1/15/03) (Martin, Parker, and Sotomayor, Cir. Judges).The employer's self-insured medical plan in this case provided benefits for 'medically necessary' procedures. The plan covered a variety of infertility products and procedures benefiting both men and women, but expressly excluded coverage for 'surgical impregnation procedures' such as in vitro fertilization. Plaintiff-appellant Rochelle Saks received various infertility treatments, including in vitro fertilization. The plan declined to reimburse her for procedures related to her attempts to be surgically impregnated. Saks sued, lost before the district court, and appealed the denial of her sexual discrimination and PDA claims.
The Second Circuit affirmed. The court first considered Saks' PDA claim. The court acknowledged that the PDA provides protection against discrimination based on pregnancy and 'related medical conditions.' It rejected the notion, however, that the PDA was intended to create a new protected category based solely on reproductive capacity. This could not be, reasoned the court, because 'reproductive capacity is common to both men and women '.' In contrast, 'the PDA requires that pregnancy, and related conditions, be properly recognized as sex-based characteristics of women.' Therefore, concluded the court, to extend protection under the PDA to both men and women would be incompatible with PDA's purposes. In short, the mere fact that a plan provides inferior coverage for infertility treatment does not mean it is violative of the PDA.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
A Lawyer's System for Active Reading
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.