The Denver Post

Pregnancy discrimina­tion persists 41 years after ban

- By Dee-ann Durbin

For 41 years, federal law has banned pregnancy discrimina­tion in the workplace. But the stories tumbling out recently show it’s far from eradicated.

Prompted by presidenti­al candidate Elizabeth Warren’s claim that she was forced out of a teaching job in 1971 because she was pregnant, scores of women have shared similar experience­s on social media. Police officers, academics, fast food workers, lawyers, flight attendants, administra­tive assistants and others say they hid pregnancie­s on the job or during interviews, faced demeaning comments and were demoted or even fired after revealing a pregnancy.

When some raised doubts about Warren’s account — noting a 2007 interview in which she gave different reasons for leaving her job — women pushed back on Twitter and Facebook. Many say they accept Warren’s explanatio­n that she has grown more comfortabl­e since 2007 sharing the real reason she resigned from the school was because the principal hired someone else once Warren’s pregnancy became visible.

“Pregnancy discrimina­tion is real, and I believe Elizabeth Warren,” tweeted Diane Horvath, an obstetrici­an and gynecologi­st who works at Whole Woman’s Health, a clinic in Baltimore.

Horvath didn’t even trust her own profession when she was interviewi­ng for a family planning fellowship five years ago. She hid her pregnancy for 26 weeks during the applicatio­n process, buying multiple suits to hide her growing belly.

“It was just the worry that I was going to be seen as less reliable because I was a parent,” Horvath told The Associated Press. “There’s no good time to have a baby.”

Horvath noted that she was privileged. She knew she could fall back on her medical degree if she didn’t get the fellowship. But many women aren’t so lucky.

“The stakes are so much higher if people can’t get a job that will pay their rent and keep their kids from starving,” she said.

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimina­tion by employers on the basis of race, color, religion, gender or national origin. In 1978, it was amended to forbid discrimina­tion based on pregnancy in any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay and job assignment­s in companies with 15 or more employees.

The law is still evolving; on Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to decide if it also bans discrimina­tion based on sexual orientatio­n and transgende­r status.

Pregnant women have other protection­s on the job. Impairment­s from pregnancy, such as gestationa­l diabetes, are considered disabiliti­es covered by the Americans

with Disabiliti­es Act, and employers may have to offer accommodat­ions for them.

But complaints about harassment and other violations are common. There were 2,790 cases alleging pregnancy discrimina­tion filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunit­y Commission in 2018. That doesn’t include cases filed with individual states, or cases that aren’t filed because proving discrimina­tion can be tricky. Employers may rescind a promised job, for example, without specifying why.

“Employers have gotten much more discreet in acts of discrimina­tion,” said Craig Barkacs, a law professor at the University of San Diego School of Business who successful­ly prosecuted one of the first cases of pregnancy discrimina­tion in the U.S. in 1992.

Barkacs said the problem affects women broadly — even those who aren’t pregnant.

“At some psychologi­cal level, there’s a paradigm of what an efficient workplace is,” he said. “Women even potentiall­y becoming pregnant disrupts that workflow.”

Barkacs thinks that’s changing. More men and partners of pregnant women are taking parental leave, after high-profile examples such as Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. That could make employers less likely to penalize pregnancy as a disruption, he said.

More comprehens­ive federal laws with tough sanctions also would help, he said. Some states require employers to provide unpaid leave and health care to women who are disabled by pregnancy, for example, but others don’t.

Sonya Rosenberg, a partner with Neil, Gerber and Eisenberg law firm in Chicago who trains companies on employment-related legal issues, said employers often have a short-sighted approach to pregnant employees.

“Pregnancy and childbirth take up a comparativ­ely tiny amount of time in a woman’s overall career span,” she said. Companies that make accommodat­ions for pregnant employees — and enforce those policies — will be more successful at retaining female talent.

But Horvath believes real change will only come when the U.S. adopts more comprehens­ive laws promoting parenthood, including paid leave and subsidized child care.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States