It Doesn't Work At Work: Pregnancy Discrimination in the Workplace
The California disability insurance program was entirely self-funded by the required contribution of one percent of wages annually by participating employees.13 The program functioned according to insurance concepts; not every disabling condition was covered.14 Disabilities of less than eight days w...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Labor law journal (Chicago) 2015-07, Vol.66 (2), p.111 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 111 |
container_title | Labor law journal (Chicago) |
container_volume | 66 |
creator | Marcum, Tanya M Perry, Sandra J |
description | The California disability insurance program was entirely self-funded by the required contribution of one percent of wages annually by participating employees.13 The program functioned according to insurance concepts; not every disabling condition was covered.14 Disabilities of less than eight days were not covered unless the employee was hospitalized and no benefits were payable beyond 26 weeks for a single disability.15 No benefits were payable if the employee were committed as an alcoholic, drug addict, or sexual psychopath.16 And no benefits were payable for disabling conditions attributable to pregnancy.17 Four female employees who had paid into the disability program and were denied benefits for disabilities resulting from their pregnancies challenged the constitutionality of the program.18 At the U.S. District Court, the plaintiffs won.19 That court held that the pregnancy-related exclusion was "not based on a classification having a rational and substantial relationship to a legitimate state purpose. Since federal law lacks clarity, many states and municipalities have adopted laws to require accommodations for pregnant employees, and this trend is likely to continue. |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1779976287</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>4017822601</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_17799762873</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpjYeA0MDAy1jUztTDjYOAqLs4yMDAwN7A04GRw8ixRcMlPLc5TL1EIzy_KVnCE0FYKAUWp6XmJecmVCi6ZxclFmbmZeYklmfl5Cpl5CiUZqWBVBTmJyak8DKxpiTnFqbxQmptB2c01xNlDt6Aov7A0tbgkPiu_tCgPKBVvaG5uaWluZmRhbkycKgDE8Th1</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1779976287</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>It Doesn't Work At Work: Pregnancy Discrimination in the Workplace</title><source>Business Source Complete</source><creator>Marcum, Tanya M ; Perry, Sandra J</creator><creatorcontrib>Marcum, Tanya M ; Perry, Sandra J</creatorcontrib><description>The California disability insurance program was entirely self-funded by the required contribution of one percent of wages annually by participating employees.13 The program functioned according to insurance concepts; not every disabling condition was covered.14 Disabilities of less than eight days were not covered unless the employee was hospitalized and no benefits were payable beyond 26 weeks for a single disability.15 No benefits were payable if the employee were committed as an alcoholic, drug addict, or sexual psychopath.16 And no benefits were payable for disabling conditions attributable to pregnancy.17 Four female employees who had paid into the disability program and were denied benefits for disabilities resulting from their pregnancies challenged the constitutionality of the program.18 At the U.S. District Court, the plaintiffs won.19 That court held that the pregnancy-related exclusion was "not based on a classification having a rational and substantial relationship to a legitimate state purpose. Since federal law lacks clarity, many states and municipalities have adopted laws to require accommodations for pregnant employees, and this trend is likely to continue.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0023-6586</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Riverwoods: CCH Incorporated: Health & Human Resources</publisher><subject>Americans with Disabilities Act 1990-US ; Constitutional law ; Disability ; Disability insurance ; Due process of law ; Employers ; Employment discrimination ; Federal court decisions ; Female employees ; Litigation ; Maternal & child health ; Pregnancy ; School districts ; Sex discrimination ; State court decisions ; State laws ; Supreme Court decisions ; Teachers ; Teaching ; Womens health ; Workers</subject><ispartof>Labor law journal (Chicago), 2015-07, Vol.66 (2), p.111</ispartof><rights>Copyright CCH Incorporated: Health & Human Resources Summer 2015</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Marcum, Tanya M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perry, Sandra J</creatorcontrib><title>It Doesn't Work At Work: Pregnancy Discrimination in the Workplace</title><title>Labor law journal (Chicago)</title><description>The California disability insurance program was entirely self-funded by the required contribution of one percent of wages annually by participating employees.13 The program functioned according to insurance concepts; not every disabling condition was covered.14 Disabilities of less than eight days were not covered unless the employee was hospitalized and no benefits were payable beyond 26 weeks for a single disability.15 No benefits were payable if the employee were committed as an alcoholic, drug addict, or sexual psychopath.16 And no benefits were payable for disabling conditions attributable to pregnancy.17 Four female employees who had paid into the disability program and were denied benefits for disabilities resulting from their pregnancies challenged the constitutionality of the program.18 At the U.S. District Court, the plaintiffs won.19 That court held that the pregnancy-related exclusion was "not based on a classification having a rational and substantial relationship to a legitimate state purpose. Since federal law lacks clarity, many states and municipalities have adopted laws to require accommodations for pregnant employees, and this trend is likely to continue.</description><subject>Americans with Disabilities Act 1990-US</subject><subject>Constitutional law</subject><subject>Disability</subject><subject>Disability insurance</subject><subject>Due process of law</subject><subject>Employers</subject><subject>Employment discrimination</subject><subject>Federal court decisions</subject><subject>Female employees</subject><subject>Litigation</subject><subject>Maternal & child health</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>School districts</subject><subject>Sex discrimination</subject><subject>State court decisions</subject><subject>State laws</subject><subject>Supreme Court decisions</subject><subject>Teachers</subject><subject>Teaching</subject><subject>Womens health</subject><subject>Workers</subject><issn>0023-6586</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNpjYeA0MDAy1jUztTDjYOAqLs4yMDAwN7A04GRw8ixRcMlPLc5TL1EIzy_KVnCE0FYKAUWp6XmJecmVCi6ZxclFmbmZeYklmfl5Cpl5CiUZqWBVBTmJyak8DKxpiTnFqbxQmptB2c01xNlDt6Aov7A0tbgkPiu_tCgPKBVvaG5uaWluZmRhbkycKgDE8Th1</recordid><startdate>20150701</startdate><enddate>20150701</enddate><creator>Marcum, Tanya M</creator><creator>Perry, Sandra J</creator><general>CCH Incorporated: Health & Human Resources</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150701</creationdate><title>It Doesn't Work At Work: Pregnancy Discrimination in the Workplace</title><author>Marcum, Tanya M ; Perry, Sandra J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_17799762873</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Americans with Disabilities Act 1990-US</topic><topic>Constitutional law</topic><topic>Disability</topic><topic>Disability insurance</topic><topic>Due process of law</topic><topic>Employers</topic><topic>Employment discrimination</topic><topic>Federal court decisions</topic><topic>Female employees</topic><topic>Litigation</topic><topic>Maternal & child health</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>School districts</topic><topic>Sex discrimination</topic><topic>State court decisions</topic><topic>State laws</topic><topic>Supreme Court decisions</topic><topic>Teachers</topic><topic>Teaching</topic><topic>Womens health</topic><topic>Workers</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Marcum, Tanya M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perry, Sandra J</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Labor law journal (Chicago)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Marcum, Tanya M</au><au>Perry, Sandra J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>It Doesn't Work At Work: Pregnancy Discrimination in the Workplace</atitle><jtitle>Labor law journal (Chicago)</jtitle><date>2015-07-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>66</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>111</spage><pages>111-</pages><issn>0023-6586</issn><abstract>The California disability insurance program was entirely self-funded by the required contribution of one percent of wages annually by participating employees.13 The program functioned according to insurance concepts; not every disabling condition was covered.14 Disabilities of less than eight days were not covered unless the employee was hospitalized and no benefits were payable beyond 26 weeks for a single disability.15 No benefits were payable if the employee were committed as an alcoholic, drug addict, or sexual psychopath.16 And no benefits were payable for disabling conditions attributable to pregnancy.17 Four female employees who had paid into the disability program and were denied benefits for disabilities resulting from their pregnancies challenged the constitutionality of the program.18 At the U.S. District Court, the plaintiffs won.19 That court held that the pregnancy-related exclusion was "not based on a classification having a rational and substantial relationship to a legitimate state purpose. Since federal law lacks clarity, many states and municipalities have adopted laws to require accommodations for pregnant employees, and this trend is likely to continue.</abstract><cop>Riverwoods</cop><pub>CCH Incorporated: Health & Human Resources</pub></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0023-6586 |
ispartof | Labor law journal (Chicago), 2015-07, Vol.66 (2), p.111 |
issn | 0023-6586 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1779976287 |
source | Business Source Complete |
subjects | Americans with Disabilities Act 1990-US Constitutional law Disability Disability insurance Due process of law Employers Employment discrimination Federal court decisions Female employees Litigation Maternal & child health Pregnancy School districts Sex discrimination State court decisions State laws Supreme Court decisions Teachers Teaching Womens health Workers |
title | It Doesn't Work At Work: Pregnancy Discrimination in the Workplace |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T15%3A55%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=It%20Doesn't%20Work%20At%20Work:%20Pregnancy%20Discrimination%20in%20the%20Workplace&rft.jtitle=Labor%20law%20journal%20(Chicago)&rft.au=Marcum,%20Tanya%20M&rft.date=2015-07-01&rft.volume=66&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=111&rft.pages=111-&rft.issn=0023-6586&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E4017822601%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1779976287&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |