Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:50:56.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Failure to Cover Does Not Violate ADA, Title VII, or PDA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Valerie Gutmann
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Saks v. Franklin Covey Co., the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), and New York state law do not proscribe an employer's self-insured employee health plan from excluding surgical impregnation procedures from its coverage. Although the court found that infertility qualifies as a disability under the ADA, it restricted required coverage of certain infedty treatments.

Title I of the ADA prohibits an employer from discriminating on the basis of disability “in regard to … fringe benefits available by virtue of employment, whether or not administered by the covered entity.” The ADA defines “disability” as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” In Bragdon v. Abbott, the U.S. Supreme Court found that reproduction was a major life activity under the ADA.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , Summer 2003 , pp. 314 - 316
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

29 C.F.R. § 1630.4(0.Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A).Google Scholar
See Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).Google Scholar
General Electric v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125, 139 (1976).Google Scholar
Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000e(k).Google Scholar
Saks v. Franklin Covey Co., 316 F.3d 337, 341 (2003). TPA is a third-party processing agent hired by Franklin Covey.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at 341.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
American Society for Reproductive Medicine, “ASRM Files Amicus Brief in Support of Employee Unfairly Denied Infertility Coverage on the Basis of her Sex,” ASRM Bulletin, 3, no. 12 (2001).Google Scholar
Saks v. Franklin Covey Co., 117 F. Supp. 2d 318 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Sato, S., “A Little Bit Disabled: Infertility and the Americans with Disabilities Act,” N. Y. U. Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, 5 (2001/2002): 189–223 (quoting Saks v. Franklin Covey Co., 117 F. Supp. 2d 318 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)).Google Scholar
See Saks, 117 F. Supp. 2d at 327.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See id. (citing N.Y. Exec. Law § 290).Google Scholar
See American Society for Reproductive Medicine, supra note 11.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Saks, 316 F.3d at 347.Google Scholar
Id. at 348.Google Scholar
Id. at 344.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
Id. at 346.Google Scholar
Id. at 246 (quoting International Union v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187, 198 (1991)).Google Scholar
Id. at 349.Google Scholar
Sato, , supra note 14.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See, e.g., “Sex Is the Least of It”: Infertility Is Recognized as a Disability Under the ADA (November 2000), LawCommerce.com, at <http://www.lawcommerce.com/newsletters/art_brobeck_lab1100.asp>..>Google Scholar
See Bentley, C., “A Pregnant Pause: Are Women Who Undergo Fertility Treatment to Achieve Pregnancy Within the Scope of the Title VII's Pregnancy Discrimination Act?” Chicago-Kent Law Review, 73 (1998): 391–423.Google Scholar