The Purpose of the Law, Its History, and the Reasons for Its Appearance
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act is a supplement to the Sex Discrimination Clause of the Civil Rights Act. It was approved by the U.S. Congress in 1978 to give pregnant women the same insurance, paid time off, and extra help as any other employee on sick or disability leave (McCammon & Brockman, 2019). The law only affects businesses with 15 or more employees (including part-time and temporary workers) (McCammon & Brockman, 2019). The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in General Electric Company v. Gilbert, which held that pregnancy discrimination was not sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Act, prompted the legislature to create the law.
Its Effects on Current Human Resource Practices
This act undoubtedly affects attitudes toward women in the workplace today. Many employers have become more loyal to expectant mothers. They are being fired less often, and they are being compensated. Girls who want to continue working during pregnancy have the right to do so. However, there are cases where girls are refused to be hired or promoted because they might become pregnant. This, too, is a kind of discrimination that is very difficult to resist.
The Positives and Negatives of the Law
The provision that says a pregnant, unmarried woman may be treated differently depending on where she works may be the act’s negative aspect. According to several court decisions, organizations that work with children or those that are religious may discriminate against workers who disobey their precepts and engage in premarital sex (McCammon & Brockman, 2019). However, pregnancy-related benefits cannot be limited to married female employees in most firms. Strong elements include legal safeguards for expectant women, keeping their employees away from work, and compensations.
A Case that Involved the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 Law
Due to her ectopic pregnancy, Gail Rentzer was unable to work. Since they did not consider her pregnancy or the associated medical difficulties to be a handicap, the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board denied her benefits. However, following the complaint filing, the California Court of Appeal determined that Gail’s pregnancy qualified for disability payments since she did not have a typical pregnancy and required emergency surgery to stop the bleeding and preserve her life. This case made it possible for pregnant women who experienced medical issues to get benefits and supplementary security measures like disability insurance for the pregnancy and the time required to recuperate from the complications.
Reference
McCammon, H. J., & Brockman, A. J. (2019). Feminist institutional activists: Venue shifting, strategic adaptation, and winning the pregnancy discrimination act. In Sociological Forum (Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 5-26). Web.