Pregnancy Discrimination in the United States

8/11/2019 Pregnancy Discrimination in the United States

1/12

Running Head: PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION IN THE US

PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES

SPACE LEFT FOR DETAILS OF THE

STUDENT


2/12

PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION IN THE US

Page2


3/12


INTRODUCTION

It is ironic that even in the United States, discrimination still exists for pregnancy, among all

things. Dr. artin !"ther #ing$s dream is yet to %e f"lfilled in all its scope today. One of the

great man$s most sensitive &"otations on racial discrimination is 'Discrimination is a hellho"nd

that gna(s at Negroes in every (a)ing moment of their lives to remind them that the lie of their

inferiority is accepted as tr"th in the society dominating them.* If yo" ta)e o"t the (ord negroes

from the a%ove &"ote and replace it %y pregnant (omen, yo" (ill have an idea of the enormo"s

press"re (hich the pregnant (oman may face from society. +"t professionally &"alified pregnant

mericans are not s"%-ected to the ill effects of discrimination so m"ch as yo"ng st"dents is

schools and colleges. Discriminating against them is act"ally s"%-ecting them to a lifetime of

pen"ry since discriminating against them in imparting of ed"cation is nothing %"t ro%%ing them

of the opport"nity to learn s)ills , %y employing (hich , they can cease to %e a lia%ility of the

merican mainstream society.

In this essay, (e (ill ta)e a %rief glimpse of the history of pregnancy discrimination, loo) at the

present pict"re in /0 .D., examine the legislation availa%le and try to disc"ss the pro%lems

and their possi%le sol"tions. 1e (ill foc"s on the la(s against pregnancy discrimination in

general %"r shall try to concentrate more on pregnancy discrimination against st"dents in schools

and colleges.

STASTICS: What do the numbers sho!

Ta%le 2.0 %elo( sho(s the sex"al activity of teenagers %et(een 3thand 0th 4rade.

The so"rce from (here this data has %een collected is mentioned at the %ottom of the ta%le.

Page3


4/12


The data (as collected in 0330 and //2 , i.e. a gap of 0 years

Page4


5/12


5rom the a%ove t(o (e see that the US has a val"e of 6/ %irths for every 0/// females %elo( /

years. co"ntry li)e China has only 7 %irths80///females %elo( / years.

!a(s against 9regnancy Discrimination

1e (ill examine the la(s that exist and relate to t(o scenarios. 9regnancy Discrimination at

School and at the Office

s far as (ords are concerned, T"t#e $II o% the C"&"# R"'hts A(t )*+,, first held do(n the la(

that a person cannot %e discriminated against %eca"se of his or her sex. Conf"sion arose %eca"se

no one )ne( (hether pregnancy (as incl"ded or omitted in it. gro"p of female employees of

4: too) the company to co"rt over its disa%ility plan, (hich granted sic)ness and disa%ility

%enefits %"t omitted pregnancy. The trial co"rt fo"nded against 4: %"t (hen the case (ent the

S"preme Co"rt, ;"dge Rehn&"ist fo"nd for 4: on the fact that '9regnancy is a physical

condition of the %ody*. This (as definitely "nfair and the Congress retaliated (ith the 9D i.e.

The Pre'nan(- D"s(r"m"nat"on A(t(hich as per 4regory


6/12


sho"ld not %e s"%-ected to any special considerations and she sho"ld %e treated on e&"al footing

(ith other employees, and (hether to (or) or not (as to %e decided %y the (oman and no%ody

else. This dealt (ith Em.#o-ment D"s(r"m"nat"onagainst 9regnancy. In 03>, Nixon formally

signed the Title I? of the :d"cational mendments ct, 03> and the Senate Congress

prom"lgated the act into la(. s per Title I?, discrimination on the gro"nds of sex (as declared

"nla(f"l in case of any organi@ation or event f"nded %y money from the federal government, or

(hich had anything to do (ith the 5ederal 4overnment of the United States.

fe( 5ederal organi@ations (ere at first omitted from the Title I? initially and in ///, the

entire Title I? (as made into one 5ederal common la( title. ccording to Nancy Christophel


7/12


:&"al 9ay ct of 0362


8/12


Settle

ments 518 607 685 756 656 650 842 874 787 813 828

12.1% 12.7% 14.1% 15.5% 14.2% 14.0% 16.9% 16.5% 14.1% 12.9% 12.8%

With!"#"

ls

#$%enefits 327 408 429 420 413 426 501 499 526 567 552

7.6% 8.5% 8.9% 8.6% 8.9% 9.2% 10.1% 9.4% 9.4% 9.0% 8.5%

&minist!"

ti'e

(losu!es 764 846 901 787 765 790 882 847 1,026 1,025 1,017

17.9% 17.7% 18.6% 16.1% 16.5% 17.1% 17.7% 16.0% 18.3% 16.3% 15.7%

)o

Re"son"*l

e ("use 2,373 2,634 2,629 2,723 2,570 2,574 2,568 2,851 3,035 3,670 3,819

55.4% 55.1% 54.2% 55.8% 55.6% 55.6% 51.6% 53.9% 54.3% 58.3% 58.9%

Page"


9/12


Re"son"*l

e ("use 298 283 203 191 221 189 186 221 220 218 266

7.0% 5.9% 4.2% 3.9% 4.8% 4.1% 3.7% 4.2% 3.9% 3.5% 4.1%

Successfu

l

(oncili"tio

ns 123 126 75 87 92 74 81 77 100 102 143

2.9% 2.6% 1.5% 1.8% 2.0% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5% 1.8% 1.6% 2.2%

+nsuccessful

(oncili"tions 175 157 128 104 129 115 105 144 120 116 123

4.1% 3.3% 2.6% 2.1% 2.8% 2.5% 2.1% 2.7% 2.1% 1.8% 1.9%

,e!it

Resolutions 1,143 1,298 1,317 1,367 1,290 1,265 1,529 1,594 1,533 1,598 1,646

26.7% 27.2% 27.2% 28.0% 27.9% 27.3% 30.7% 30.1% 27.4% 25.4% 25.4%

,onet"!y

%enefits

-,illions./ $7.5 $10.0 $12.4 $11.7 $11.8 $10.4 $30.0 $12.2 $16.8 $18.0 $17.2

Page#


10/12


* Does not include monetary benefits obtained through litigation.

Page$%


11/12


Case Stories

Page$$


12/12


Concl"sion

Page$2

Pregnancy Discrimination in the United States

Documents

Transcript of Pregnancy Discrimination in the United States