Complaints seek maternity coverage for women on parents’ health insurance
Since September 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) has permitted young adults to remain on their parents insurance plans until they turn 26.
June 05, 2013 at 07:46 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Since September 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) has permitted young adults to remain on their parents' insurance plans until they turn 26. But for young women who are still on their parents' plans, coverage doesn't include maternity services. The National Women's Law Center (NWLC) claims that lack of coverage for dependents is discriminatory.
Yesterday, the NWLC filed sex discrimination complaints against five large, publicly funded institutions, claiming that by not providing maternity services to young women on their parents' plans, they are violating a provision of the PPACA that prohibits discrimination in health benefits on the basis of gender.
“Pregnancy coverage is an essential insurance benefit for women,” NWLC Co-President Marcia D. Greenberger said in a press release. “Our message to every institution providing health insurance in the country is that treating pregnancy differently, including by omitting it from health insurance coverage, is sex discrimination pure and simple and as such violates the law.”
The 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires employer-provided health insurance to cover maternity benefits for spouses. However, the law has never been interpreted to require that employer-provided health insurance also covers dependents.
The NWLC's complaints target Battelle Memorial Institute, Beacon Health System, Auburn University, Gonzaga University and the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education.
Read NPR for more about the sex discrimination complaints.
For more InsideCounsel coverage of the PPACA, read:
Court denies contraception coverage injunction
Hobby Lobby loses appeal of contraception coverage
Cheat Sheet: What employers need to know about the Affordable Care Act
Hobby Lobby must cover morning-after pill, judge rules
Employers must choose to pay or play under the Affordable Care Act
Obamacare faces another lawsuit over contraception coverage
Your Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to-do list
Supreme Court allows ObamaCare to stand
Since September 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) has permitted young adults to remain on their parents' insurance plans until they turn 26. But for young women who are still on their parents' plans, coverage doesn't include maternity services. The National Women's Law Center (NWLC) claims that lack of coverage for dependents is discriminatory.
Yesterday, the NWLC filed sex discrimination complaints against five large, publicly funded institutions, claiming that by not providing maternity services to young women on their parents' plans, they are violating a provision of the PPACA that prohibits discrimination in health benefits on the basis of gender.
“Pregnancy coverage is an essential insurance benefit for women,” NWLC Co-President Marcia D. Greenberger said in a press release. “Our message to every institution providing health insurance in the country is that treating pregnancy differently, including by omitting it from health insurance coverage, is sex discrimination pure and simple and as such violates the law.”
The 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires employer-provided health insurance to cover maternity benefits for spouses. However, the law has never been interpreted to require that employer-provided health insurance also covers dependents.
The NWLC's complaints target Battelle Memorial Institute, Beacon Health System, Auburn University, Gonzaga University and the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education.
Read NPR for more about the sex discrimination complaints.
For more InsideCounsel coverage of the PPACA, read:
Court denies contraception coverage injunction
Hobby Lobby loses appeal of contraception coverage
Cheat Sheet: What employers need to know about the Affordable Care Act
Hobby Lobby must cover morning-after pill, judge rules
Employers must choose to pay or play under the Affordable Care Act
Obamacare faces another lawsuit over contraception coverage
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Exits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
2 minute read
'A Warning Shot to Board Rooms': DOJ Decision to Fight $14B Tech Merger May Be Bad Omen for Industry
'Incredibly Complicated'? Antitrust Litigators Identify Pros and Cons of Proposed One Agency Act
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
