Regardless of 'Roe,' Employers Should Review Policies to Ensure Pregnancy Discrimination Act Compliance
Regardless of the outcome of the Dobbs case, key employment discrimination standards on the topics of pregnancy and abortion will remain unchanged absent significant legislative amendment to Title VII.
May 26, 2022 at 11:41 AM
6 minute read
![Jessica L. Altobelli,left, and Alexandra G. Farone,right, of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir.Courtesy photos](http://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2022/05/Altobelli-Farone-767x633.jpg)
By now, most of us have heard of the infamous U.S. Supreme Court draft opinion leak in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The Supreme Court is expected to officially issue its opinion in early July, and if the leaked opinion is an accurate foreshadowing, the court will overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey to abolish the previously held constitutional right to pre-viability abortions. The leaked opinion, and the larger topic of abortion generally, are often considered third-rail topics in many workplaces, given the strongly held opinions on both sides of the issue. For the same reasons, current U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit law concerning pregnancy- and abortion-related discrimination, also tends to be an avoided topic. However, attorneys are likely to see a marked uptick in questions from employer-clients concerning their current legal obligations toward pregnant employees or employees who have sought or obtained an abortion. Regardless of the outcome of the Dobbs case, key employment discrimination standards on the topics of pregnancy and abortion will remain unchanged absent significant legislative amendment to Title VII.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA) amended Title VII to prohibit sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. Specifically, the PDA extended the definition of "on the basis of sex" to include—but is not limited to—pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. See 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e(k). Courts have interpreted "related medical conditions" to include postpartum medical complications as well. Courts are currently split as to whether breastfeeding or its complications are protected under the PDA, but the current trend tends to hold that they are PDA-covered conditions. The Third Circuit has not yet ruled on the issue.
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![Troutman Pepper Says Ex-Associate Who Alleged Racial Discrimination Lost Job Because of Failure to Improve Troutman Pepper Says Ex-Associate Who Alleged Racial Discrimination Lost Job Because of Failure to Improve](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/8d/6a/7e8c7ba34664bc4a50c9d1450546/troutman-sanders-sign-06-767x633-2.jpg)
Troutman Pepper Says Ex-Associate Who Alleged Racial Discrimination Lost Job Because of Failure to Improve
6 minute read![Boosting Litigation and Employee Benefits Practices, Two Am Law 100 Firms Grow in Pittsburgh Boosting Litigation and Employee Benefits Practices, Two Am Law 100 Firms Grow in Pittsburgh](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/40/79/7bec225547e79ddc40b0b1045f87/mckinley-chapman-767x633.jpg)
Boosting Litigation and Employee Benefits Practices, Two Am Law 100 Firms Grow in Pittsburgh
3 minute read![Best Practices for Conducting Workplace Investigations: A Legal and HR Perspective Best Practices for Conducting Workplace Investigations: A Legal and HR Perspective](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/5a/e9/3828ecd6475c9acf752b2d3fb641/teri-bouchard-767x633.jpg)
Best Practices for Conducting Workplace Investigations: A Legal and HR Perspective
9 minute read![The Intersection of Labor Law and Politics Following the Presidential Election The Intersection of Labor Law and Politics Following the Presidential Election](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2023/04/Badami-Campolongo-767x633.jpg)
The Intersection of Labor Law and Politics Following the Presidential Election
8 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1DeepSeek Isn’t Yet Impacting Legal Tech Development. But That Could Soon Change.
- 2'Landmark' New York Commission Set to Study Overburdened, Under-Resourced Family Courts
- 3Wave of Commercial Real Estate Refinance Could Drown Property Owners
- 4Redeveloping Real Estate After Natural Disasters: Challenges, Strategies and Opportunities
- 5Calif. Fires Should Serve as a Reminder to Fla.’s Commercial Landlords and Tenants Not to Be Complacent
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