Archive for EEOC

Pregnancy discrimination happening at tax funded Planned Parenthood

Posted in EEOC, Planned Parenthood and Pregnancy Discrimination, Planned Parenthood Employee, Planned Parenthood employee sues, Planned Parenthood former employee, Planned Parenthood hiring with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 24, 2018 by saynsumthn

Report: Planned Parenthood discriminated against pregnant employees

Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood staffers are exposing the organization’s abysmal treatment and discrimination against its pregnant employees. The details, published by the New York Times in a stunning exposé, reveal that Planned Parenthood “employers saw accommodating expecting mothers as expensive and inconvenient. Others were unsympathetic to workers seeking special treatment.”

“A dozen lawsuits filed against Planned Parenthood clinics in federal and state courts since 2013 accused managers of denying workers rest periods, lunch breaks or overtime pay, or retaliating against them for taking medical leave,” the New York Times states.

The shocking report reveals how negatively Planned Parenthood viewed pregnant staffers.

The former human resources manager, who requested anonymity, said that executives assumed that when a pregnant worker brought in a doctor’s note, it was an excuse to work less. People who took sick days were perceived as lacking commitment.

Image: New York Times' article on how Planned Parenthood treats pregnant employees

New York Times’ article on how Planned Parenthood treats pregnant employees

The Times spoke to more than a dozen current and former staffers and organizers of the Office and Professional Employees International Union, which accused the abortion corporation “of sidelining, ousting or otherwise handicapping pregnant employees,” and found that:

  • Managers discriminated against pregnant women and new mothers.
  • A pregnant PP staffer was fired weeks after giving birth. Another fired the day she returned from maternity leave.
  • Managers ignored a pregnant staffer’s doctor’s note recommending frequent breaks, asked her to delay maternity leave, and pressured her to return back early. Others had to work long hours with few breaks.
  • Managers declined to hire pregnant job candidates.
  • Supervisors openly debated whether candidates were likely to get pregnant in future, preferring those who were not.

 

Image: Screen from New York Times article on Planned Parenthood

Screen from New York Times article on Planned Parenthood

According to current and former employees in California, Texas, North Carolina, and New York, “[M]anagers in some locations declined to hire pregnant job candidates, refused requests by expecting mothers to take breaks and in some cases pushed them out of their jobs after they gave birth,” in clear violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which “provides certain employees with up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave per year.”

READ: BOMBSHELL: Former employee sues Planned Parenthood for discrimination after cancer diagnosis

Planned Parenthood reportedly “declined to hire one pregnant woman and to promote one new mother.”

A former hiring manager at a Planned Parenthood in California said that when internal promotions came up, supervisors openly debated whether candidates were likely to get pregnant in the near future and preferred those who were not…The former manager said her colleagues felt they couldn’t afford to promote someone only to lose them for several weeks.

Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA):

  • An employer cannot refuse to hire a woman because of her pregnancy related condition as long as she is able to perform the major functions of her job. An employer cannot refuse to hire her because of its prejudices against pregnant workers….
  • [A]n employer that allows temporarily disabled employees to take disability leave or leave without pay must allow an employee who is temporarily disabled due to pregnancy to do the same.
  • Employers must hold open a job for a pregnancy related absence the same length of time that jobs are held open for employees on sick or temporary disability leave.
  • If an employee is temporarily unable to perform her job due to pregnancy, the employer must treat her the same as any other temporarily disabled employee…
  • [I]mpairments resulting from pregnancy (for example, gestational diabetes) may be disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)…

The Act also…

  • [F]orbids discrimination based on pregnancy when it comes to any other aspect of employment, including pay, job assignments, promotions, layoffs, training, fringe benefits, firing, and any other term or condition of employment.

Despite many documented abuses, including pregnancy discrimination, Planned Parenthood is granted over $500 million a year in taxpayer subsidies, millions of which flow from the Federal Title X family planning program.

Those Title X requirements state:

Grantees and sub-recipients are obligated to establish and maintain personnel policies that comply with applicable Federal and State requirements, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the annual appropriations language. These policies should include, but are not to be limited to, staff recruitment, selection, performance evaluation, promotion, termination, compensation, benefits, and grievance procedures.

READ: Has the media been caught in Planned Parenthood’s web of lies?

Right on cue, when asked about this behavior, Planned Parenthood leadership either denied the validity of a particular claim or stated that it was “investigating the allegations.” This is a common response the abortion corporation employs with abortion-friendly media, a strategy exposed seen after Live Action caught Planned Parenthood lying about retraining staffers following an undercover investigation.

Image: Excerpt of NYTs article on how Planned Parenthood treats pregnant employees

Excerpt of NYTs article on how Planned Parenthood treats pregnant employees

Planned Parenthood masquerades as a women’s health care organization, yet despite netting large profits, it appears from Wen’s statement above that Planned Parenthood has thus far not offered its pregnant employees paid maternity leave.

As a result, staffers like Marissa Hamilton, employed at a Colorado Planned Parenthood, created a Go Fund Me page due to “financial strain” after her baby was born prematurely.

Image: Pregnant Planned Parenthood employee Go Fund Me page

Planned Parenthood Colorado employee’s Go Fund Me page

Planned Parenthood’s leadership allegedly looked down on pregnant employees who were reportedly “scared to tell managers they were pregnant.” In desperation, one employee pretended “they were not planning on having children or were gay or single.”

Live Action News has previously documented the discrimination accusation of a former Planned Parenthood employee alleging that her employer made it difficult for her to take medical leave when she was diagnosed with cervical cancer. Planned Parenthood settled that case out of court.

Live Action’s investigations have exposed the true face of Planned Parenthood and recently revealed that abortion, not prenatal care, is the primary “service” Planned Parenthood offers to pregnant patients. Is it any wonder that an organization which profits from ending the lives of over 320,000 preborn babies every year by abortion would treat pregnant staffers so poorly?

This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

Sexual Misconduct among Planned Parenthood abortion docs and staffers – will media demand tax dollars be defunded?

Posted in Abortion and Racism, Abortion and rape, Abortion and Sexual Assault, Abortion clinic covers sexual abuse, Abortion Clinic Worders, Abortion clinic worker arrested, Abortion Clinics, Abortion Racism, Abortionist and Child Porn, Abortionist arrested, Abortionist loses medical license, Abortionist Sexual, EEOC, Planned Parenthood abortionist, Planned Parenthood and Child POrn, Planned Parenthood and Child Predators, Planned Parenthood and discrimination, Planned Parenthood and Rape, Planned Parenthood and sexual crimes, Planned Parenthood CEO, Planned Parenthood closing, Planned Parenthood EEOC, Planned Parenthood Employee, Planned Parenthood employee arrested, Planned Parenthood employee sues, Planned Parenthood ex employee, Planned Parenthood Rape, Planned Parenthood Sexual Assault, Planned Parenthood Sexual Harassment, Planned Parenthood Sexual Harrassment, Planned Parenthood Volunteer, Planned Parenthood Whistleblowers, Rape and Abortion, Sexual Assault and abortion, Sexual harassment with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 29, 2017 by saynsumthn

Child porn, harassment, and rape: Is Planned Parenthood a haven for sex offenders?

Planned Parenthood’s political organizer president Cecile Richards recently expressed concern about accusations brought by women claiming to have been sexually harassed by men in power. While these accusations and admissions are greatly concerning, it seems Richards has overlooked her own back yard, so to speak. Plenty of Planned Parenthood employees have had their own share of troubles in this arena.

CALIFORNIA

Jorge Martin-Santana

According to Sacramento Superior Court records, Jorge Humberto Martin Santana was arrested in 2013 and charged with one count of misdemeanor sexual battery, under criminal code PC 243.4(E)(1), which reads in part:A California jury found a Planned Parenthood medical assistant guilty of misdemeanor sexual battery after inappropriately touching a patient during the course of his duties at Planned Parenthood.

Any person who touches an intimate part of another person, if the touching is against the will of the person touched, and is for the specific purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse, is guilty of misdemeanor sexual battery…

In February of 2015, Martin-Santana pleaded “not guilty,” but on April 9, 2015, he was sentenced to 140 days in a sheriff’s work project and three years of probation.

DELAWARE

Timothy Liveright Planned Parenthood abortionist accused of sexual harassment

In 2013, Planned Parenthood RN Jayne Mitchell-Werbrich, who worked at Planned Parenthood Delaware’s Dover and Wilmington clinics, told blogger Jill Stanek that abortionist Timothy Fouch Liveright had sexually harassed employees and patients.

“I have noted Dr. Liveright inappropriately look up and down patients as well as staff members in a sexual kind of way. He actually stands back with a grin and slowly directs his eyes up and down a patient’s body.”In 2013, Planned Parenthood RN Jayne Mitchell-Werbrich, who worked at Planned Parenthood Delaware’s Dover and Wilmington clinics, told blogger Jill Stanek that abortionist Timothy Fouch Liveright had sexually harassed employees and patients.

Jayne resigned from Planned Parenthood after her letters of complaint to management were ignored. The nurse also said she observed Liveright “acting condescending to African American patients by implying they were ignorant,” among other charges.

Liveright worked for several Planned Parenthood locations.

A Delaware Medical Licensure complaint filed against Liveright claims Planned Parenthood reprimanded him for “unprofessional, disrespectful, and inappropriate” conduct, including “yelling, screaming, and cursing” in front of employees and patients and “sexual harassment of female employees.”

Planned Parenthood Abortion doc Timothy Liveright accused of sexual harassment

 

consent agreement filed in 2014 says Liveright agreed to obtain “sexual harassment training”:

Planned Parenthood Abortion doc Timothy Liveright accused of sexual harassment

 

According to USA Today, Liveright played an abortionist in the 2010 Hollywood movie, “Blue Valentine“:

In 2013, media reported that Liveright surrendered his license to practice medicine in Delaware, but a November 2017 query reveals that Liveright’s Pennsylvania license is still active.

FLORIDA

In July 2008, the Miami Herald reported that Planned Parenthood’s national office cut ties with several Florida centers after accusations of “terrible mismanagement and possibly fraud,” including alleged sexual harassment against a former CEO:

Miami Herald Planned Parenthood cuts ties with 5 clinics, sexual harassment

The Herald stated:

The disaffiliation allowed the national organization to wash its hands of the local chapter once known as Planned Parenthood of South Palm Beach and Broward Counties.

The chapter is dealing with many problems, including harassment complaints and possible misuse of nearly $450,000 — slightly less than they received in public funding in 2005.

ILLINOIS

Several female patients claimed Illinois Planned Parenthood physician, Carl E. Burpo, “engaged in improper conduct during a gynecological examination” at Burpo’s office and at Planned Parenthood, where he worked part-time. He was eventually indicted on 21 counts of sexual misconduct.

One complaint alleged that Burpo fondled patients’ “breasts and in some cases made other sexual advances toward seven patients in 1990 and 1991 while examining them.”

Carl E Burpo Planned Parenthood, sexual misconduct (St Louis Post-Dispatch)

A 1993 report states that Burpo was suspended from practicing at Planned Parenthood. A jury acquitted him in two of the cases but in February 1995, the Illinois Supreme Court reinstated eight of the criminal sexual assault charges.

His medical license was suspended in 1995.

MASSACHUSETTS

Roger Ian Hardy

Former Planned Parenthood abortionist Roger Ian Hardy was forced to surrender his Massachusetts medical license in January 2014, amid allegations that he sexually molested patients during fertility treatments at Fertility Centers of New England.

Hardy had previously committed abortions for Planned Parenthood facilities in Massachusetts and California.Former Planned Parenthood abortionist Roger Ian Hardy was forced to surrender his Massachusetts medical license in January 2014, amid allegations that he sexually molested patients during fertility treatments at Fertility Centers of New England.

Operation Rescue notes, “Why Hardy eventually left Planned Parenthood is unknown, but a Boston Globe article published on May 1, 2014, indicates that Hardy’s abhorrent sexual misconduct stretched back as far as 20 years. Hardy was working for Planned Parenthood during that time, in which Planned Parenthood abortion patients were likely exposed to molestation by Hardy as well.”

MINNESOTA

In 1987, the Minnesota Board of Medical Examiners revoked the license of Hideo D. Mori for alleged sexual improprieties involving 10 patients over 23 years in Grand Meadow. A report states that administrative law judge Allan W. Klein found Mori had “inappropriately massaged some of his patients, telling one of them… that he needed to stimulate her genital area to fit her properly for a diaphragm.”

Klein wrote that Mori claimed to have romantic feelings toward the patient, caressing her body and kissing her to make her sexually aroused, understanding “that it was not medically indicated.”

Hideo Mori sexual misconduct volunteer doctor for Planned Parenthood

 Hideo Mori sexual misconduct volunteer doctor for Planned Parenthood

While Mori served as a volunteer physician for Planned Parenthood nearly 18 years, there are no indications that his patients there were victims in this case.

Hideo Mori, Planned Parenthood volunteer

NEW YORK

The NY State Department of Health accused Planned Parenthood of Rochester and Monroe County physician, Joseph L. Lizardi, of sexual misconduct, including sexually stimulating one patient and telling another she was pretty while touching her breasts.

Joseph L Lizardi sexual misconduct NY Planned Parenthood

According to the document, Lizardi was also accused of speaking with another patient in an “obscene, threatening and disparaging manner.”

Joseph L Lizardi sexual misconduct NY Planned Parenthood

 

OHIO

Jerry Gonzales PP volunteer

On December 29, 2004, 46 year-old Planned Parenthood volunteer, Jerry Steven Gonzales, was convicted of raping a 12-year-old boy, as well as unlawful sex with a minor and two counts of pandering sexually oriented material involving juveniles, for incidents with two 16-year-old boys. In addition, he was convicted of felonious assault for having sex with a 17-year-old boy and not telling the victim about his HIV status. The incidents occurred at Gonzales’ home in Ohio.

Authorities found 50 videos of Gonzales having sex with boys.On December 29, 2004, 46 year-old Planned Parenthood volunteer, Jerry Steven Gonzales, was convicted of raping a 12-year-old boy, as well as unlawful sex with a minor and two counts of pandering sexually oriented material involving juveniles, for incidents with two 16-year-old boys. In addition, he was convicted of felonious assault for having sex with a 17-year-old boy and not telling the victim about his HIV status. The incidents occurred at Gonzales’ home in Ohio.

Police claim Gonzales pleaded guilty to a “similar, misdemeanor charge in Michigan in 1989 but was not required to register as a sex offender.”

Gonzalez worked as a volunteer at Planned Parenthood of North West Ohio’s HIV Outreach center until his arrest on October 12, 2004.

Gonzalez was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

TEXAS

Planned Parenthood CEO arrested for indecent exposure

1. In 2012, Tony Ray Thornton (pictured right), the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood in Lubbock, was arrested for exposing his genitals to a 43-year-old male in a Texas park.

Soon after, Thornton apologized and resigned from Planned Parenthood.1. In 2012, Tony Ray Thornton (pictured right), the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood in Lubbock, was arrested for exposing his genitals to a 43-year-old male in a Texas park.

“I deeply regret creating a situation in my personal life that potentially creates a distraction from these goals, and I apologize to the people in the Lubbock community for the incident,” Thornton stated. “I will work with my attorney through the appropriate court process to correct any misinformation and take responsibility for errors.”

According to the county clerk, the charges in Thornton’s case #2012-469-378 were dismissed on February 28, 2013, in the “interest of justice.”

In 2010, Thornton helped Planned Parenthood purchase a closed facility — renamed Planned Parenthood Women’s Health Center, Inc. — after the owners retired.

2. In 2005, Planned Parenthood employee Aymara Castro said Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas subjected her to “unlawful sexual harassment, and to disparate terms, conditions and privileges of employment because of her sex.” She won her claim, filed with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which found Planned Parenthood had “failed to take corrective action to stop the harassment and retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity.”

Planned Parenthood was ordered to pay Castro $40,000 in monetary relief, EEOC case

EEOC Sexual harassment claim against Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood was ordered to pay Castro $40,000 in monetary relief.

WASHINGTON STATE

1. In 2008, former abortionist for Planned Parenthood of Columbia-Willamette, George Elliott Kabacy, was sentenced in U.S. District Court in Tacoma, WA, for possession of child pornography. Kabacy was not practicing at Planned Parenthood at the time of his December 2006 arrest. According to the US Attorney’s office:

Kabacy admitted in his plea agreement that he knowingly possessed more than 8,000 images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Kabacy also admits to possessing videos of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, both on his computer and on 36 compact disks. Some of the images depict children under the age of 12. Kabacy admitted that he communicated with other people over the Internet, expressing his interest in having sex with minors and exchanging more than 40 images of child pornography with these other people over the Internet.

Kabacy’s OregonWashington State and California medical licenses were later revoked. 

2. Douglas Attig was accused by authorities of inappropriate, sexually oriented comments and contact with patients.

Planned Parenthood doctor Douglas Attig sexual misconduct

 

Douglas Attig worked at Planned Parenthood

The commission’s statement of charges alleges that Attig repeatedly spanked, kissed and hugged a patient, also sending her “copious amounts” of inappropriate and suggestive e-mail.

The complaint, filed in 2000, does not state where the incidents occurred. While there is no indication the assaults occurred at Planned Parenthood, news reports show that the organization admitted Attig occasionally committed abortions for them after he was targeted by an explosive device in 2001.The commission’s statement of charges alleges that Attig repeatedly spanked, kissed and hugged a patient, also sending her “copious amounts” of inappropriate and suggestive e-mail.

On July 13, 2001, the Board suspended Attig’s license but issued a stay allowing him to continue to practice on a probationary term.

Many additional troubling actions by Planned Parenthood have been documented, including a failure to report child sexual abuse. Reports also show that victims of sex trafficking are sometimes taken to Planned Parenthood centers for forced abortions by their pimps.

  • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

Black Planned Parenthood Employee Claims he was Fired because of his Race

Posted in Planned Parenthood EEOC, Planned Parenthood Employee, Planned Parenthood employee sues with tags , , , , , , , , , , on July 24, 2014 by saynsumthn

On February 6, 2013, the United States District Court , Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denied Planned Parenthood’s motion for summary judgement in a case where they were accused of firing a black employee because of his race.

According to the lawsuit, Edgar Harris, who is African-American filed a civil rights complaint against Planned Parenthood after he was terminated claiming his termination was racist based.

Harris was employed by Planned Parenthood as an armed security guard from March 30, 2009 to September 28, 2011.

Because Harris was scheduled to be in court on September 28, 2011, he asked his supervisor, Tom Hemingway, to find coverage for his shift on that date. On September 27, 2011, Hemingway told Harris that no coverage was available. According to Hemingway, Harris became angry and made the
statement, “I should shoot this place up.”

Hemingway states that he became concerned and asked another employee to speak to Harris. Hemingway left the premises and Harris completed his shift. On September 28, 2011, Cathy Williams, Planned Parenthood’s Vice President of Human Resources, informed Harris that his employment was terminated for making a threat.

Harris then filed a claim for unemployment benefits which was initially denied based on the finding that he had been discharged for misconduct.

After receiving testimony from Harris and a witness from Planned Parenthood, the Appeals Tribunal determined that Harris did not make the threat for which he was terminated and that Harris was
not disqualified from unemployment benefits.

Harris filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), in which he alleged that he was terminated because of his race. According to Harris’ sworn statement to the EEOC, Williams told him over the telephone that he was terminated because he threatened “to shoot up the place.”

Harris denied making the statement and pointed out to Williams that Hemingway would not have allowed Harris to complete his shift if he had made such a threat.

Harris states that Williams refused to consider Harris’ argument or conduct an investigation and opted to believe Hemingway, who is white, instead of Harris.

Despite terminating his employment for making a violent threat, Williams told Harris that he could come to the facility to pick up his paycheck. Harris states that before his termination, he “always had excellent job performance.”

The case continues….(here)

EEOC posts new guidelines on pregnancy discrimination which include access to contraception and abortion

Posted in EEOC with tags , , , , , , , , on July 21, 2014 by saynsumthn

Screenshot 1

On July 14, 2014, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released their new EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues, which included contraception and abortion.

According to the EEOC, this is the first comprehensive update of the Commission’s guidance on the subject of discrimination against pregnant workers since the 1983 publication of a Compliance Manual chapter on the subject. This guidance supersedes that document and incorporates significant developments in the law during the past 30 years.

In their press release the EEOC states that in addition to addressing the requirements of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), the guidance discusses the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as amended in 2008, to individuals who have pregnancy-related disabilities.

Pregnancy is not a justification for excluding women from jobs that they are qualified to perform, and it cannot be a basis for denying employment or treating women less favorably than co-workers similar in their ability or inability to work,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “Despite much progress, we continue to see a significant number of charges alleging pregnancy discrimination, and our investigations have revealed the persistence of overt pregnancy discrimination, as well as the emergence of more subtle discriminatory practices. This guidance will aid employers, job seekers, and workers in complying with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Americans with Disabilities Act, and thus advance EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan priority of addressing the emerging issue of the interaction between these two anti-discrimination statutes.”

Much of the analysis in the enforcement guidance is an update of longstanding EEOC policy. The guidance sets out the fundamental Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) requirements that an employer may not discriminate against an employee on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and that women affected by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions must be treated the same as other persons similar in their ability or inability to work.

But the government department which can go after employers also details their rules on contraception in section D entitled: Discrimination Based on Use of Contraception:

Depending on the specific circumstances, employment decisions based on a female employee’s use of contraceptives may constitute unlawful discrimination based on gender and/or pregnancy. Contraception is a means by which a woman can control her capacity to become pregnant, and, therefore, Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination based on potential pregnancy necessarily includes a prohibition on discrimination related to a woman’s use of contraceptives.38 For example, an employer could not discharge a female employee from her job because she uses contraceptives.39

Employers can violate Title VII by providing health insurance that excludes coverage of prescription contraceptives, whether the contraceptives are prescribed for birth control or for medical purposes.40 Because prescription contraceptives are available only for women, a health insurance plan facially discriminates against women on the basis of gender if it excludes prescription contraception but otherwise provides comprehensive coverage.41 To comply with Title VII, an employer’s health insurance plan must cover prescription contraceptives on the same basis as prescription drugs, devices, and services that are used to prevent the occurrence of medical conditions other than pregnancy.42 For example, if an employer’s health insurance plan covers preventive care for medical conditions other than pregnancy, such as vaccinations, physical examinations, prescription drugs that prevent high blood pressure or to lower cholesterol levels, and/or preventive dental care, then prescription contraceptives also must be covered..

EEOC Contraceptions

In addition to the RULES- I found the verbiage in the footnotes very interesting as well:

37 See, e.g., Commission Decision on Coverage of Contraception (Dec. 14, 2000) (because prescription contraceptives are available only for women, employer’s explicit refusal to offer insurance coverage for them is, by definition, a sex-based exclusion), available at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/decision-contraception.html (last visited May 5, 2014).

38. What is written in the footnotes is even more eye opening: 38 Id.; see also Cooley v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 281 F. Supp. 2d 979, 984 (E.D. Mo. 2003) (“[A]s only women have the potential to become pregnant, denying a prescription medication that allows women to control their reproductive capacity is necessarily a sex-based exclusion.”); Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., 141 F. Supp. 2d 1266, 1271-72 (W.D. Wash. 2001) (exclusion of prescription contraceptives from employer’s generally comprehensive prescription drug plan violated PDA). The Eighth Circuit’s assertion in In re Union Pac. R.R. Employment Practices Litig., 479 F.3d 936, 942 (2007), that contraception is not “related to pregnancy” because “contraception is a treatment that is only indicated prior to pregnancy” is not persuasive because it is contrary to the Johnson Controls holding that the PDA applies to potential pregnancy.

39. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) provides for religious exemption from a federal law, even if the law is of general applicability and neutral toward religion, if it substantially burdens a religious practice and the government is unable to show that its application would further a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering the interest. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1. In a case decided in June 2014, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al., — S. Ct. —, 82 U.S.L.W. 4636 (U.S. June 30, 2014) (Nos. 13-354 and 13-356), the Supreme Court ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate violated the RFRA as applied to closely held family for-profit corporations whose owners had religious objections to providing certain types of contraceptives. The Supreme Court did not reach the question whether owners of such businesses can assert that the contraceptive mandate violates their rights under the Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause. This enforcement guidance explains Title VII’s prohibition of pregnancy discrimination; it does not address whether certain employers might be exempt from Title VII’s requirements under the First Amendment or the RFRA.

40. See, e.g., Commission Decision on Coverage of Contraception, supra note 37; see also Section 2713(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act, as amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PL 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010) (requiring that non-grandfathered group or individual insurance coverage provide benefits for women’s preventive health services without cost sharing). On August 1, 2011, the Health Resources and Services Administration released guidelines requiring that contraceptive services be included as women’s preventive health services. These requirements became effective for most new and renewed health plans in August 2012. 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815-2713T(b)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 2590.715-2713(b)(1); 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(b)(1) (plans and insurers must cover a newly recommended preventive service starting with the first plan year that begins on or after the date that is one year after the date on which the new recommendation is issued). The Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services issued regulations clarifying the criteria for the religious employer exemption from contraceptive coverage, accommodations with respect to the contraceptive coverage requirement for group health plans established or maintained by eligible organizations (and group health insurance coverage provided in connection with such plans), and student health insurance coverage arranged by eligible organizations that are institutions of higher education. Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act, 78 Fed. Reg. 39869 (July 2, 2013) (to be codified at 26 C.F.R. Part 54; 29 C.F.R. Parts 2510 and 2590; 45 C.F.R. Parts 147 and 1560). But see supra note 39.

41 See Commission Decision on Coverage of Contraception, supra note 37; Erickson, 141 F. Supp. 2d at 1272 (“In light of the fact that prescription contraceptives are used only by women, [defendant’s] choice to exclude that particular benefit from its generally applicable benefit plan is discriminatory.”).

42 See supra note 37. The Commission disagrees with the conclusion in In re Union Pac. R.R. Employment Practices Litig., 479 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2007), that contraception is gender-neutral because it applies to both men and women. Id. at 942. The court distinguished the EEOC’s decision on coverage of contraception by noting that the Commission decision involved a health insurance policy that denied coverage of prescription contraception but included coverage of vasectomies and tubal ligations while the employer in Union Pacific excluded all contraception for women and men, both prescription and surgical, when used solely for contraception and not for other medical purposes. However, the EEOC’s decision was not based on the fact that the plan at issue covered vasectomies and tubal ligations. Instead, the Commission reasoned that excluding prescription contraception while providing benefits for drugs and devices used to prevent other medical conditions is a sex-based exclusion because prescription contraceptives are available only for women. See also Union Pacific, 479 F.3d at 948-49 (Bye, J., dissenting) (contraception is “gender-specific, female issue because of the adverse health consequences of an unplanned pregnancy”; therefore, proper comparison is between preventive health coverage provided to each gender).

As for the EEOC’s guidelines on Pregnant women and Abortion – those read:

Title VII protects women from being fired for having an abortion or contemplating having an abortion. However, Title VII makes clear that an employer that offers health insurance is not required to pay for coverage of abortion except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or medical complications have arisen from an abortion. The statute also makes clear that, although not required to do so, an employer is permitted to provide health insurance coverage for abortion. Title VII would similarly prohibit adverse employment actions against an employee based on her decision not to have an abortion. For example, it would be unlawful for a manager to pressure an employee to have an abortion, or not to have an abortion, in order to retain her job, get better assignments, or stay on a path for advancement.61

And…

b. Insurance Coverage of Abortion

The PDA [THE PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION ACT] makes clear that if an employer provides health insurance benefits, it is not required to pay for health insurance coverage of abortion except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term. If complications arise during the course of an abortion, the health insurance plan is required to pay the costs attributable to those complications.

The statute also makes clear that an employer is not precluded from providing abortion benefits directly or through a collective bargaining agreement. If an employer decides to cover the costs of abortion, it must do so in the same manner and to the same degree as it covers other medical conditions.

One thing is puzzling- I have not seen where the EEOC actually defines when a “pregnancy” begins. I have not fully read through it all. If my readers can locate this, please post a comment !

But – given the way this administration has used many of their “agencies” to go after those who do not politically agree with them, are these “guidelines” the latest tool for the pro-abortion Obama administration to go after businesses who do not comply? We shall soon see…..

DOJ supports Muslim teacher’s lawsuit for denial of hajj pilgrimage to Mecca

Posted in Islam with tags , , , , , , , on December 15, 2010 by saynsumthn

The federal government sued a suburban Chicago school district Monday for denying a Muslim middle school teacher unpaid leave to make a pilgrimage to Mecca that is a central part of her religion.

In a civil rights case, the department said the school district in Berkeley, Ill., denied the request of Safoorah Khan on grounds that her requested leave was unrelated to her professional duties and was not set forth in the contract between the school district and the teachers union. In doing so the school district violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to reasonably accommodate her religious practices, the government said.

Khan wanted to perform the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia which every adult Muslim is supposed to make at least once in a lifetime if they are physically and financially able to. Millions go each year.

Khan started as a middle school teacher for Berkeley School District 87 — about 15 miles west of Chicago — in 2007. In 2008, she asked for almost three weeks of unpaid leave to perform the Hajj. After the district twice denied her request, Khan wrote the board that “based on her religious beliefs, she could not justify delaying performing hajj,” and resigned shortly thereafter, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in Chicago.

Berkeley School District compelled Khan to choose between her job and her religious beliefs, the lawsuit said.

The government asked the court to order the school district to adopt policies that reasonably accommodate its employees’ religious practices and beliefs, and to reinstate Khan with back pay and also pay her compensatory damages.

In November 2008, Khan filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which found reasonable cause that discrimination had occurred and forwarded the matter to the Justice Department. The case is the first brought by department in a project to ensure vigorous enforcement of the 1964 act against state and local governments by improving cooperation between the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the department’s civil rights division.

HERE is the DOJ Press Release:
Justice Department Files Religious Discrimination Lawsuit Against Berkeley School District in Illinois
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department today announced it has filed a lawsuit against Berkeley School District, Berkeley, Ill., alleging that the school district violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of Safoorah Khan, a Muslim teacher at McArthur Middle School.

The government’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago, alleges that Ms. Khan requested an unpaid leave of absence in December 2008 to perform Hajj, a pilgrimage required by her religion. According to the complaint, Berkeley School District denied Ms. Khan’s request because the purpose of her leave was not related to her professional duties nor was it leave for any of the specific purposes set forth in the Professional Negotiations Agreement between the district and the teachers’ union. The United States further alleges that, because Berkeley School District denied her a religious accommodation, the district compelled Ms. Khan to choose between her job and her religious beliefs, and thus forced her discharge.

The lawsuit is based on a charge of discrimination filed by Ms. Khan with the Chicago District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). After investigating Ms. Khan’s charge, finding reasonable cause to believe that Berkeley School District had discriminated against Ms. Khan, and unsuccessfully attempting to conciliate the matter, the EEOC referred the charge to the Department of Justice. More information about the EEOC is available on its website at http://www.eeoc.gov.

In the lawsuit, the United States seeks an order requiring Berkeley School District to adopt a policy designed to reasonably accommodate the religious observances, practices and beliefs of employees and prospective employees. In addition, the United States seeks back pay, compensatory damages and reinstatement for Ms. Khan.

“Employees should not have to choose between their religious practice and their livelihood,” said Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “Federal law prohibits employers from treating employees and applicants less favorably because of their religion, and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for the religious beliefs and practices of their employees.”

“The EEOC is committed to ensuring that individuals are protected from religious discrimination at work,” said Jacqueline A. Berrien, Chair of the EEOC. “We are pleased to foster this important collaboration with the Department of Justice to enforce the laws that ensure our workplaces are free of bias.”

This is the first lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice as a result of a pilot project designed to ensure vigorous enforcement of Title VII against state and local governmental employers by enhancing cooperation between the EEOC and the Civil Rights Division.

The filing of the lawsuit reflects the Civil Right’s Divisions ongoing commitment to actively enforce federal employment discrimination laws. Additional information about the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice is available on its website at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt.

Obama nominee praised polygamy

Posted in child predator, Constitution, Czar, Obama with tags , , , , , , , on October 6, 2009 by saynsumthn

From: WORLD NET DAILY

President Obama’s nominee to become commissioner for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission signed a manifesto praising polygamy and arguing traditional marriage should not be privileged above other forms of union.

Chai Feldblum, an outspoken homosexual rights activist and Georgetown University law professor, is a signatory to an online petition entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision For All Our Families and Relationships.”

The organization defines itself as “a diverse group of nearly twenty LGBT and queer activists [who] came together to discuss marriage and family politics as they exist in the United States today.”

The manifesto, first noticed by the Catholic News Agency, calls for a “new vision” for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of “diverse kinds of partnerships.”

Among the stated “partnerships” the petition seeks to protect is “households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.”

The petition laments what it claims are conservative attempts to push for “abstinence-only sex education, stringent divorce laws, coercive marriage promotion policies directed toward women on welfare, and attacks on reproductive freedom.

The online manifesto declares “marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others.”

Obama two weeks ago announced his intent to nominate Feldblum for Commissioner of the EEOC. She previously served as legislative counsel to the AIDS Project of the American Civil Liberties Union and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun, who famously authored the controversial Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

Feldblum is not shy about her ideas for “revolutionizing” America’s workplace and the country’s social mores.

She is co-director of Workplace Flexibility 2010, which she described at a 2001 UCLA symposium as a homosexual rights group that aimed to change “the American workplace and revolutionize social mores.”

This is a war that needs to be fought, and it’s not a war overseas where we are killing people in the name of liberating them. It is a war right here at home where we need to convince people that morality demands full equality for gay people,” she said at the symposium.

Feldblum did not immediately return a WND request for comment left with a receptionist at her Georgetown office.