Archive for Pregnancy Discrimination

VIDEO: Workers recount Planned Parenthood’s ‘dark’ culture of pregnancy discrimination

Posted in Planned Parenthood Abuses, Planned Parenthood Employee, Planned Parenthood former employee, Planned Parenthood Pregnancy Discrimination with tags , , , , , , , , on January 15, 2019 by saynsumthn

Former Planned Parenthood medical assistant Ta’Lisa Hairston, recently highlighted in a New York Times expose detailing how she and other pregnant staffers experienced discrimination while working for the abortion corporation, has spoken out in an interview for the first time since the article was published. Hairston told the Times that Planned Parenthood ignored her obstetrician’s orders requiring her to take frequent breaks. Hairston gave birth prematurely and told the Times that just two months later, Planned Parenthood “began calling her at home, telling her to return to work early.” She further describes the harassment and stress she suffered at the hands of her former employer.

Image: Ta Lisa Hairston discriminated against during pregnancy by Planned Parenthood

Ta Lisa Hairston discriminated against during pregnancy by Planned Parenthood

In an interview with host Catherine Hadro of EWTN’s Pro-life Weekly, Hairston says Planned Parenthood forced her to work long shifts while she was pregnant, some up to twelve hours, extending to her very few breaks. “I wouldn’t get one or if I did go on lunch, I was pulled out of the lunch room to see patients.”

Hairston developed preeclampsia, a serious condition which can result in complications for mother and baby — even death, if left untreated. “It was so bad that I was put on bed rest multiple times,” Hairston said in her EWTN interview.

Hairston was eventually admitted to the hospital where she swiftly received an emergency C-section to avoid the rupture of her liver.

After just one week, Planned Parenthood claimed it had not received paperwork necessary for Hairston to qualify for federally guaranteed maternity leave. The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides “certain employees with up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave per year.” Hairston told EWTN:

And I told them that my doctor had sent it… two weeks before when I was placed on immediate bed rest.

And then, shortly after I was getting calls stating that I had to come back to work and my son had just came home from the NICU. He hadn’t even been a month old. And I know with FMLA, like I can stay home for up to three months, (twelve weeks) if you have a C-section. And, it wasn’t even the twelve weeks yet and they were telling me that I had to return to work.

Hairston eventually left Planned Parenthood due to the pressure they were applying.

“It came to an end when I requested for planned family leave… and it’s for bonding with newborns where you can get extra time off and it is paid. I requested that. And two of the women from HR said that I was not eligible for it. I could either do… one week of PTO, thirty days unpaid leave or tender my resignation.”

At this point in the interview, Hairston became emotional, adding, “With all of the stress that I felt… I just felt that it was best to just leave because [of] the way I was treated throughout my whole pregnancy and maternity leave. I couldn’t enjoy my son or get myself better again to take care of him.”

At the end of the interview, Hadro asked Hairston what she would tell other women seeking careers at Planned Parenthood. Her response? “I would tell them to think twice and know exactly what you’re getting yourself into. And I would tell them just turn the other way. There’s better opportunities out there.”

Since leaving Planned Parenthood, Hairston has found a new place of employment that she says she enjoys and where she feels “respected.”

Image: Annette Lancaster former Planned Parenthood manager (Image: EWTN's Pro-life Weekly)

Annette Lancaster former Planned Parenthood manager (Image: EWTN’s Pro-life Weekly)

Annette Lancaster, who used to manage a Planned Parenthood facility in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, also spoke on the EWTN program, describing Planned Parenthood’s culture as “very dark.” She said, “One of the things that I spoke out about was that they were very biased towards our pregnant employees.”

Lancaster claimed to have personally witnessed how pregnant staffer members were terminated by Planned Parenthood. “Like I said to the New York Times, if it was one time it would have been coincidence. But the fact that it happened twice was very curious to me…. There is so much that goes on behind the scenes that the American population just does not know.”

Live Action News has detailed additional complaints by Planned Parenthood staffers who say the abortion corporation does not pay a fair wage, prioritizes profit over care, and is a toxic environment.

Planned Parenthood receives half a billion in federal taxpayer dollars annually despite numerous scandals, accusations of fraudthe cover-up of child sexual abuse, and other abuses.

    • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News. (Note: This blog added additional images)

Planned Parenthood staffers: toxic work environment, pregnancy discrimination, intimidation, prioritizes profit over care

Posted in Alan F. Guttmacher, Planned Parenthood Employee, Planned Parenthood former employee, Planned Parenthood Low Wages, Planned Parenthood Pregnancy Discrimination, Planned Parenthood Reviews, Planned Parenthood Unions, Planned Parenthood Whistleblower, Planned Parenthood Work Environment, Pregnancy Discrimination with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 4, 2019 by saynsumthn

As employees speak out, Planned Parenthood’s mask begins to crack

mask, Planned Parenthood

A new phenomenon appears to be taking place at Planned Parenthood. In what was a shock to many, in 2018, political activist president Cecile Richards suddenly announced her resignation, followed by that of VP Dawn Laguens and VP of Communications, Kevin Griffis, among others. Planned Parenthood hired ER doctor Leana Wen — who has called abortion “health care” — to replace Richards, and vowed that abortion will be its focus in 2019. But at the same time, employees of the so-called “women’s rights organization” are spilling long-held secrets and exposing inner workings and toxic attitudes of the organization, founded 100 years ago by eugenicist Margaret Sanger. While these revelations might come as a surprise to pro-choicers, pro-lifers know that the organization’s roots have been rotten since its inception.

Lower level staffers revolt against Planned Parenthood’s corporate greed

While Planned Parenthood as a corporation was busy raking in millions in excess revenue over the past several years, its staffers claim it failed to pay them a decent wage. As a result, Planned Parenthood employees began unionizing. A report from In These Times claims Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM) employees first began organizing in 2016, and it was the sixth local affiliate to do so. “In at least two of these cases, the local employer was accused of attempting to squelch worker organizing,” the media outlet reported.

But why did PPRM employees attempt to unionize?

Their key issues included wages—according to the union, the median annual wage for PPRM employees is $35,000, which is at the low end of the median range for health workers given by the Bureau of Labor Statistics—high staff turnover and prohibitively high costs of adding family members to employee health insurance.”

When employees spoke out, staffers claim Planned Parenthood intimidated them.

Suzanne Thorp, who has worked for PPRM since 2013, claims PPRM revoked her ticket to a fundraiser out of fear she would encourage donors not to use their dollars for anti-union efforts. A June 2018 post published on the Facebook page of the PPRM Union Bargaining Team claims the organization called the police after Thorp showed up outside the event. The abortion corporation later denied the claim.

Image: Suzanne Thorp – Planned Parenthood treatment for unionizing

Suzanne Thorp – Planned Parenthood treatment for unionizing

READ: Planned Parenthood ignores safety, wants non-doctors to commit abortions

Another alleged staffer wrote about Planned Parenthood’s fight against unionizing on Instagram: “Friends – today is my last day working for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains…. PPRM’s management have only pushed back in order to keep us from accessing our basic employee rights…. I’ve given the last two years of my life to this cause that I love so much and to see my colleagues bullied like this by the agency they have worked so hard for breaks my f**king heart…”

Others joined in:

Image: Planned Parenthood staffers on unionizing

Planned Parenthood staffers on unionizing

Grim added in another tweet, “I know @CecileRichards is gone but really is this the new regime? Affiliates spending ‘up to a million dollars’ to block union efforts.”

Employees publicly complain about shoddy treatment 

In addition to low wages, one PPRM staffer took to Twitter to reveal that Planned Parenthood even looked down on employees for taking their rightfully earned work breaks:

“Solstice Fairy” added in another tweet, “Stop shouting ‘SELF CARE!!!!’ at us when we say we need a moment to pee or drink or eat. Taking a lunch break is not self care. It is a federally mandated right of employees working more than 6 hours in a day….”

Reviews published at Indeed.com (more not shown here) display more worker dissatisfaction:

Other review make it clear that patients are herded through like cattle, stating that “they schedule you patients every 10 minutes.”

 

READ: Investigative Report: Planned Parenthood affiliate CEO salaries still climbing

Planned Parenthood appears to be rotting from within as staffers expose the organization’s hypocrisy. The most recent example occurred when Planned Parenthood whistleblowers told the New York Times the abysmal way the organization discriminates against pregnant employees.

Prior to that report, Live Action News revealed that Planned Parenthood insiders in Nashville exposed how the corporation’s leaders were prioritizing profits over care, something pro-lifers have known for years.

A brief history: Planned Parenthood’s push for abortion always wins over actual health care

Prioritizing profits over care isn’t new for Planned Parenthood. Years after founder Margaret Sanger died, Alan F. Guttmacher, a physician and former VP of the Eugenics Society, took the reins. Guttmacher was obsessed with population control and led the corporation to become an abortion vendor. Later, Faye Wattleton, an African American woman, was appointed president (chosen, many believe, to quell suspicion of eugenics among the Black community), who doubled down on promoting abortion. Years later, president Pamela Maraldo attempted to tone down the abortion emphasis with an effort to reinvent the corporation into a health care organization, but was ousted by pro-abortion zealots on the inside.

READ: Report: Planned Parenthood discriminated against pregnant employees

Planned Parenthood eventually appointed Cecile Richards, who had no health care experience, to supervise the surge of abortions, tax dollars, excess revenue, and CEO salaries — all while Planned Parenthood’s actual health services and clients plummeted. Richards’ goal was to build the abortion corporation into the largest “kick butt political organization” to reinforce Planned Parenthood’s political laundering scheme. She presided over numerous scandals, accusations of fraudthe cover-up of child sexual abuse, and much more.

What is emerging today is a truer picture of Planned Parenthood as its image begins to show cracks, even in the way it treats employees and patients. It has for too long masqueraded as a health care organization while tragically ending the lives of over 320,000 preborn children each year by abortion.

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

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.

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…..

Woman said she was fired after pregnancy- refused supervisor’s suggestion to have an abortion

Posted in Abortion, Pregnancy Discrimination, pro-choice, pro-choice violence, Pro-Life with tags , , , , on September 21, 2010 by saynsumthn

Woman Claims She Was Fired For Being Pregnant
By David Begnaud
SACRAMENTO (CBS13) ―

Video Here

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Video Library – cbs13.com, posted with vodpod

Cristina Porter said she was fired from her job as events coordinator because she was pregnant.

A local woman has filed a lawsuit against her former employer, claiming she was punished and let go because she was pregnant, but the company’s attorneys are denying the allegations.

Cristina Porter, 24, has worked for Scott’s Seafood since she was 17 and was employed last year as the events coordinator at the restaurant’s Sacramento location. When she passed out at work one day in 2009, she found out she was pregnant.

Porter alleges she told a supervisor about the pregnancy and asked he “keep the information private,” according to the lawsuit.

“He asked some questions about my personal life, about the relationship that I had with my child’s father and suggested that I have an abortion,” Porter said.

The pregnancy wasn’t planned, but Cristina said abortion wasn’t an option for her.

“He told former customers of mine and employees that I was getting an abortion,” she said.

When Porter asked about her health care coverage, she alleges someone in the company’s administration said she was “making a big mistake keeping the baby.”

One month after revealing her pregnancy, Porter says she was written up.

“My client didn’t meet the food and beverage minimum that they signed off on and I got written up for that,” she said.

Five months later, she called in sick after being diagnosed with “a viral infection and dislocated rib,” according to the lawsuit. Two days later, Porter said she was fired.

“I don’t see a reason why I was let go, especially the state of pregnancy I was in,” she said. “I mean, I was a first-time mom. I needed the income.”

In an e-mail to CBS13, the attorney for Scott’s Seafood said Porter’s allegations are false.

“Ms. Porter was laid off, along with several other employees, solely due to the economic downturn that has affected so many Sacramento businesses. Her pregnancy had nothing to do with the decision to lay her off,” the e-mail stated.

Porter’s lawyer, Lawrence Bohm, accused the restaurant of punishing her because of her lifestyle choices.

“It’s not okay to be harassed and told that you’re making a wrong decision for choosing to keep your child,” Bohm said.

The lawyer for Scott’s Seafood said the company has never been accused of pregnancy discrimination before Porter’s complaint.

Bohm said he isn’t looking for a settlement for the case; he wants a jury to hear Porter’s claims.