There is a long time history of pregnant women’s struggle for equality not only in the workplace but also in all social spheres. Accordingly, “new mothers are vulnerable not only to being fired, but to being kicked out of school, humiliated, and even, when they breastfeed, banished from the public sphere” (Migdal par. 4). Even though the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) requires employers to provide employees job-protection and unpaid leave for pregnancy and other reasons, there are still many cases when pregnant women lose their job and feel discrimination (Migdal par. 2). However, with a general understanding of the existence of pregnant women’s discrimination in the workplace, there is also a big debate whether any form of governmental protection of pregnant women appears to be a form of sex discrimination. With the division of people on pregnant and non-pregnant persons, the fact that woman can be pregnant in future already creates a ground for sex discrimination in the society (Migdal par. 4). Despite the fact that pregnant women have some disability rights by the laws, there are still many misperceptions and prejudices towards pregnant women by employers.
The reasons for pregnant women’s discrimination are also a result of a gap between discrimination and disability laws (Bakst par 2). In order to find the consensus, it is necessary to define what civil rights pregnant women have. Civil rights are a “protection of citizen equally provided by the government” (Ginsberg et al. p. 93). Today, the concepts of civil rights are deeply integrated into Constitutional Amendments and federal laws, such as the Civil Right Act of 1964. The Title VII of the Civil Right Act prohibits the sex discrimination of pregnant women (EEOC 1978).
In addition, the section 701 of the Civil Right Act states that “women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes (EEOC 1978 par. 4)”. However, there is Amendment to the Americans With Disabilities Act of 2008 that also shed more light on this issue. According to this act, the pregnancy itself is not considered as a disability. Though, several impairments “resulting from pregnancy (for example, gestational diabetes or preeclampsia)” can be considered as disabilities by a doctor’s statement (EEOC n.d. par. 6). As a result, the employer may be obliged to provide specific accommodations for the pregnant woman who would be considered as disabled. These accommodations may include a special seat, allowance to use more frequent restroom breaks, or restrict heavy lifting (Bakst par. 5). Thus, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows taking three months leave for parents with a new child (EEOC n.d. par. 8).
According to the report by Migdal, the Supreme Court decided that the FMLA do not protect public employees who will soon become parents if their employers fire them. Their main argument is that the FMLA is a neutral act that avoids discrimination based on sex only. The dissenting justice raised the question of a strong interrelation between sex and pregnancy discriminations and pointed out about the lack of constitutional protection for pregnant women. In answering further questions, in many cases, the discrimination of pregnant women is a form of gender discrimination, but it is not a way for an employer to punish a woman. The idea for an employer here is built on the economic perspective, who usually wants a job done and does not want to lose an employee for a long time. Thus, there is also a common misperception that pregnant women want to “bilk extra money from their employers, when in reality, it’s the opposite (Cunha par. 4)”. The Supreme Court does a good job in protecting equal rights of American but it misses the point that there is a discrimination of pregnant women, and there is a big demand for constitutional changes.
Finally, the majority of employers still considers pregnant women as persons that can be instantly fired. The concept of pregnancy is not considered by laws as disability and, therefore, there is no place for pregnant women to be discriminated. In general, there is a big gap between employers, who have prejudices towards pregnancy, and employers, who consider women’s disabilities after seeing a doctor’s statement and try to provide specific accommodations. Employers should better understand the benefits of not firing pregnant women, but rather provide them better conditions to work and future healthy pregnancy. Among these benefits would be an increased woman’s loyalty, better productivity, reducing costs of hiring and educating a new employee. All these factors also need to be considered by governmental legal institutions in order to reduce a struggle of pregnant women’s in their workplace.
Works Cited
Bakst, Dina. Pregnant, and Pushed Out of a Job. 2012.
Cunha, Darlena. When Bosses Discriminate Against Pregnant Women. 2014.
EEOC 1978. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. n.d.
EEOC n.d. Pregnancy Discrimination n.d.
Ginsberg, Benjamin, Theodore J. Lowi, Margaret Weir, Caroline J. Tolbert, Robert J. Spitzer. We the People (Tenth Essentials Edition). New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2015. Print.
Migdal, Ariela. The (Not-So-Secret) War on Moms : How the Supreme Court Took Protections Away from Pregnant Workers. 2012.