A recent decision by U.S. District Judge Lynn [male Lynn] Hughes, has received a lot of attention. The issue of the decision was whether federal law prevents an employer from firing an employee for pumping breast milk at work. The employee asked for a place at work where she could discretely pump milk for her new-born child. She was then "laid off." The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 prevents an employer from discriminating based on "pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition." Is lactation and breast feeding a "related medical condition?" No says Judge Hughes. A "medical condition," stated Hueghes, "includes cramping, dizziness, and nausea while pregnant." The judge went on to explain that Title VII does not provide protection for child care needs.
Two issues seem to be swept under the rug with this decision. First is that lactation does not typically happen spontaneously. From my brief observations of the world, lactation is a [medical] condition that occurs as a result of pregnancy... I could be wrong about this. Second is that Title VII, as amended by the PDA, prevents discrimination "because of sex" or "on the basis of sex." By the inclussion of the phrase "but are not limited to," the Act was meant to have an expansive interpretation. The responsibility of breastfeeding is predominately a female task... there are some exceptions [see photo]. If lactation is unique to the female sex, then Title VII is implicated.
That is very disappointing, and I hope the decision is overruled. The two issues you pointed out are quite appropriate and should have been taken into consideration by Hughes.
ReplyDeleteI think the judge was worried that he would open the door to claims of discrimination for child care responsibilities. Although we hope that child care is a responsibility of both parents, breastfeeding is sex specific. Perhaps Congress will step in to clarify this matter.
ReplyDelete