Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-05T07:18:16.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Insurance: Exclusion of Contraception Found Discriminatory by EEOC

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Wendy Netter
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , Spring 2001 , pp. 104 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was established by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and began operating on July 2, 1965. As a federal administrative agency, the EEOC enforces the principal federal statutes prohibiting employment discrimination.Google Scholar
While the EEOC typically determines cause in specific cases at the local level, this Commission-level decision was deemed necessary because of the importance of the topic and the need to formulate an agency-wide policy.Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq. (1978).Google Scholar
Medical treatment and services that were covered included prescription drugs, vaccinations, and “preventative medical care,” to name a few.Google Scholar
Decision on Coverage of Contraception, EEOC Report (visited Jan 18, 2001) <http://www.eeoc.gov/docs/decision-contraception.html>..>Google Scholar
Id., quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k) (1978).Google Scholar
499 U.S. 187 (1991).Google Scholar
Decision on Coverage of Contraception, supra note 5, at 199, 211.Google Scholar
29 U.S.C. § 1144(a) (2000).Google Scholar
Decision on Coverage of Contraception, supra note 5.Google Scholar
Dreazen, Y.J. and Lueck, S., “Excluding Women's Contraceptives from Health Plans Ruled Violation,” Wall Street Journal, Dec. 15, 2000, at B10.Google Scholar
“National Women's Law Center Hails EEOC Ruling on Contraceptive Insurance Coverage,” US Newswire, December 14, 2000, 2000 WL 26852142.Google Scholar
Dreazen, , Lueck, , supra note 11.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Decision on Coverage of Contraception, supra note 5, at footnote 3.Google Scholar
Decision on Coverage of Contraception, supra note 5.Google Scholar
“Employee Benefits: EEOC says plans covering Viagra for men must also cover women's contraceptives,” BNA's Health Law Reporter (Dec. 21, 2001).Google Scholar
29 U.S.C.A. § 623 et seq. (2000).Google Scholar
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Erie County Retirees Association v. County of Erie, Pa., 220 F.3d 193 (3rd Cir. 2000), surprised both attorneys and health benefits experts by holding that it was a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to offer different benefits, terms, and conditions to Medicare-eligible retirees because of their age without meeting the “equal benefit or equal cost” standard. Health industry experts say the ruling “would be the death knell for retiree benefits” if it were to stand. See “HMOs May See Employer Market Shrink Under Federal Appeals Court Ruling,” Managed Medicare and Medicaid, August 28, 2000, 2000 WL 9419849.Google Scholar