Steve: Your argument here would suggest that the court should reverse Griswold. Moreover, oral contraception is used for other things besides birth control. And when used for birth control is more effective than condoms and does not require the cooperation of men. Indeed, your solution essentially says that women should not control whether they get pregnant but rather it should be left of to the men.
---- Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, NY 12208 518-445-3386 (p) 518-445-3363 (f) pf...@albanylaw.edu www.paulfinkelman.com --- On Thu, 8/13/09, Steven Jamar <stevenja...@gmail.com> wrote: From: Steven Jamar <stevenja...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: EEOC says Catholic College Discriminated by Removing Contraceptive Coverage from Health Insurance To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 7:43 AM I haven't really kept up with decisions and actions in this area, but the Supreme Court held that refusal of pregnancy benefits was not sex discrimination and so it would seem that it would easily enough use the same (il)logic to rule that there was no sex discrimination here -- just run-of-the-mill coverage limitations. Besides, women get the same coverage as men -- they can buy condoms too -- which, one would expect, would be within any deductible amount anyway. I'll be interested to see what those more versed in this area say based on current law. Steve On Aug 13, 2009, at 7:23 AM, Will Esser wrote: I am interested in Listserv participants reactions to the following story (which I have copied below from the following site: http://www.gastongazette..com/news/college-36646-discriminated-eeoc.html ) ____________________________ The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determined that Belmont Abbey College discriminated against women and retaliated against faculty members who filed a charge of employment discrimination, according to EEOC documents. An EEOC determination letter states that the college discriminated based on gender by denying contraceptive benefits in the college’s health coverage plan, according to an EEOC determination. Contraception, abortion and voluntary sterilization came off Belmont Abbey College’s faculty health care policy in December 2007 after a faculty member discovered that coverage, according to an e-mail Belmont Abbey College President Bill Thierfelder sent to school staff, students, alumni and friends of the college. “By denying prescription contraception drugs, Respondent (the college) is discriminating based on gender because only females take oral prescription contraceptives,” wrote Reuben Daniels Jr., the EEOC Charlotte District Office Director in the determination. “By denying coverage, men are not affected, only women.” The EEOC also determined that the college retaliated against eight faculty members who filed charges with the EEOC by identifying them by name in a letter to faculty and staff. “It is the Commission’s position that the identity of an individual who has filed a charge should be protected with confidentiality during the Commission’s investigation,” Daniels wrote. “By disclosing Charging Party’s name, a chilling effect was created on Respondent’s campus whereby other faculty and staff members would be reluctant to file a charge of employment discrimination for fear of disclosure.” The EEOC asked both the faculty and the college to work with it to reach a resolution. If the college declines to discuss the settlement or an acceptable settlement is not reached, the director would inform the two sides and advise them of the court enforcement alternatives available. _____________________________ There are a couple of things that I find fascinating about this story: (a) First, although not explicitly mentioned in this particular story, the EEOC reversed its former finding that there was no discrimination by the college.. (You can find mention of this reversal in other stories on the web including http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=3235) I am not an employment expert, but it is my understanding that reversals of position by the EEOC are exceptionally rare (and presumably take place as a result of a "directive from on high"). Do any Listserv members have insight on this point? (b) Although the college modified its health insurance coverage to exclude abortion, sterilization and contraception, the EEOC decision only focuses on contraception. I wonder about the rationale involved here, particuarly vis-a-vis abortion. The EEOC held that: "By denying prescription contraception drugs, Respondent (the college) is discriminating based on gender because only females take oral prescription contraceptives." Using that rationale, why would the same not apply to abortion? Was the EEOC simply shying away from abortion as a more hot button issue? My guess is that we will be seeing more and more lawsuits in this area of the law. This is particularly likely if employers are mandated to provide health insurance coverage under a new federal system which requires health insurance coverage for abortion / sterilization / contraception. I look forward to your comments. Will P.S. For full disclaimer, I am an alum of Belmont Abbey College, taught a pre-law course there as an adjunct faculty member a few years ago, and remain involved in alumni activities with the college. I am not however, involved in the EEOC action in any way other than as an observer. Will Esser --- Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam Charlotte, North Carolina ******************** We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy is when men are afraid of the light. Plato (428-345 B.C.) ********************_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.orgHoward University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567http://iipsj.com/SDJ/ "I do not at all resent criticism, even when, for the sake of emphasis, it for a time parts company with reality." Winston Churchill, speech to the House of Commons, 1941 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
