Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Failure to Cover Does Not Violate ADA, Title VII, or PDA

Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 31 (2):314-316 (2003)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In Saks v. Franklin Covey Co., the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the American with Disabilities Act, Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and New York state law do not proscribe an employer's self-insured employee health plan from excluding surgical impregnation procedures from its coverage. Although the court found that infertility qualifies as a disability under the ADA, it restricted required coverage of certain infedty treatments.Title I of the ADA prohibits an employer from discriminating on the basis of disability “in regard to … fringe benefits available by virtue of employment, whether or not administered by the covered entity.” The ADA defines “disability” as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” In Bragdon v. Abbott, the U.S. Supreme Court found that reproduction was a major life activity under the ADA.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,813

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The new reproductive technologies: Defying God's Dominion?Maura Anne Ryan - 1995 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (4):419-438.
Legal conceptions: the evolving law and policy of assisted reproductive technologies.Susan L. Crockin - 2010 - Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Edited by Howard Wilbur Jones.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-31

Downloads
8 (#1,339,162)

6 months
3 (#1,036,110)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references