29 C.F.R. § 1604.10

Employment policies relating to pregnancy and childbirth

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A written or unwritten employment policy or practice which excludes from employment applicants or employees because of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions is in prima facie violation of title VII.

(b) Disabilities caused or contributed to by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, for all job-related purposes, shall be treated the same as disabilities caused or contributed to by other medical conditions, under any health or disability insurance or sick leave plan available in connection with employment. Written or unwritten employment policies and practices involving matters such as the commencement and duration of leave, the availability of extensions, the accrual of seniority and other benefits and privileges, reinstatement, and payment under any health or disability insurance or sick leave plan, formal or informal, shall be applied to disability due to pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions on the same terms and conditions as they are applied to other disabilities. Health insurance benefits for abortion, except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or where medical complications have arisen from an abortion, are not required to be paid by an employer; nothing herein, however, precludes an employer from providing abortion benefits or otherwise affects bargaining agreements in regard to abortion.

(c) Where the termination of an employee who is temporarily disabled is caused by an employment policy under which insufficient or no leave is available, such a termination violates the Act if it has a disparate impact on employees of one sex and is not justified by business necessity.

(d)(1) Any fringe benefit program, or fund, or insurance program which is in effect on October 31, 1978, which does not treat women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions the same as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work, must be in compliance with the provisions of § 1604.10(b) by April 29, 1979. In order to come into compliance with the provisions of 1604.10(b), there can be no reduction of benefits or compensation which were in effect on October 31, 1978, before October 31, 1979 or the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement in effect on October 31, 1978, whichever is later.

(2) Any fringe benefit program implemented after October 31, 1978, must comply with the provisions of § 1604.10(b) upon implementation.

[44 FR 23805, Apr. 20, 1979]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 88 cases, 1973–2015 · leading case: Young v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1338 (2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Young v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1338 (2015). · cites it 4× “” 29 CFR §1604.10 (b) (1975). Indeed, as early as 1972, EEOC guidelines provided: Cite as: 575 U.”

Nashville Gas Co. v. Satty, 434 U.S. 136 (1977). · cites it 2× “" 29 CFR § 1604.10 (b) (1976). In Gilbert, we rejected another portion of this same guideline because it conflicted with prior, and thus more contemporaneous, interpretations of the EEOC, with interpretations of other federal agencies charged with executing legislation dealing…”

Reilly v. Revlon, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 2d 524 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). · cites it 2× “Regulations promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission further provide that, “Disabilities caused or contributed to by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, for all job-related purposes, shall be treated the same as disabilities caused or…”

Laurie L. Abraham v. Graphic Arts Int'l Union, 660 F.2d 811 (D.C. Cir. 1981). · cites it 3× “29 C.F.R. § 1604.10 (b) (1979). This guideline was approved by the Satty Court.”

In Re: Carnegie Ctr. Assocs., Debtor. Deborah Rhett, Appellant, v. Carnegie Ctr. Assocs., 129 F.3d 290 (3rd Cir. 1997). · cites it 3× “29 C.F.R. § 1604.10 (b). The interpretive question and answer section accompanying the regulation specifies that an employer must hold open the job of a woman absent because of pregnancy “on the same basis as jobs are held open for employees on sick or disability leave for other…”

Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974). · cites it 2× “29 CFR § 1604.10 , 37 Fed. Reg. 6837 . While the statutory amendments and the administrative regulations are, of course, inapplicable to the cases now before us, they will affect like suits in the future.”

AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen, 556 U.S. 701 (2009). · cites it 2× “In terms closely resembling the EEOC’s current Guideline, see 29 CFR §1604.10 (2008), the Commission counseled: “Written and unwritten employment policies and practices involving .”

Kimberly Hern Troupe v. The May Dep't Stores Co., Doing Bus. as Lord & Taylor, 20 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 1994). “604 (EEOC Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Sex: Questions and Answers on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act) — to make it as easy, say, as it is for their spouses to continue working during pregnancy. Employers can treat pregnant women as badly as they treat similarly…”

Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Houston Funding II, Ltd., 717 F.3d 425 (5th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “’ 29 C.F.R. § 1604.10 (b) (1979). 4 Many medical dictionaries do not define the term “medical condition,” but they often define the terms “condition” and “medical” individually.”

Gardner v. Nat'l Airlines, Inc., 434 F. Supp. 249 (S.D. Fla. 1977). · cites it 3× “29 C.F.R. § 1604.10 (a) provided in pertinent part: “(a) A written .”

Karen McQuistion v. City of Clinton, Iowa Mark Regenwether Jeffrey Farwell & Jeffrey Horne, 872 N.W.2d 817 (Iowa 2015). “10(2): (1973); ■ see also 29 C.F.R. § 1604.10 (1973). Second, the ICRC- declared that the “employment policies and practices involving .”

34 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1192, 34 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,341 Lynn T. Levin, & Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 730 F.2d 994 (5th Cir. 1984). · cites it 2× “§ 2000e(k), 2 and regulations promulgated thereunder, 29 C.F.R. § 1604.10 . 3 Delta defended on the ground that the presence of pregnant flight attendants would pose a threat to the safe operation of its flights, particularly in an emergency situation.”

Show all 88 citing cases →

— 29 C.F.R. § 1604.10(b) — 5 cases

10 Fair empl.prac.cas. 435, 9 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,035 Commc'ns Workers of Am., Afl-Cio, Esther Skipper, Individually & on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Non-Supervisory Female Employees of Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., Long Lines Dep't v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., Long Lines Dep't, 513 F.2d 1024 (2d Cir. 1975).

Gleklen, Amy v. Dem Cong Campgn Com, 199 F.3d 1365 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

Taylor Fed'n of Teachers v. Bd. of Educ., 249 N.W.2d 399 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).

Commc'ns Workers v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 513 F.2d 1024 (2d Cir. 1975).

Commc'ns Workers of Am. v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., 509 F. Supp. 6 (N.D. Ill. 1980).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.