(a) General. A recipient shall not apply any policy or take any employment action:
(1) Concerning the potential marital, parental, or family status of an employee or applicant for employment which treats persons differently on the basis of sex; or
(2) Which is based upon whether an employee or applicant for employment is the head of household or principal wage earner in such employee's or applicant's family unit.
(b) Pregnancy. A recipient shall not discriminate against or exclude from employment any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom.
(c) Pregnancy as a temporary disability. A recipient shall treat pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, and recovery therefrom and any temporary disability resulting therefrom as any other temporary disability for all job related purposes, including commencement, duration and extensions of leave, payment of disability income, accrual of seniority and any other benefit or service, and reinstatement, and under any fringe benefit offered to employees by virtue of employment.
(d) Pregnancy leave. In the case of a recipient which does not maintain a leave policy for its employees, or in the case of an employee with insufficient leave or accrued employment time to qualify for leave under such a policy, a recipient shall treat pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy and recovery therefrom as a justification for a leave of absence without pay for a reasonable period of time, at the conclusion of which the employee shall be reinstated to the status which she held when the leave began or to a comparable position, without decrease in rate of compensation or loss of promotional opportunities, or any other right or privilege of employment.
(Secs. 901, 902, Education Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 373, 374; 20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682)
Notes of Decisions
Brunswick Sch. Bd. v. Califano, 449 F. Supp. 866 (D. Me. 1978).
· cites it 14× “Plaintiffs in both actions challenge the validity of an employment practices regulation, 45 C.F.R. § 86.57 (c), promulgated by HEW pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat.”
Caulfield v. Bd. of Ed. of City of New York, 486 F. Supp. 862 (E.D.N.Y 1979).
“1978) (discrimination concerning marital, parental or family status not reached by Title IX; 45 C.F.R. § 86.57 (c) invalid); Seattle University v.”
Othen v. Ann Arbor Sch. Bd., 507 F. Supp. 1376 (E.D. Mich. 1981).
“The specific focus of the litigation was 45 C.F.R. § 86.57 “which requires all federally assisted schools to treat pregnancy equally with sickness and disability for the purposes of leave and compensation benefits438 F.”
Islesboro Sch. Comm. v. Califano, 593 F.2d 424 (1st Cir. 1979).
· cites it 2× “45 C.F.R. § 86.57 (c). Plaintiffs were threatened with a cutoff in federal and state funds.”
Bevsek v. Huerfano Sch. Dist. Re-1, 728 P.2d 325 (Colo. Ct. App. 1986).
“45 C.F.R. § 86.57 (d) (1985) provides that an “employee shall be reinstated to the status which she held when the leave began or to a comparable position, without decrease in rate of compensation or loss of promotional opportunities, or any other right or privilege of employment.”
Gen. Elec. Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125 (1976).
· cites it 2× “See 45 CFR § 86.57 (c) (1976). Moreover, federal workers subject to the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission now are eligible for maternity and pregnancy coverage under their sick leave program.”
Junior Coll. Dist. of St. Louis v. Califano, 597 F.2d 119 (8th Cir. 1979).
“The underlying discrimination charge in Islesboro concerned maternity leave employment policies which HEW asserted violated 45 C.F.R. § 86.57 (c). Other than this factual distinction, the case is identical with the instant one insofar as the legal issues are concerned.”
McCarthy v. Burkholder, 448 F. Supp. 41 (D. Kan. 1978).
“The focus point of the case was the validity of the precise Regulation at issue here — 45 C.F.R. § 86.57 , which requires all federally assisted schools to treat pregnancy as a sickness or disability for purposes of leave and compensation benefits.”
Schs. v. United States Dep't of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 600 F.2d 581 (6th Cir. 1979).
· cites it 2× “The particular regulation which was in dispute was 45 C.F.R. § 86.57 . 2 Under *583 the terms of its collective bargaining agreement, pregnancy is not treated by Romeo the same as other temporary disabilities for a number of job related purposes.”
Seattle Univ. v. United States Dep't of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 621 F.2d 992 (9th Cir. 1980).
“(1) No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination in employment, or recruitment, consideration, or selection therefor, whether full-time or part-time, under any education program or activity…”
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.