|
Los Angeles Times, July 26, 2005
Railroad Must
Cover Birth Control
Author : Molly Selvin
In a sharply critical ruling, a Nebraska federal
district judge said Union Pacific Corp. illegally
discriminated against female employees by barring
prescription contraceptive coverage from its
health plans -- even as it underwrote the cost
of Viagra and drugs for male-pattern baldness.
The judge's decision, issued Friday, is the latest
victory for women's rights advocates in a series
of battles fought in state legislatures and
courtrooms over the issue of contraceptive
access.
U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith Camp in Omaha
did not order the nation's largest railroad
to immediately begin covering contraception
for female employees or the wives of male workers,
but did rule that the company's policy violates
the 1964 Federal Civil Rights Act.
Later rulings will flesh out the remedies Union
Pacific must adopt to comply with the law,
which bars employers with 15 or more workers
from discriminating on the basis of sex.
A spokesman for Omaha-based Union Pacific, however,
said that the railroad would probably appeal
the ruling in part because union representatives
chose not to seek contraceptive coverage as
part of their most recent labor agreement.
For now, the company plans no changes in its
healthcare plans.
Roberta Riley, one of the lawyers for Planned
Parenthood of Western Washington who represented
the railroad's female employees in the class
action, said she was elated by the decision.
"It's heartening to see that this judge
did understand," she said.
Two female Union Pacific engineers, from Idaho
and Missouri, brought the sex discrimination
claim three years ago, asking the company to
reimburse them for out-of-pocket expenses for
Food and Drug Administration-approved birth
control medication in the same way it reimburses
men for impotence drugs and other gender-specific
conditions.
Friday's ruling extends the reach of a 2001 federal
court decision that applies only in western
Washington state. In that case, female employees
of a local drugstore chain won a court order
requiring the company to provide contraceptive-related
services to women on the same basis that it
offers coverage for other outpatient services
and prescription drugs.
After the 2001 decision, many U.S. companies
began to offer contraceptive coverage. The
decision also helped spark laws in many states
requiring employers to cover the cost of birth
control pills, diaphragms and other medically
prescribed devices. California passed a similar
law in 1999.
Those statutes do not apply to large self-insured
corporations such as Union Pacific, which are
bound by federal insurance laws instead. Federal
legislation that would require healthcare plans
to cover all forms of prescription contraception
and related outpatient medical services has
been stalled in Congress.
Union Pacific employs 49,000 workers nationwide,
including 6,000 in California. The ruling affects
not only the company's 1,300 female employees
covered by collective bargaining agreements
but, according to lawyers for the plaintiffs,
also wives of male union workers.
In its briefs, the railroad justified its decision
to exclude birth control coverage by arguing
that "because fertility is 'normal,' contraception
is not 'medically necessary.' " Company
health plans do cover contraceptives if prescribed
for a "non-contraceptive purpose,"
such as the treatment of skin diseases or menstrual
disorders.
In a 16-page decision granting summary judgment
to the plaintiffs, the judge agreed that pregnancy
is normal, but noted, "There is also no
doubt that pregnancy is a condition that has
a profound impact on a woman's health."
<< Los Angeles Times -- 7/26/05 >>
Send this page to a
friend!
Home About
Us Newsletters News
Archives Donate
|