Margarita Covarrubias Bus.

216 July 29, 2011 Article #1 Pregnancy Discrimination Medical and Parental leave laws are difficult to define when it comes to Pregnancy and all its stages. According to Sarah S. Holland, who wrote Pregnancy in Pieces: The potential Gap in State and Federal Pregnancy Leave, current laws divide pregnancy into three stages: Gestation, Childbirth & Recovery, and Parental leave (bonding time). Due to the fact that it is divided in three stages, and not seen as one large process, this leaves pregnant employees vulnerable to termination from employment when gaps in leave occur. The writer begins by covering current laws and points out that while Federal law allows for twelve weeks of leave due to pregnancy related medical issues, the real issue is the variance in laws from state to state and company to company. One case that the writer focuses on throughout the article is Gerety v. Atlantic City Hilton Casino Resort (Hilton) in which Gerety, a previous employee of Hilton, becomes pregnant with twins while still employed by Hilton. In the case between Gerety v. Hilton the writer finds a prime example of what I like to call, Worst-case Scenario. Gerety finds herself pregnant with twins, has difficulties well before childbirth, exceeding the maximum 24 weeks allotted via a combination of Federal law and Company policy. The unfortunate thing is that just 13 days prior to giving birth, Gerety is terminated during her leave gap between Medical/Gestation leave and Child birth/Recovery leave. Gerety, who has worked for almost ten years for Hilton is told that once she has had her children and recovered they will rehire her but she will no longer be eligible for seniority benefits. The writer goes on to compare different States and their laws both good and bad to bring the reader to a solution. The difficulty that the writer finds in making this case is an equality issue. This issue can be split into two parts, (1) The non-pregnant employees and (2) male employees. With non-pregnant employees, when you have something like cancer for example, it is understood that that will be an ongoing process until the employee is in remission. All treatments, appointments, surgeries are acknowledged under one medical issue, opposite from pregnant employees and obviously unequal. With male employees the difficulty is that there is no male equivalent for pregnancy. So how do you make something equal when in and of itself it is clearly not equal to other medical issues? This is where you see the true affects this has on Human resources management. HR has to consider how much it will cost the company to maintain a pregnant employee, cost of money and time hiring and training another employee, Insurance and other benefits costs, and legal costs. In the worst-case scenario a pregnant employee could be absent from work for a year or more. That is a really long time to go without a potentially vital employee. The article does not go too in depth on Geretys specific job but I believe that it would be safe to assume that having

been there as long as she was; she was probably in a supervisory position in some aspect. The cost of leaving that position vacant would be high in itself and the cost of training a new employee to take over that position only to lay them off later is even more costly and effects turnover and moral. During this time you would be required to pay insurance/benefits for the pregnant employee and potentially depending on the length of time needed, you may have to pay insurance and benefits for the additional employee. Last but not least you would also have to look at the legal costs of not evaluating the issue properly and also giving fair treatment to other employees who may not have the same type of medical issue. In my personal opinion and even though I am a mother, I believe that pregnancy is a choice and that you must take responsibility for your actions and all repercussions associated with that choice. With that said when I look at the logical aspect this is a very difficult issue. I will not argue that pregnancy is one large process and not to be split up in to three parts. The problem with this though is that not all pregnancies are uniform. Even with an individual no two pregnancies for that individual are alike. So how can you possibly evaluate that? How do you weed out legitimate claims from the fakes? What levels of illness/medical stress must you be under to qualify? What companies must pay? Not all companies can afford to assume all these costs. Let us say, hypothetically, that we did manage to pass legislation that satisfied all pregnant employees in protecting their rights in a way that seemed fair to the pregnant employees. What about men? What recourse do they have for equal treatment? What about nonpregnant employees? With all these issues, it is no wonder that any legislation in regards to pregnancy leave is so open to interpretation. Again, just my opinion but it is about time that women admitted that in some ways we are not the same as men. In some aspects, women do have to be treated differently. Pregnancy is a prime example of just one of those differences. As for the companies having to take on the responsibility of supporting you, I believe this is unfair. The company did not help make you pregnant. It was not a possible working hazard. When other employees become disabled your employer must make their best effort to accommodate that handicap. But if you are unable to perform in any capacity, they are not required to hire you or even maintain your employment. So, although Geretys story is unfortunate, I do not see how she is truly given unequal treatment. I either way will follow the law no matter my personal opinions, as I know that I will be best protected from lawsuits in that manner

Work Cited Holland, S. (2006). Pregnancy in Pieces: The Potential Gap in State and Federal Pregnancy Leave. Berkeley Journal of Employment & Labor Law, 27(2), 443-467. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.