1 / 8

Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978

Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. Women’s Rights. Right to vote Right to work Equal Pay Job eqaulity. Muller v. Oregon. 1908 Economic, Social and physical effects Physical and social differences between the sexes warranted a different rule respecting labor contracts.

britanni-fields
Download Presentation

Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978

  2. Women’s Rights • Right to vote • Right to work • Equal Pay • Job eqaulity

  3. Muller v. Oregon • 1908 • Economic, Social and physical effects • Physical and social differences between the sexes warranted a different rule respecting labor contracts. • That women were unequal and inferior to men.

  4. Reed v. Reed • 1971 • Idaho State law • Men preferred over Women • Unconstitutional

  5. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur • 1974 • Pregnant Teachers forced to take leave • Dangerous for the mother • Unable to focus • Children would be distracted • Unconstitutional

  6. Geduldig v. Aiello • 1974 • Pregnant women denied disability insurance • Supreme Court upheld the law • “While it is true that only women can become pregnant…the [California State Disability Insurance] program divides potential recipients into two groups- pregnant women and nonpregnant persons. While the first group is exclusively female, the second group includes members of both sexes. The fiscal and actuarial benefits of the program thus accrue to members of both sexes.”

  7. General Electric Co. v. Gilbert • 1976 • General Electric would not cover pregnant women on its disability insurance • Supreme Court upheld the law • Setting the same precedent for private insurance as public insurance

  8. References • The oyez project at iitchicago-kent college of law. (1907).Muller v. oregonRetrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1907/1907_107 • The oyez project at iitchicago-kent college of law. (1975).General electric co. v. gilbert Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_74_1589 • The oyez project at iitchicago-kent college of law. (1974).Geduldig v. aielloRetrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_73_640 • The oyez project at iitchicago-kent college of law. (1974).Cleveland board of education v. lafleurRetrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_72_777 • The oyez project at iitchicago-kent college of law. (1974).Reed v. reed Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_4

More Related