Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co.
85 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1569, 141 F. Supp. 2d 1266, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7550 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's prescription drug plan that excludes coverage for prescription contraceptives, while otherwise providing comprehensive coverage, constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Facts:
- Bartell Drug Co. (Bartell) offered a generally comprehensive prescription benefit plan to its non-union employees.
- The plan covered a wide range of prescription drugs, including many preventative medications such as blood-pressure drugs and hormone replacement therapies.
- The plan specifically excluded a small number of products, including contraceptive devices.
- This exclusion applied to prescription contraceptives used only by women, such as birth control pills, Norplant, Depo-Provera, intra-uterine devices, and diaphragms.
- The plan covered almost all drugs and devices used by men.
Procedural Posture:
- Female employees of Bartell filed a class action lawsuit against the company in the U.S. District Court.
- The complaint alleged disparate treatment and disparate impact claims under Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
- The court certified a class action on behalf of all female employees of Bartell enrolled in the company's prescription plan after December 29, 1997, who used prescription contraceptives.
- Both plaintiffs and defendant Bartell filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer's prescription benefit plan that excludes coverage for prescription contraceptives, while providing comprehensive coverage for other prescription drugs and devices, violate Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination?
Opinions:
Majority - Lasnik, District Judge
Yes, the plan violates Title VII. An employer's benefit plan that selectively excludes prescription contraceptives, which are used only by women, from an otherwise comprehensive plan is a form of sex discrimination. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) amended Title VII to clarify that discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. By overturning the Supreme Court's decision in General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, Congress adopted the principle that benefit plans must be evaluated for their overall comprehensiveness for both sexes, not just facial neutrality. Excluding a class of drugs used exclusively by women creates a gaping hole in the coverage offered to female employees, making it less comprehensive than the coverage offered to male employees. This disparate treatment based on a unique, sex-based characteristic is sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII. The court rejected Bartell's arguments that contraception is not a healthcare need, that cost can justify the exclusion, or that the exclusion is part of a neutral 'family planning' policy.
Analysis:
This case was a matter of first impression in federal courts, establishing the principle that excluding contraceptive coverage from employee health plans can be a form of sex discrimination under Title VII. The decision expands the interpretation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act beyond pregnancy itself to include preventative measures related to women's reproductive health. It solidifies the 'equal comprehensiveness' standard for evaluating employee benefits, requiring employers to provide substantive equality by meeting the unique, sex-based healthcare needs of both male and female employees, rather than merely offering facially neutral policies.
