Pregnancy Discrimination Act Covers Adverse Employment Actions Based On In Vitro Fertilization
Cheryl Hall maintained she was fired by Nalco Company for taking time off from work to undergo in vitro fertilization after being diagnosed with infertility. She filed this suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”), alleging her termination constituted discrimination on the basis of sex. The district court granted summary judgment for Nalco on the ground that Hall could not prove sex discrimination because infertility is a gender-neutral condition.
On appeal, the 7th Circuit reversed. The Court reasoned that the focus of any Title VII sex-discrimination claim is whether the employer treated the employee differently because of the employee's sex. The PDA amended Title VII to provide that discrimination “because of” sex includes discrimination “because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” Although infertility affects both men and women, Hall claimed she was terminated for undergoing a medical procedure--a particular form of surgical impregnation--performed only on women on account of their childbearing capacity. Because adverse employment actions taken on account of childbearing capacity affect only women, the court concluded that Hall had stated a cognizable sex-discrimination claim under the language of the PDA.
Hall v. Nalco
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction includes Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.