Court Rules That Florida Civil Rights Act Does Not Prohibit Pregnancy Discrimination
The Florida Civil Rights Act, unlike Title VII, does not prohibit pregnancy discrimination, according to a June 18, 2008 ruling by Judge John Antoon II, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida in Boone v. Total Renal Laboratories, Inc. (Case No. 6:08-cv-562-Orl-28KRS). Other courts have so ruled, though there is no unanimity of opinion on this issue.
Here's the logic behind the argument that the FCRA does not prohibit pregnancy discrimination: The Florida Human Rights Act (“FHRA”), which subsequently was reenacted and renamed the Florida Civil Rights Act, is patterned after Title VII. In General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125, 136 (1976), the United States Supreme Court held that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy was not sex discrimination under Title VII. Thus, the FHRA did not prohibit pregnancy discrimination, either. In 1978, the PDA amended Title VII to define the phrases “because of sex” and “on the basis of sex” to include disparate treatment of women due to the condition of pregnancy. In 1992, the Florida legislature reenacted the FHRA and renamed it the “Florida Civil Rights Act.” But these amendments failed to include pregnancy as a protected category. Therefore, the FCRA does not prohibit pregnancy discrimination.
By the way, your humble correspondent and his colleague, Jennifer Poole, successfully defended the Boone case.
UPDATE: The Daily Labor Report featured this case in its June 23rd edition.
FURTHER UPDATE: Employment Law 360 reported this case in its June 26th edition. A copy of the article can be read here.
