By Dave Andrusko
Back in May, Live Action News’s Nancy Flanders wrote, “There’s no better way to encourage abortion among one’s employees than to offer to pay for it, as well as the costs associated with traveling for that abortion.” She was referring, of course, to the first wave of giant corporations which were “scrambling for ways to ensure their employees in pro-life states still have the ability to have their undelivered children killed; after all, it’s cheaper for employers to pay for abortion expenses than maternity leave and health care for an employee’s new baby or babies.”
Hats off to both the America First Legal for taking a pro-life position and Caroline Downey of National Review OnLine who reported that AFL had “filed a federal civil-rights complaint against Dick’s Sporting Goods on Thursday for sponsoring staff abortions while failing to provide equivalent paid maternity care to employees.”
According to Downey, AFL
asked the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to open a civil-rights investigation into the company, alleging multiple violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on parental status.
In their letter to the EEOC, dated Wednesday, AFL charged
On or about June 24, 2022, the Company announced a special employee benefit of “up to $4,000”for an employee or dependent, “along with one support person”, to travel for the purpose of aborting an unborn child. However, Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, prohibits discrimination with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of childbirth. The Company’s decision to provide the “travel benefit”–which is properly classified both as compensation and/or as a privilege of employment –to a pregnant woman who chooses to abort her child, while denying any equivalent compensation or benefit to a pregnant woman who chooses life, facially violates the statute. (Internal citations omitted for clarity.)
They added, “Subsidizing travel for an abortion, while denying an equivalent benefit to a mother welcoming a new baby, is perverse and unlawful. “
Downey writes, “Dick’s launched the initiative on the day Roe was overturned, with CEO and president Lauren Hobart writing in a statement: ‘We are making this decision so our teammates can access the same healthcare options, regardless of where they live, and choose what is best for them.’”
As you know, an unlawful employment practice is established when the evidence demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m). Here, the evidence is that the
Company is knowingly and intentionally discriminating with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of pregnancy and child-birth in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).
After the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, Dick’s announced a special employment benefit of “up to $4,000” in travel reimbursement for an employee, spouse, or dependent enrolled in their medical plan, along with one support person, to obtain an abortion, AFL reported.
The legal group claimed that the retailer discriminated against mothers who decide not to terminate their pregnancy by not offering them an equivalent benefit. It called the project “wholly detached” from the company’s business of selling sporting goods and golf equipment, which in turn may “needlessly destroy shareholder value.”
The travel benefit “is properly classified both as compensation and/or as a privilege of employment to a pregnant woman who chooses to abort her child” and denies “any equivalent compensation or benefit to a pregnant woman who chooses life,” AFL argued in a letter to the EEOC.
Dick’s launched the initiative on the day Roe was overturned, with CEO and president Lauren Hobart writing in a statement: “We are making this decision so our teammates can access the same healthcare options, regardless of where they live, and choose what is best for them.”
AFL also asked the EEOC to probe what it claims are Dick’s illegal employment practices, which allegedly include quotas to specifically recruit, hire, and/or promote workers because of race, color, national origin, or sex, also violating Title VII.