Erickson v. The Bartell Drug Company

141 F. Supp.2d 1266 (2001)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P asserts that D's decision not to cover prescription contraceptives such as birth control pills, Norplant, Depo-Provera, intra-uterine devices, and diaphragms under its Prescription Benefit Plan for non-union employees violates Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k). D claims that treating contraceptives differently from other prescription drugs is reasonable in that contraceptives are voluntary, preventative, do not treat or prevent an illness or disease, and are not truly a 'healthcare' issue. D contends that the control of one's fertility is not 'pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions' as those terms are used in the PDA. D posits that employers must be permitted to control the costs of employment benefits by limiting the scope of coverage. D contends that the exclusion of all 'family planning' drugs and devices is facially neutral. D claims that no court has found that excluding contraceptives constitutes sex discrimination and that the matter is legislative. Both parties moved for summary judgment.