Gretchen Harders, Member of the Firm in the Employee Benefits practice, in the firm’s New York office, was quoted in the American Bar Association’s Perspectives publication, in “Dobbs’ Impact on Employers, Law Firms, Women Lawyers, and Future Lawyers,” by Terri Williams.
Following is an excerpt:
In the bombshell ruling for Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (Docket no. 19-1392), SCOTUS, by a 6-3 vote, reversed half a century of judicial precedent holding that the right to an abortion was implied in the right to privacy in the Fourteenth Amendment.
So, what does this ruling mean for employers in general, law firms in particular, and, more precisely, women at law firms and women thinking about becoming lawyers?
What Dobbs Means for Employers …
At issue is how employers can comply with state and federal laws and how they affect employee populations and employee-sponsored group health plans that cover abortions. “Under the Pregnancy Nondiscrimination Act, group health plans are not required by law to cover elective abortions, but are required to cover medical conditions that may result from an abortion, and many employer-sponsored group health plans are designed to provide coverage for elective abortions,” says New York, NY–based Gretchen Harders, the Epstein Becker Green attorney who led the firmwide Dobbs initiative relating to benefits. …
How Companies (Particularly Law Firms) Are Responding
Dobbs has forced companies to take a position—either supporting the decision or working to assist women seeking abortions. And like other employers, the actions and reactions among law firms vary. …
The response varies at other employers (including law firms), however. For example, according to Harders, the most common approach has been to offer travel reimbursement for abortions as a qualified medical expense under the company group health plan. “Group health plan travel benefits are not new, and have typically been offered to employees and their covered dependents for certain limited services, such as transplant services, specialized cancer treatments, or centers of excellence,” she says.
These travel benefits are not without controversy and issues of fairness, however, that question the very legality of such policies. “Some group health plan travel benefits have been limited to abortion or certain reproductive services, while others have been extended to apply to all covered services, including mental health services,” says Harders. “There has been some indication the EEOC has been issuing Commissioner’s charges against employers that offer reimbursement of travel expenses in connection with abortions, alleging that such actions constitute unlawful discrimination based on pregnancy and/or disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Pregnancy Nondiscrimination Act under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.”
More Like This
Employee and Health Benefits One Year After Dobbs
