Law Commons^™

The House Of Windsor: Accentuating The Heteronormativity In The Tax Incentives For Procreation, Anthony C. Infanti

Articles

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, many seem to believe that the fight for marriage equality at the federal level is over and that any remaining work in this area is at the state level. Belying this conventional wisdom, this essay continues my work plumbing the gap between the promise of Windsor and the reality that heteronormativity has been one of the core building blocks of our federal tax system. Eradicating embedded heteronormativity will take far more than a single court decision (or even revenue ruling); it will take years of work uncovering the subtle …

Employment Discrimination - In Vitro Fertilization And The Pregnancy Discrimination Act Of 1978: How Far Can The Courts Expand The Coverage Of The Pda To Protect Reproductive Technology, Justin A. Hinton

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Politics Of Infertility: Recognizing Coverage Exclusions As Discrimination, Elizabeth Pendo

All Faculty Scholarship

Infertility affects approximately ten percent of the reproductive-age population in the United States, and strikes people of every race, ethnicity and socio-economic level. It is recognized by the medical community as a disease, one with devastating physical, psychological, and financial effects.

In 1998, the Supreme Court held in Bragdon v. Abbott that reproduction is a major life activity within the meaning of the ADA. Many lawyers, activists and scholars thought that coverage for infertility treatment would follow soon after. In fact, in 2003 in the first major case applying Bragdon to health benefits, Saks v. Franklin Covey, the Second Circuit …

Coverage Of Reproductive Technologies Under Employer-Sponsored Health Care Plans, Elizabeth Pendo

All Faculty Scholarship

Proceedings of the 2004 Annual Meeting, Association of American Law Schools, Sections on Employee Benefits and Employment Discrimination. Panel includes: Professor Colleen E. Medill; Professor Helen Norton; Eve Gartner, Esq.; and Professor Elizabeth Pendo.

Evaluating Purely Reproductive Disorders Under The Americans With Disabilities Act, Todd Lebowitz

Michigan Law Review

Approximately 2.8 million American couples suffer from infertility, a condition generally defined by the medical community as the failure to conceive after one year of unprotected intercourse. During the past thirty years, diagnostic and therapeutic techniques for treating infertility have improved drastically, enabling many previously infertile couples to bear children. These techniques, however, involve considerable expense and inconvenience, frequently requiring patients to take time off from work. Disputes with employers may follow, sometimes resulting in the infertile employee's termination. Some terminated employees, claiming that infertility constitutes a disability, then sue their former employers under the Americans with Disabilities Act of …