Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co. (Summary)

Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., No. C00-1213L (W.D. Wash. June 12, 2001)

A woman brought this class action suit against a her employer alleging that the company’s selective exclusion of prescription contraceptives from its generally comprehensive prescription plan constituted discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII. Responding to this issue of first impression, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted
the woman’s motion for summary judgment and held that the company’s drug plan discriminates against its female employees by providing less complete coverage than it offers to its male employees. Stating that the “availability of affordable and effective contraceptives is of great importance to the health of women and children because it can help to prevent a litany of physical, emotional, economic, and social consequences,” the court held that none of the distinctions between prescription contraceptives and other prescription drugs covered by the company are substantive or otherwise justif[y]” their exclusion from a “generally comprehensive healthcare plan.”

With respect to the language of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the court held that “regardless of whether the prevention of pregnancy falls within the phrase ‘pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,’ Congress’ decisive overruling of General Elec. Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 129 (1976), evidences an interpretation of Title VII which necessarily precludes the choices” made by the drug company in this case. Furthermore, after stating that cost is not a defense to allegations of discrimination under Title VII, the court found that the “cost savings [the company] realizes by excluding prescription contraceptives from its healthcare plans are being directly borne by only one sex in violation of Title VII.” Also, because the company covers some drugs (i.e. prenatal
vitamins) which appear to fall under the rubric of family planning, the court rejected the company’s argument that it neutrally excluded all family planning drugs. Lastly the court noted that, although no courts have been asked to consider this issue in the past, its decision remains consistent with administrative rulings of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.