## Facts

- Bartell Drug Co. provided non-union employees a generally comprehensive prescription drug benefit plan.
- The plan covered many preventive, maintenance, and reproductive-related medications, but expressly excluded all prescription contraceptives.
- Excluded contraceptives included birth control pills, Norplant, Depo-Provera, intrauterine devices, and diaphragms.
- Jennifer Erickson sued on behalf of a certified class of female employees enrolled in the plan who used prescription contraceptives and paid out of pocket.
- Plaintiffs alleged the exclusion constituted sex discrimination under Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA).
- The case was presented on cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer’s selective exclusion of prescription contraceptives from an otherwise comprehensive prescription benefit plan constitutes discrimination “because of sex” under Title VII as amended by the PDA.
2. Whether asserted justifications—cost containment, a “neutral” family-planning exclusion, and the claim that contraception is not health care—defeat liability under Title VII/PDA.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied Bartell’s cross-motion.
- The court held the plan’s exclusion of prescription contraceptives violated Title VII as amended by the PDA.
- The court found the plan provided less complete coverage to female employees than to male employees because prescription contraception is used only by women as a practical matter.
- The court rejected Bartell’s arguments that contraceptives are not health care and that the exclusion was a neutral family-planning policy, noting coverage of other preventive and family-planning-related drugs (including prenatal vitamins).
- The court held cost savings could not justify a sex-based disparity in benefits.
- The court ordered Bartell to cover FDA-approved prescription contraceptive methods and related medical services on the same basis as other covered prescription drugs.

## Legal Principles

- Employer-provided health insurance benefits are “compensation” and a “term, condition, or privilege of employment” governed by Title VII.
- Under the PDA, employment benefits must treat pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions the same as other medical conditions; exclusions closely connected to pregnancy-related conditions may violate Title VII/PDA even if not expressly named in the statute.
- A facially neutral benefits exclusion is unlawful when it results in less comprehensive coverage for one sex than the other.
- Selectively excluding a benefit that, as a practical matter, is uniquely needed by women can constitute sex discrimination in the provision of employee benefits.
- Cost containment is not a defense to discrimination under Title VII.
- An assertedly “neutral” category exclusion will not defeat liability when the plan’s coverage structure shows the exclusion is selective and imposes the burden on one sex.

## Conclusion

The court held that excluding prescription contraceptives from an otherwise comprehensive prescription drug plan unlawfully discriminated on the basis of sex under Title VII as amended by the PDA, and it required equal contraceptive coverage within the employer’s benefits program.


Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., 141 F. Supp. 2d 1266 (W.D. Wash. 2001)