June 15, 1988 - Pregnancy Discrimination - a podcast by Stephen Hammond

Supreme Court hears case to decide if pregnancy discrimination is sex discrimination. Stella Bliss went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada when she was denied benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act because she was experiencing pregnancy-related health problems. In 1979, the Supreme Court ruled that although only women could get pregnant, any inequality Bliss experienced stemmed from “nature,” not from sex discrimination. In other words, discrimination based on pregnancy was not discrimination based on sex. Years later, Susan Brooks, Patricia Allen and Patricia Dixon were working as part-time cashiers for Safeway Ltd. in Brandon, Manitoba, when they became pregnant. Under the company insurance plan, employees were eligible to receive a portion of their wages in the event of sickness or accident. However, pregnant women were not eligible for this coverage if their disability occurred during the 17 weeks surrounding the expected delivery of their baby. All three women applied for pregnancy-related disability benefits during their 17-week period, but were refused. Instead, they received Unemployment Insurance coverage that turned out to be less than the company’s plan specified. They complained to the Manitoba Human Rights Commission, and on June 15, 1988, found their case before the Supreme Court of Canada. It took a year, but the court ended up siding with the women, stating that Safeway had discriminated against them due to their pregnancies. At the same time, the court overturned the 10-year-old Bliss case ruling, saying that discrimination based on pregnancy would henceforth be considered discrimination based on sex in Canada.

---

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Further episodes of Human Rights a Day

Further podcasts by Stephen Hammond

Website of Stephen Hammond