HB 0025 2003
1	A bill to be entitled
2	An act relating to prevention of discrimination in
3	prescription plans; requiring certain employers to ensure
4	that prescription plans include certain coverage, are
5	comprehensive, and do not discriminate on the basis of
6	gender; providing for penalties; providing an effective
7	date.
8
9	WHEREAS, Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act
10	makes it unlawful for an employer "to fail or refuse to hire or
11	to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate
12	against any individual with respect to his or her compensation,
13	terms, conditions, and privileges of employment because of such
14	individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.",
15	and
16	WHEREAS, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 amended
17	section 701 of the Civil Rights Act to provide that "The terms
18	'because of sex' or 'on the basis of sex' include, but are not
19	limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth,
20	or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy,
21	childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the
22	same for all employment related purposes, including receipt of
23	benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so
24	affected but similar in their ability or inability to work....",
25	and
26	WHEREAS, the United States Equal Employment Commission
27	found that two employers' exclusions of prescription
28	contraceptive drugs and devices in their respective health plans
29	were discriminatory on the basis of sex and pregnancy in direct
30	violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as amended by the
31	Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and
32	WHEREAS, the United States District Court Western District
33	of Washington at Seattle found in Jennifer Erickson v. The
34	Bartell Drug Company, 141 F. Supp. 2d 1266, that the employer's
35	exclusion of prescription contraception from its prescription
36	plan is inconsistent with the requirements of Title VII as
37	amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and
38	WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the United States has held in
39	Shaw v. Delta Airlines, 463 US 85 (1983), that the states play a
40	significant role in the enforcement of Title VII and therefore,
41	under Shaw, state fair employment laws governing employment
42	benefits are not preempted by ERISA insofar as such laws prevent
43	conduct that is also unlawful under Title VII, NOW, THEREFORE,
44
45	Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
46
47	Section 1.Any employer that offers employees a
48	comprehensive prescription benefit plan in connection with
49	providing health care coverage shall ensure that the
50	prescription benefit plan includes coverage for contraceptive
51	drugs and devices, provides comprehensive coverage for employees
52	of both genders, and does not discriminate based upon sex-based
53	characteristics of the employees. Any employer who fails to
54	comply with the requirements of this section shall be subject to
55	the administrative and civil remedies provided in s. 760.11,
56	Florida Statutes.
57	Section 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law.
58