These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
119 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11521259)
1. Insurance: exclusion of contraception found discriminatory by EEOC. Netter W J Law Med Ethics; 2001; 29(1):104-6. PubMed ID: 11521259 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. The EPICC quest for prescription contraceptive insurance coverage. Vargas C Am J Law Med; 2002; 28(4):455-71. PubMed ID: 12516176 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Employment law--Title VII--Eighth Circuit holds that benefits plans excluding all contraceptives do not discriminate based on sex.--In re Union Pacific Railroad Employment Practices Litigation, 479 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2007), reh'g and reh'g en banc denied, No. 06-1706 (8th Cir. May 23, 2007). Harv Law Rev; 2008 Mar; 121(5):1447-54. PubMed ID: 18441613 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Sex discrimination or a hard pill for employers to swallow: examining the denial of contraceptive benefits in the wake of Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co. Korland L Case West Reserve Law Rev; 2002; 53(2):531-67. PubMed ID: 16506335 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. A battle over birth "control": legal and legislative employer prescription contraception benefit mandates. Loomis CK William Mary Bill Rights J; 2002 Dec; 11(1):463-94. PubMed ID: 16389684 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Employe must complain to EEOC before feds force abortion payment. Geisel J Mod Healthc; 1980 Mar; 10(3):34. PubMed ID: 10245570 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Lack of insurance coverage for prescription contraception by an otherwise comprehensive plan as a violation of Title VII as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act--stretching the statute too far. Backmeyer ER Indiana Law Rev; 2004; 37(2):437-66. PubMed ID: 16211763 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Catholic Charities v. Superior Court. California. Court of Appeal, Third District Wests Calif Report; 2001; 109():176-206. PubMed ID: 16479701 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. An employer's exclusion of coverage for contraceptive drugs is not per se sex discrimination. Lidge EF Temple Law Rev; 2003; 76(3):533-77. PubMed ID: 16514770 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Contraceptive justice: why we need a male pill. Campo-Engelstein L Virtual Mentor; 2012 Feb; 14(2):146-51. PubMed ID: 23116957 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Dependents' pregnancy-related medical benefits and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Frankel GW Duke Law J; 1983 Feb; (1):134-52. PubMed ID: 10259899 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. The pregnancy disability amendment: what the law provides, part II. Trotter R; Zacur SR; Greenwood W Pers Adm; 1982 Mar; 27(3):55-6, 58. PubMed ID: 10254625 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The pregnancy disability amendment: what the law provides: part I. Trotter R; Zacur SR; Gatewood W Pers Adm; 1982 Feb; 27(2):47-8, 50-4. PubMed ID: 10254624 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. US judge condemns health plan for not covering contraception. Josefson D BMJ; 2001 Jun; 322(7301):1507. PubMed ID: 11420265 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]