94. Discover 29 C.F.R. § 1604.9(d) (employers need offer exact same experts having spouses and you may groups of men professionals it brings in order to spouses and you will groups of female employees); cf. v. EEOC, 462 U.S. 669 (1983) (unlawful so you can prohibit visibility of pregnancy from formula wanted to spouses from male staff where boss shielded every medical costs off spouses regarding women professionals).
95. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k). Getting an even more comprehensive talk of your own conditions of one’s PDA, find Compliance Guide Point ___.
96. Come across, age.grams., Pallas v. Pacific Bell, 940 F.2d 1324 (9th Cir. 1991) (authorizing PDA claim in these issues), cert. refuted, 502 You.S. 1050 (1992); Carter v. American Tel. and you may Tel. Co., 870 F. Supp. 1438 (S.D. Kansas 1994) (same), vacated by the concur, 1996 WL 656571 (S. D. Kansas Sept. 13, 1996); EEOC v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 80 FEP Times 164 (S.D.Letter.Y. 1999) (claim is actually punctual where it challenges incorporation off previous provider borrowing conclusion on the newest old age bonus package); however, discover Ameritech Work for Bundle Comm. vmunications Workers out-of The united states, 220 F.three-dimensional 814 (seven th Cir. 2000) (searching for difficulty so you’re able to seniority program you to refuted credit having pre-PDA pregnancy departs to get day-barred) cf.