What is Brooks v. Safeway?
The Brooks v. Safeway, a landmark case, delves into the often blatant sexism within workplaces and employment standards set by companies. Occurring at a Manitoba Safeway in 1989, three pregnant women named Susan Brooks, Patricia Allen, and Patricia Dixon, were meant to be covered under the company’s insurance plan, but were met with resistance due to the cause of their leave, which was pregnancy. The plan spoke to providing benefits after the loss of pay due to illness or an accident, but did not give full benefits for the period of 17 weeks to a pregnant woman.
On the Basis of Sex?
Why would women bring this case to court for a company policy? By explicitly stating and not providing full benefits to pregnant women during their inability to work, is a form of discrimination against both their sex and their family status. Safeway spoke to the reason this was that pregnancy was a voluntary condition in contrast to an illness which remains involuntary.
This statement, also used within their defence, removes from the both the importance of women within society as well as the importance as mothers. By failing to recognize what women (if they chose to have children) provide to society as a whole, is reflection of policies such as these. Pregnancy is unique to only women, meaning discrimination against pregnancy also known as maternity discrimination is on the basis of an individual’s sex.
Legal Issues
All three of the women filed a complaint with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission.In defence, the cooperation, as mentioned before, argued on pregnancies role as a voluntary condition, that could almost happen to anyone. Stating that no one received pregnancy benefits male or women, which within itself is a huge error. This was attempted to be molded in favour of the defence.
The MHRC ruled in favour of the women, finding the policy discriminatory on the basis of sex. Safeway, unhappy with this appesalec this to the Manitoba Court of The Queen’s Bench, who once again sided with the women, upholding the prior verdict. Remaining unhappy, the appealed once more to the Manitoba Court Of Appeal, and were met with success ruling in favour stating the policy applied to all employees equally, men and women. The women then further proceeded to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court
After the initial case, and two appeals by Safeway, the women had returned to the Supreme Court. With all nine justices, and the same arguments, the case’s fundamental remained the same.
All nine justices voted in favour of the complainants, including the first woman justice, Bertha Wilson, who stated the need for “substantive equality” within the workplace. The court sided with the women’s argument of the discrimination of sexes due to the nature of pregnancy being specific to only women, taking away and rejecting Safeway’s claim of the ‘gender-neutral’ policy.
Impact Felt Today
As a landmark case, the Brooks v. Safeway case provides us a glimpse of the harsh realities faced by women who work while pregnant. 12% of mothers have faced maternity discrimination, and therefore creates unfair and stereotypical assumptions about pregnant employees, taking away from their importance in the workplace that somehow vanishes when they decide to have a child.
Instead of being met with respect and care mothers deserve as the literal backbone of our society, they are met with unfair working conditions, and unreasonable plans such as the one faced by Susan Brooks, Patricia Allen, and Patricia Dixon.
This case set legal precedent and created awareness for the issues faced by pregnant women in the workforce. The Supreme Court deemed and stated that pregnancy discrimination is a form of sex discrimination, reaffirming the principal of substantive equality instead of regular equality. By recognizing the issues faced by specific groups of people, it creates policies applicable to all groups of people while catering to individual needs. Also ensuring employers to be more aware about their pregnancy standards and ensuring they meet human right standards and do not discriminate on the basis of sex.
Sources: