Recent Developments from Around the States

The California Court of Appeal has held that a school district's provision of employee health insurance that did not provide coverage for in vitro fertilization treatment (“IVF”) did not constitute disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Knight v. Hayward Unified School District, 2005 WL 2033333 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 24).

Andrew K. Knight, a teacher, brought a claim of disability discrimination under FEHA against his employer, the Hayward Unified School District (the District), when he and his wife required and were forced to obtain IVF treatment at their own expense, as it was not covered by the District-provided group health plan. While Knight's wife had never been employed by the District, she was listed as a dependent covered by her husband's health plan. The PacifiCare Health Maintenance Organization (the PacifiCare Plan) that the District made available covered many other forms of infertility treatment, but specifically excluded IVF. After being diagnosed with polycystic ovarian disease, Knight's wife received a number of infertility treatments covered by the PacifiCare Plan to no avail. She then underwent two IVF treatment procedures that resulted in pregnancy and subsequent miscarriages. Knight initially filed a charge with the Equal Employment Oppor-tunity Commission (EEOC) alleging sex and disability-based discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter. However, due to the intervening U.S. Supreme Court decision in Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001), which held that the ADA does not apply to the states, Knight sued the District for disability discrimination under FEHA. The first and second causes of action alleged disparate treatment discrimination and disparate impact discrimination based on Knight's own disability, and the third and fourth alleged the same charges based on Knight's association with his disabled wife. The lower court dismissed the first and second causes of action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and granted summary judgment in favor of the District on the third and fourth causes of action.