Estimated read time: 3-4 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
SALT LAKE CITY — Michelle Scharf told lawmakers about how her daughter-in-law felt discriminated against by her employer as a breast-feeding mother.
Accommodations were made for her daughter-in-law to breast-feed at work, Scharf said, but her employer was "not happy" to grant them.
“And so she felt uncomfortable, she felt discriminated against, and she chose to stop nursing that baby before she had originally intended to,” said Scharf, of Layton. “I've seen this firsthand, and as a grandmother I am concerned about the young girls that we have out there today that are having to work and choose to nurse their babies and try to provide for them the best nourishment possibly for their growth, well-being and development.”
Members of the House Judiciary Committee listened to Scharf last week before debating HB105, a bill that would include breast-feeding women in the Utah Anti-discrimination Act. The bill was passed favorably out of the committee Friday by a 6-2 vote.
Bill sponsor Rep. Justin Miller, D-Salt Lake City, said while Utah has not yet seen any legal cases of women claiming discrimination in the workplace for pregnancy-related conditions like breast-feeding, such cases have been present in national courts.
To avoid ambiguity in potential Utah lawsuits, Miller said Utah law should be clarified to include breast-feeding in the pregnancy-related conditions that are protected under current Utah anti-discrimination laws.
What we're lacking right now is that clear, defined 'yes' that breast-feeding should be protected under the pregnancy and pregnancy-related sections of the code.
–Rep. Justin Miller, HB105 sponsor
“Right now we have conflicting circuits out there that say breast-feeding is covered under certain nondiscrimination, (and) some say they aren’t,” Miller said. “What we’re lacking right now is that clear, defined ‘yes’ that breast-feeding should be protected under the pregnancy and pregnancy-related sections of the code.”
Marina Lowe, ACLU of Utah legislative and policy counsel, said with rising numbers of working mothers in Utah, the state would be legally wise to create the specification in its nondiscrimination statutes.
“This would be a smart move to make to let employers and employees know what the situation is to avoid the possibly of litigation,” Lowe said.
Rep. LaVar Christensen, R-Draper, and Rep. Curt Oda, R-Clearfield, however, voted against the bill.
Oda voiced concerns about the bill’s effects on insurance, and Christensen said he worried HB105 would expand on an anti-discrimination law that is already more broad than those of the majority of other states in the United States.
Christensen also said the law could have been better positioned than in the anti-discrimination code. A law protecting breast-feeding mothers would perhaps be better suited in administrative rules or in employment or labor codes, he said.
“When I look at all of the other states and where we are, it doesn’t seem to be either needed specifically or properly positioned,” Christensen said.
Miller said he understands why lawmakers would be hesitant to adjust the state’s nondiscrimination laws due to the session’s current “hot topic” debate on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights. Nonetheless, Miller said he was happy to see the majority of the committee approve of his bill.
Utah women face unique challenges in the workplace, as Utah ranks as one of the worst states for gender wage disparity, so Miller said he hopes his bill can be one small but important factor that can help women succeed.
“This, of course, isn’t going to solve that issue, but it is certainly a step forward,” he said.
HB105 now goes to the House floor for further debate.
Email: kmckellar@deseretnews.com
