Note: This article may contain commentary reflecting the author's opinion.

Dick’s Sporting Goods was slammed with a civil rights complaint by a conservative legal group on Wednesday, after the company had promised to financially sponsor abortion-related costs for its staff, but did not equally provide such benefits for paid maternity leave.

“America First Legal (AFL)” requested that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) begin a civil-rights investigation into DICKS and accused the sportswear industry staple of committing “multiple violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on parental status,” according to the group’s press release on its website.

This news comes following the 6-3 Supreme Court decision in the Dobbs case last month, which ultimately overturned Roe v. Wade and returned the issue of abortion to the states.

The non-profit’s statement continued by highlighting DICK’S promise to offer, “a special employment benefit of ‘up to $4,000’ in travel reimbursement for an employee, spouse, or dependent, along with one support person, to obtain an abortion,” following the High Court’s ruling.

“Although Title VII prohibits discrimination based on childbirth, DICK’S does not offer an equivalent paid benefit to a mother who has her baby,” the press release continued. “Title VII also prohibits discrimination because of race, color, national origin, or sex. However, DICK’S uses quotas in its workforce, and is specifically recruiting, hiring, and/or promoting workers because of race, color, national origin, or sex. Such conduct is patently illegal.”

BIDEN SANCTIONS NEW DOJ TASK FORCE TO CHALLENGE STATES OVER ABORTION LAWS

 

AFL also included a statement from their Legal Senior Counselor and Director of Oversight, Reed D. Rubinstein which read:

"*" indicates required fields

Will you be voting in the upcoming midterm election?*
This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Subsidizing travel for an abortion, while denying an equivalent benefit to a mother welcoming a new baby, is perverse and unlawful. Using racial balancing and quotas in hiring and promotion, as the company claims that it does, has been illegal for decades. DICK’S management is an avatar for the rot and danger of corporate wokeness.”

In Rubinstein’s letter to the EEOC, he closed by lamenting the division created by companies like DICKS, through publicity stunts such as this.

“It truly ‘is a sordid business, this divvying us up’ by race, color, national origin, or sex,” Rubinstein wrote. “Always has been, always will be. The Company’s admissions, as described above, provide compelling reason for the Commission to open a comprehensive investigation of the company’s hiring, training, compensation, and promotion practices.”

You Can Follow Nick on Twitter Here