Total Articles: 31
XpertHR • August 01, 2019
When it comes to pregnancy, reasonable accommodations can be incredibly tricky and often leave employers with all sorts of questions.
Ogletree Deakins • May 22, 2019
Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Equality Act, a bill that would amend federal law (including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Nexsen Pruet • October 09, 2018
Two new lawsuits cast light on employers’ obligations to provide job accommodations to pregnant employees.
Ogletree Deakins • October 19, 2017
Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) protect nursing mothers against post-pregnancy workplace discrimination? One federal court—the Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals—recently gave a resounding “yes” to that question. With its decision, the Eleventh Circuit became the second federal appellate court to answer that question in the affirmative, with the Fifth Circuit having done so in 2013. Hicks v. City of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, No. 16-13003 (September 7, 2017).
Jackson Lewis P.C. • September 28, 2017
Affirming that breastfeeding is a medical condition related to pregnancy and that the police department’s conduct violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), a federal appeals court in Atlanta has upheld the jury’s verdict for a former Tuscaloosa, Alabama police officer. Hicks v. City of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, No. 16-13003 (11th Cir. Sept. 7, 2017). Stephanie Hicks was awarded $374,000 in damages against the police department for pregnancy discrimination due to breastfeeding.
Goldberg Segalla LLP • September 26, 2017
There are several federal laws with protections for pregnant employees and those employees experiencing complications from birth. Depending on the circumstances, FMLA, ADA and/or the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”) may be triggered. In Hicks v. Tuscaloosa, the Eleventh Circuit ruled on a case involving an employee’s post-pregnancy lactation and need to nurse her newborn.
Ogletree Deakins • June 11, 2017
Want a road map for how not to react to a successful job applicant who announces her pregnancy immediately after receiving an offer letter? Look at the reaction of one prospective employer in Florida who recently settled a legal claim on that issue. EEOC v. Brown & Brown of Florida, Inc., MDFL, No. 6:16-cv-1326-Orl-37DCI, Consent Decree signed May 3, 2017.
Ogletree Deakins • May 30, 2017
Want a road map on how not to react to a successful applicant who announces her pregnancy immediately after receiving an offer letter? Look at the reaction of one prospective employer in Florida, who recently settled a legal claim on that issue. EEOC v. Brown & Brown of Florida, Inc., MDFL, No. 6:16-cv-1326-Orl-37DCI, Consent Decree signed May 3, 2017.
Managing a pregnant employee can be one of the most challenging aspects of employee management for employers and HR. While it is generally well known that it is unlawful to discriminate against a worker based on pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, an employer and/or supervisor often finds himself or herself in a tricky position when it comes to providing the same workers with reasonable accommodations.
Fisher Phillips • December 06, 2016
When the U.S. Supreme Court issued a March 2015 decision creating a new standard for how employers should accommodate pregnant employees, retailers took notice. After all, approximately 50% of retail employees are female, and in some retail lines such as clothing, women make up more than 75% of the workforce. Pregnancy is a common occurrence in the industry, and employers want to know how to comply with the law.
FordHarrison LLP • October 20, 2015
Executive Summary: When the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) was enacted in 1978, employers were clearly put on notice that they are forbidden from discriminating on the basis of pregnancy. Unfortunately, charges of pregnancy discrimination are still being litigated, often with expensive consequences for employers. In August 2015, the EEOC announced that it had filed suit under the PDA against Dimensions Healthcare System claiming the Laurel, Maryland employer denied a promotion to a woman because she had taken maternity leave and, instead, promoted a less-qualified male employee. The EEOC is seeking lost wages, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief in the lawsuit.
Hirsch Roberts Weinstein LLP • April 15, 2015
Is it unlawful for an employer to offer light duty to persons who are injured on the job, but not to pregnant workers? In a March, 2015 decision interpreting the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the U.S. Supreme Court has answered this question “maybe.” The case, Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., involved a driver for United Parcel Service (UPS) whose job required her to lift packages weighing up to 70 pounds. To learn about the details of the employee’s claims, the outcome of this case, and the implications this case has on employers, check out the full copy of our alert by clicking on this link.
Nexsen Pruet • April 09, 2015
The U.S. Supreme Court has revived a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit brought by a part-time employee who had been placed on unpaid leave while she was expecting a baby – a decision that puts employers on notice that they should review their policies for accommodating pregnant employees. Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 12–1226, __ U.S. ___ (2015).
FordHarrison LLP • March 27, 2015
Executive Summary: On March 25, 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion that redefines the standard for disparate treatment claims under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). In Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the Court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting standard to the plaintiff's PDA claim, but held that even where an employer offers an apparently legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its actions, plaintiffs can, nevertheless, overcome this reason and establish pretext by providing sufficient evidence that the employer's policies impose a "significant burden on pregnant workers," and that the employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason is "not sufficiently strong to justify the burden." The Justices split 6-3 with the lead opinion authored by Justice Breyer.
Fisher Phillips • March 26, 2015
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that an employee should have her day in court to determine whether or not United Parcel Service, Inc. violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act when it denied light-duty work to a pregnant employee who was restricted from heavy lifting by her medical provider.
Ogletree Deakins • March 26, 2015
On March 25, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States settled a controversy surrounding an employer’s policy that provided light-duty work for certain employees (including some disabled employees) but not for pregnant workers.
Ogletree Deakins • February 24, 2015
With its forthcoming decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to bring some much-needed clarity to the issue of what the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), 42 U.S.C. §2000e(k), requires of employers. The case involves the legality of a policy that makes light-duty work available to certain workers, but not to pregnant employees. The employee-driver who brought the suit claims that the PDA requires that the policy offer light-duty work to pregnant workers as well. The employer has argued that the law merely requires employers to treat pregnant employees the same way it treats nonpregnant employees that are similar in their abilities—which it claims its light-duty policy has done.
Ogletree Deakins • August 04, 2014
One federal court – the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois - recently reviewed a case in which a pregnant employee was terminated after informing her employer that she would be subject to a lifting restriction beginning at the 20th week of her pregnancy. Although the employee was only in her 15th week of pregnancy, she was terminated on the same day that the employer was informed of the upcoming restriction. A federal district court has allowed her claim of “anticipatory discharge” to move ahead for a jury trial. Cadenas v. Butterfield Health Care II, Inc., N.D. Ill., No. 12-c-07750, July 15, 2014.
Goldberg Segalla LLP • July 28, 2014
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently issued enforcement guidance on pregnancy discrimination and related issues, marking the first comprehensive update of the EEOC’s guidance on the subject in over 30 years. This guidance has been issued after several states and cities including New Jersey, New York City, and Philadelphia have passed laws regarding accommodations for pregnant employees. Importantly, the guidance incorporates significant developments in the law that have transpired over the past three decades and also sets forth suggestions for best practices for employers to adopt with the goal of reducing the chance of pregnancy-related violations of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Ogletree Deakins • July 17, 2014
Yesterday, by a 3-to-2 vote of commissioners, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) approved a new guidance on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The first comprehensive update on the subject of discrimination against pregnant employees in over 30 years, the “Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues” supersedes the EEOC’s 1983 Compliance Manual chapter and provides the public with information regarding the rights and obligations of all parties under the PDA. In addition, the guidance discusses the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to pregnancy-related disabilities. The federal agency also issued a “Fact Sheet for Small Businesses: Pregnancy Discrimination,” a document of questions and answers explaining the guidance and providing direction for small businesses.
FordHarrison LLP • July 16, 2014
Executive Summary: The EEOC has issued new guidance on the reach of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act ("PDA"), and, not surprisingly, taken a very expansive view of the protections to be afforded pregnant employees.
Phelps Dunbar LLP • July 15, 2014
Since the start of 2014, the EEOC has filed a string of lawsuits pursuant to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (“PDA”), with more lawsuits likely to follow. The PDA prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, and requires employers to treat pregnant employees the same as any other similarly situated non-pregnant employee. The increased litigation should not come as a surprise, since in its Strategic Enforcement Plan, the EEOC announced it would prioritize issues relating to pregnancy-related limitations and the need for accommodations.
Fisher Phillips • May 02, 2014
Is Pennsylvania going to join the ranks of states and municipalities requiring employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant employees? Senate Bill 1209, which was recently introduced and referred to committee, is intended to do precisely that; a similar piece of legislation has been introduced in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. Under the proposed Senate bill, employers with “four or more” employees in Pennsylvania would be required to provide “[a]n accommodation for as long as necessary to enable an employee to continue working despite limitations due to pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions that does not present an undue hardship. . . .” The example accommodations identified in the proposed Senate bill range from “[p]roviding a chair” or “access to drinking water” to “[t]emporary job restructuring” or a “modified work schedule.” At this time, there is some uncertainty over whether the pregnancy accommodation bill introduced in the Pennsylvania Senate will be passed and signed into law.
FordHarrison LLP • January 16, 2014
Executive Summary: The Sixth Circuit recently held that a certified nursing assistant (CNA) should be permitted to take her Pregnancy Discrimination Act claim to trial even though the employer terminated her based on its facially neutral policy that provided light duty work only for employees who were injured on the job. The court held that a jury should determine whether the policy, when considered in conjunction with discriminatory remarks made by managers, was pretext for discrimination. See Latowski v. Northwoods Nursing Ctr. (6th Cir. December 23, 2013).
Ogletree Deakins • January 15, 2014
In an unpublished opinion, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently sided with an employee in a pregnancy discrimination case. In Latowski v. Northwoods Nursing Center, No. 12-2408 (December 23, 2013), the court reversing the lower court’s dismissal of the claim, found that the employer’s “no accommodation for non-work-related injuries” policy raised a triable issue of discrimination for a jury’s determination.
Ogletree Deakins • January 06, 2014
In an unpublished opinion, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a pregnancy discrimination claim, finding that an employer’s “no accommodation for non-work-related injuries” raised an issue of pregnancy discrimination for a jury. Latowski v. Northwoods Nursing Center, 6th Cir., No. 12-2408, December 23, 2013.
Ogletree Deakins • November 21, 2011
Remarks by a law firmâ€™s human resources director could be â€œdirect evidenceâ€ of pregnancy discrimination and violation of the FMLA, according to the 7th U.S. District Court of Appeals. According to the court, such evidence falls outside of the â€œhearsayâ€ objection that might otherwise keep it from being presented to a jury. Makowski v. SmithAmundsen LLC, 7th Cir., No. 10-3330, November 9, 2011.
Ogletree Deakins • August 18, 2010
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a company that transferred a pregnant employee out of a welding job and into a light duty tool room job without first undertaking an objective evaluation of the employee’s ability to do the welding job may be liable for violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) or the Americans with Disabilities Act. Spees v. JamesBuilt, LLC, 6th Circ., No. 09-5839, August 10, 2010.
Ogletree Deakins • June 18, 2009
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that an employer did not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by granting limited service credit for purposes of calculating retirement benefits for pregnancy leaves taken before Title VII was amended in 1978 by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). In a 7-2 decision, the majority found that the company based its benefit calculations on a "bona fide" seniority system.
Fisher Phillips • May 18, 2009
On May 18, 2009, the Supreme Court upheld AT&T's method of calculating pension benefits for women who, prior to the April 1979 effective date of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), took pregnancy-related leave and did not receive full service credit for the period of their leaves.
Fisher Phillips • August 15, 2007
"You're too big to be working right now." Pregnancy complications aren't limited to the expecting mother. Employers may face the need to alter scheduling and even job duties to help accommodate pregnant mothers in the workplace. But employers who are not aware of laws regarding pregnancy discrimination will find themselves facing "too big" a problem.