On July 14, 2014, the EEOC issued updated Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues. The Guidance is available by clicking here.
According to EEOC Chair Jacqueline Berrien, “Despite much progress, we continue to see a significant number of charges alleging pregnancy discrimination, as well as the emergence of more subtle discriminatory practices. This Guidance will aid employers, job seekers, and workers in complying with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and thus advance EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan priority of addressing the emerging issue of the interaction between these two anti-discrimination statutes.”
The Guidance is divided into four parts: (I) The Pregnancy Discrimination Act; (II) Americans with Disabilities Act; (III) Other Requirements Affecting Pregnant Workers; and (IV) Best Practices.
There are several important takeaways for employers that are highlighted in the Guidance:
The PDA prohibits discrimination on the basis of a current pregnancy in addition to discrimination based on past pregnancy and discrimination based on a woman’s potential to become pregnant.
The PDA covers all aspects of pregnancy and all aspects of employment, including hiring, firing, promotion, health insurance benefits, and treatment in comparison with non-pregnant similarly-situated employees. Thus, an employer that provides health insurance benefits must apply the same terms and conditions for pregnancy-related costs as for medical costs unrelated to pregnancy.
Although pregnancy itself is not a disability, pregnant workers and job applicants may be entitled to a reasonable accommodation if they have a pregnancy-related impairment that qualifies as a disability.
Examples of potential reasonable accommodations available to pregnant workers with disabilities might include allowing a pregnant worker to: take more frequent breaks; keep a water bottle at her work station; or use a stool. In addition, providing a temporary assignment to a light duty position may be a reasonable accommodation.
In very specific, narrow instances, an employer may claim that excluding pregnant or fertile women from certain jobs is lawful because non-pregnancy is a bona fide occupational qualification. Keep in mind, the defense of a bona fide occupational qualification is an extremely narrow exception to the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex and to establish such a qualification an employer must show: (1) that pregnancy actually interferes with an employee’s ability to perform the job; and (2) that the qualification is based on objective, verifiable skills required by the job rather than vague, subjective standards.
If those responsible for taking an adverse action against an employee did not know the employee was pregnant, there can be no finding of intentional pregnancy discrimination.
Like other claims of discrimination brought under Title VII, an employer will be found to have discriminated on the basis of pregnancy if an employee’s pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition was “all or part of the motivation for an employment decision.”
A member of the firm's Bloomfield Hills office, Courtney L. Nichols serves as Co-Leader of Plunkett Cooney's Labor and Employment Law Practice Group.
Ms. Nichols focuses her litigation practice in the area of employment law ...
Add a comment
- Employment Liability
- Labor Law
- Employment Discrimination
- Human Resources
- Minimum Wage
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Wage & Hour
- Paid Medical Leave Act (PMLA)
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- Employment Agreement
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Regulatory Law
- OSHA Issues
- Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
- National Labor Relations Act
- Title VII
- Sick Leave
- Hostile Work Environment
- Business Risk Management
- Noncompete Agreements
- Workplace Harassment
- Department of Justice
- National Labor Relations Board
- Medicare Issues
- Transgender Issues
- Workers' Compensation
- Unemployment Benefits
- Whistleblower Protection Act
- Sexual Harassment
- Civil Rights
- Class Actions
- Social Media
- Retail Liability
- Emergency Information
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Title IX
- Tax Law
- Medical Marijuana
- Right to Work
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
- Union Organizing & Relations
- Court Delays Ruling on Fate of Michigan’s Paid Sick Leave, Minimum Wage Laws Until February 2023
- Michigan Supreme Court Affirms State’s Civil Right Law Prohibits Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation
- DOJ Issues Guidance on ADA, Opioid Crisis Issues
- Congress Passes Law, With Retroactive Effect, to Invalidate Forced Arbitration Provisions at the Employee’s Election
- U.S. Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Implementation of Vaccine Requirement for Large Businesses
- Contractual Limitations Periods STILL Alive and Well... on job Applications!
- Federal Appellate Court Takes Brakes Off COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Carousel
- Employers: Hang on for Another Spin Around the Vaccine Mandate Carousel
- Stray Comments can Lead to Employer Liability
- President Biden's COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates Face Uncertain Future