The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin recently decided that employers can exclude pregnant workers from light-duty work if they have a nondiscriminatory reason for doing so.
On Aug. 16, the court ruled in favor of Walmart's previous policy of offering light-duty work to employees who were injured on the job, but not to pregnant employees.
Background
The federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act states that women affected by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions must be treated the same as nonpregnant people who are similar in their ability or inability to work.
In its 2015 decision Young v. UPS, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that pregnant employees can claim disparate treatment by showing that they belonged to a protected class, sought an accommodation and did not receive an accommodation while the employer accommodated others who were similar in their physical limitations. In that scenario, the employer must show it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for denying the accommodation. Otherwise, it's a violation of federal law.
Before 2017, Walmart permitted light duty for workers injured on the job but did not offer light duty to pregnant workers or workers who were injured outside the job. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) argued this constituted sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Walmart contended that its light-duty policy served a...
WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump encouraged supporters on Saturday and again on Monday to vote by mail if they wanted, a change of tone for the US president, who has for years described mail-in ...