Wal-Mart Stores East LP convinced the Seventh Circuit on Tuesday that its temporary light duty policy lawfully only covered workers injured on the job, and didn’t illegally exclude pregnant employees.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which sued on behalf of female employees at a Walmart distribution center in Wisconsin, didn’t show that any non-pregnant workers who were similar to pregnant women in their ability or inability to work, including those injured outside of the workplace, were accommodated with light duty, the court said.
The EEOC was wrong that the retailer needed to specifically explain why pregnancy was excluded under its temporary alternate duty policy, not just why the policy was limited to those hurt while working, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit said.
According to Walmart, the policy was limited to workers injured on the job to help reduce its costs and exposure under state workers’ compensation law, to build employee morale, and for related purposes. That’s enough under the test the U.S. Supreme Court established in 2015 in Young v. United Parcel Service Inc. for assessing pregnancy accommodation claims, Judge David F. Hamilton said.
He rejected the EEOC’s argument that employers must meet a heightened burden of production at step two of the modified proof scheme laid out in Young.
The Second Circuit previously held that compliance...
Alex Murdaugh's defense team and state prosecutors are engaged in a contentious dispute over evidence ahead of his murder retrial. The defense claims prosecutors are withholding complete cell pho...