Dive Brief:
- An emergency medical technician may have established pretext in her claim of pregnancy discrimination, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, reviving her claim (Durham v. Rural/Metro Corp., No. 18-14687 (11th Cir. April 17, 2020)).
- Kimberlie Durham asked for temporary light duty after her doctor advised her to lift no more than 50 pounds due to her pregnancy. Her job required her to lift 100 pounds regularly, and her employer denied her request for accommodation, saying that light-duty jobs were available only to those on worker's compensation and that she would need to take unpaid personal leave. Rural had offered accommodations to other EMTs with lifting restrictions due to on-the-job injuries, and it held a policy that allowed it to accommodate employees on a case-by-case basis.
- Durham sued, claiming violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). A district court granted summary judgment to the employer, but the 11th Circuit vacated and remanded the lower court's decision. The court said the district court hadn't considered whether Durham had presented enough evidence to create a genuine issue of fact over whether Rural's reasons for refusing to provide her with a light duty or dispatcher position were pretext for discrimination.
Dive Insight:
Discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, "is a prohibited form of sex discrimination," according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The PDA doesn't require accommodation outright, but it does require that employers treat women affected by pregnancy or related medical conditions the same as non-pregnant applicants or employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work. Experts have said this means pregnant workers must be provided with access to accommodations like light duty in the same manner as other employees.
Several state and local jurisdictions do require accommodation outright, however. At the beginning of this year, Oregon's pregnancy accommodation law went into effect and requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees and job applicants who have limitations related to pregnancy unless doing so imposes an undue hardship on the employer. Kentucky legislators approved a law that went into effect last year and requires that employers accommodate pregnant workers.
Employers have paid hefty fines to settle allegations of pregnancy bias. Earlier this year, Raley's agreed to pay $2.8 million to settle a class action lawsuit claiming that the grocer violated California law by refusing to accommodate pregnant workers even though it allowed temporarily disabled employees to go on light duty. Last year, Walmart agreed to pay $14 million to settle class action claims it denied pregnant workers light duty even though light duty was available to workers injured on the job. And UPS paid $2.25 million in September 2019 to settle EEOC claims it denied pregnant women light duty.