more than 20 tiffany pounds during her pregnancy

by yixue327 According to the EEOC, employers can violate Title VII by making assumptions about a pregnant woman's commitment towards her work or assumptions about her ability to perform certain physical tasks.10 As the Supreme Court noted in International Union, Union Auto., Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW v. Johnson Controls, Inc., "[Wlornen as capable of tiffany engagement rings doing their jobs as their male counterparts may not be forced to choose between having a child and having a job."11 Similar to other sex-based stereotypes under Title VII, an employer is prohibited from "basing an adverse employment decision on stereotypical assumptions about the effect of pregnancy on an employee's job performance.

regardless of whether the employer is acting out of hostility or a belief that it is acting in the employee's best interest."12 In addition, an employer may not treat a pregnant worker who is temporarily unable to perform some of her job duties because of her pregnancy less favorably than other workers whose job performance is similarly restricted because of other health conditions other than pregnancy.13 For instance, if an employer provides up to eight weeks of paid leave for a temporary medical condition, then the employer must provide up to eight weeks of paid leave for pregnancy or related medical conditions.14 However, under Title VII and the PDA, there is no duty for an employer to retain an employee who is unable to perform her job duties because of illness or tardiness from illness. As the Seventh Circuit has explained, "[the] PDA requires an employer to ignore an employee's pregnancy ... not her absence from work, unless the employer overlooks the comparable absences elsa of non-pregnant employees - in which event it would not be ignoring pregnancy at all."15

In its 2007 Notice on the Unlawful Disparate Treatment of Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities, the EEOC identified the limited right of pregnant employees to be accommodated in terms of receiving lighter work assignments. The Notice discusses a pregnant machine operator who was advised by her physician not to lift more than 20 tiffany pounds during her pregnancy, a task she regularly performed at work. Her supervisor refused to release her from those tasks for the duration of her pregnancy, but offered to transfer her to a lower-paying position that did not involve any heavy lifting. While reluctantly accepting the transfer, she filed a charge alleging sex discrimination.16 The EEOC found a violation, because prior to the pregnant employee's request, the employer had reassigned the lifting responsibilities of three other machine operators, who for health reasons were temporarily unable to perform their heavy lifting responsibilities.

Sponsor Ads

• Ad Space Available - Rent it Now!

Created on Dec 31st 1969 18:00. Viewed 0 times.

Comments