Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues

This guidance document was issued following voter approval by the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

OLC Control Number EEOC-CVG-2015-1 Short Display Name Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues Publication Date 25-06-2015 General Issues Pregnancy, Gender Overview

This document addresses the Pregnancy Nondiscrimination Act and the ADA as they apply to pregnant employees.

References Title VII, 29 CFR Part 1604 Candidate Documents Employers, Employees, Applicants, Lawyers, Physicians, EEOC Staff Previous Revision Revision This document replaces a document of the same name issued in 2014. Rejected

This document does not have the force of law and is not binding on the public. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public about existing requirements under law or agency policy.

Notice concerning the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act of 2022

This document was issued in advance of the enactment of the Pregnant Worker Fairness Act (PWFA), which took effect on June 27, 2023. The PWFA extends the right of employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions to reasonable accommodation absent undue hardship. For more information on the protections of the PWFA, see What You Need to Know About Pregnant Worker Fairness Act.

Advertisement	Number
	EEOC	915. 003
		Date
June 25, 2015

Subject: EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Matters

Purpose: This notice is about the issuance of "Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Matters." This document provides guidance on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act as they apply to pregnant employees.

Start Date: Upon receipt.

Effective Date: This notice is effective until revoked or replaced.

Exception Data: This enforcement order replaces the July 14, 2014 Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Matters Enforcement Order. The majority of this revised directive remains the same as the previous version, but changes have been made to I. B. 1 (discrimination) and I. C. 1 (derogatory treatment) following the Supreme Court decision in Young v. United Parcel Serv, Inc, --- U. S. ---, 135 S. Ct. 1338 (2015). Section I A. 5 of the July 14, 2014 guidance was also deleted following Young.

Editor's Note: Office of General Counsel.

Jenny R. Yang, Chair

ENFORCEMENT GUIDANCE: PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION AND RELATED ISSUES

Table of Contents

1. Overview of Legal Protections
2. Pregnancy Discrimination Law
   1. Jenny
      1. Current Pregnancy
         1. Knowledge of employers about pregnancy
         2. Fixed ideas and assumptions
         1. Discrimination due to reproductive risk
         2. Discrimination based on the will of pregnancy
         3. Discrimination due to fertility treatment
         4. Discrimination based on the use of contraception
         1. Ordinary
         2. Discrimination for breastfeeding and breastfeeding
         3. During artificial pregnancy
         1. Discussion
            1. Annoyance
            2. Employees who are responsible for nursing care
            3. Goodwill's professional qualification (BFOQ)
            1. Light work
               1. Discussion
                  1. Evidence of hostility about pregnancy
                  2. Evidence of discrimination due to the framework of McDonnell Douglas Shifting
                  1. Discussion
                  2. Different impacts
                  1. Generalism
                  2. Disseminated insurance coverage
                  1. Disability state
                  2. Rational consideration
                  1. Family / Medical leave (FMLA)
                  2. Presidential Order No. 13152 prohibiting discrimination based on parent's status
                  3. Reasonable vacation for nursing women
                  4. State Law

                  PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION AND RELATED ISSUES

                  OVERVIEW OF STATUTORY PROTECTIONS

                  Pregnancy discrimination law

                  The United States Congress enacted the Pregnancy Prohibition Act (PDA) in 1978, and the discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or relevant medical condition is a form of gender discrimination prohibited by the 1964 Civil Rights Law (Title VII). [1] [1] Thus, PDA expanded its goal of the title VII, which is equal to employment opportunities, and used to be a preferential treatment of employees identifiable groups more than other employees. The barrier was removed. "[2]

                  In the establishment of PDA, Congress said, "Women who can work should be allowed to work under the same conditions as other employees, and cannot work if they cannot work for medical reasons. He tried to clarify that the same rights, privileges, and other benefits as employees should be given. " "[3] PDA requires pregnant employees to give the same treatment as no n-pregnant employees with similar employment abilities or abilities. [4]

                  Fundamental PDA Requirements

                  1) Employers [5] cannot discriminate employees [6] for pregnancy, childbirth, or relevant medical conditions. Also

                  2) Women who are affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or relevant medical conditions must be treated in the same way as other people who are not affected but have similar working abilities.

                  Since the PDA went into effect, pregnancy discrimination charges have increased significantly. In fiscal year 1997, more than 3, 900 cases were filed with the EEOC or state and local fair employment practice agencies, but in fiscal year 2013, 5, 342 cases were filed.

                  In 2008, a study by the National Partnership for Women & Families found that pregnancy discrimination charges have increased at a faster rate than the steady influx of women into the workplace. [This suggests that pregnant workers continue to face workplace inequalities.] [8] Furthermore, the study found that much of the increase in these complaints is driven by an increase in claims by women of color. Specifically, pregnancy discrimination claims by women of color increased 76% from 1996 to 2005, while pregnancy discrimination claims increased 25% overall during the same period.

                  The most commonly alleged issues in pregnancy discrimination charges have remained relatively stable over the past decade. The majority of charges are allegations of termination based on pregnancy. Other categories include claims of differences in employment terms and conditions based on pregnancy, such as more stringent screening or harsher discipline than those applied to non-pregnant workers, suspension pending medical termination, medical examinations that are not job-related or do not correspond to job necessity, and mandatory leave. [9]

                  Since the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) went into effect, charges of pregnancy discrimination have increased significantly. In fiscal year 1997, more than 3, 900 cases were filed with the EEOC and state and local fair employment practice agencies, but in fiscal year 2013, 5, 342 cases were filed.

                  A 2008 study by the National Partnership for Women & amp; Families found that pregnancy discrimination claims are growing faster than the steady influx of women into the workplace. [This suggests that pregnant workers continue to face workplace inequality. [8] Furthermore, the study found that many of these increases in complaints were driven by an increase in claims by women of color. Specifically, pregnancy discrimination claims by women of color increased 76% from 1996 to 2005, while pregnancy discrimination claims increased 25% overall during the same period.

                  The most commonly alleged issues in pregnancy discrimination claims have remained relatively stable over the past decade. The majority of claims are allegations of termination based on pregnancy. Other categories include claims of differences in employment terms and conditions based on pregnancy, such as more stringent screening or harsher discipline than those applied to non-pregnant workers, suspension pending medical termination, medical examinations that are not work-related or do not meet work necessity, and mandatory leave. [9]

                  I. THE PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION ACT

                  A. PDA Coverage

                  Since the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) came into force, there has been a significant increase in pregnancy discrimination claims. In fiscal year 1997, more than 3, 900 cases were filed with the EEOC or state and local fair employment practice agencies, but in fiscal year 2013, 5, 342 cases were filed.

                  Extent of PDA Coverage

                  In 2008, a study by the National Partnership for Women & Families found that pregnancy discrimination claims were growing faster than the steady influx of women into the workplace. [This suggests that pregnant workers continue to face workplace inequalities.] [8] Furthermore, the study found that much of the increase in these complaints was driven by an increase in claims by women of color. Specifically, pregnancy discrimination claims by women of color increased 76% from 1996 to 2005, while pregnancy discrimination claims increased 25% overall during the same period.

                  • The most commonly alleged issues in pregnancy discrimination claims have remained relatively stable over the past decade. The majority of claims involve allegations of termination based on pregnancy. Other categories include claims of differences in the terms and conditions of employment based on pregnancy, such as more rigorous screening or discipline than is applicable to non-pregnant workers, suspension pending medical termination, medical examinations that are not job-related or necessary, and mandatory leave.[9]
                  • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
                  • The ADA title I protects individuals from employment discrimination due to disabilities, and when the employer asks employees and job seekers medical questions or requests a health checkup. The employer is obliged to restrict and provide rational consideration to employees and job seekers with disabilities. [10] The pregnancy itself is not a disability, but pregnant employees and job seekers are not excluded from ADA protection. In 2008, the enactment of the ADA Revision Law (ADAA) has changed the definition of "disability", making it easier for pregnant workers with a disability related to ADA. [11] For rational consideration that can be used by pregnant workers with disabilities that make up the disability, pregnant workers take more breaks, manage water bottles at work, or use stools. Includes to allow to do, change the way to do the job, or provide temporary allocation to light work.
                  • Part II in this book provides guidance on the prohibition of pregnancy discrimination in the title VII. PDA requirements that PDA apply, PDA violation method, PDA requirements that are equally treated as employees who are not pregnant but have similar working abilities or inoperability (especially light work and vacation) Focus on the policy of). Part II describes the impact of the definition of "disability" by ADA on employees with disabilities related to pregnancy, and the case where employees with disabilities related to pregnancy have the right to take rational considerations. , Explain specific consideration that may support pregnant employees. Part III briefly explains requirements other than PDA and ADA that affect pregnant workers. The IV section introduces the best practices for the employer. < SPAN> ADA title I is a time when employers and job seekers ask medical questions or demand a health checkup. It is obliged to limit the methods and to provide rational consideration to employees and job seekers with disabilities. [10] The pregnancy itself is not a disability, but pregnant employees and job seekers are not excluded from ADA protection. In 2008, the enactment of the ADA Revision Law (ADAA) has changed the definition of "disability", making it easier for pregnant workers with a disability related to ADA. [11] For rational consideration that can be used by pregnant workers with disabilities that make up the disability, pregnant workers take more breaks, manage water bottles at work, or use stools. Includes to allow to do, change the way to do the job, or provide temporary allocation to light work.

                  1. Current Pregnancy

                  Part II in this book provides guidance on the prohibition of pregnancy discrimination in the title VII. PDA requirements that PDA apply, PDA violation method, PDA requirements that are equally treated as employees who are not pregnant but have similar working abilities or inoperability (especially light work and vacation) Focus on the policy of). Part II describes the impact of the definition of "disability" by ADA on employees with disabilities related to pregnancy, and the case where employees with disabilities related to pregnancy have the right to take rational considerations. , Explain specific consideration that may support pregnant employees. Part III briefly explains requirements other than PDA and ADA that affect pregnant workers. The IV section introduces the best practices for the employer. The ADA title I protects individuals from employment discrimination due to disabilities, and when the employer asks employees and job seekers medical questions or requests a health checkup. The employer is obliged to restrict and provide rational consideration to employees and job seekers with disabilities. [10] The pregnancy itself is not a disability, but pregnant employees and job seekers are not excluded from ADA protection. In 2008, the enactment of the ADA Revision Law (ADAA) has changed the definition of "disability", making it easier for pregnant workers with a disability related to ADA. [11] For rational consideration that can be used by pregnant workers with disabilities that make up the disability, pregnant workers take more breaks, manage water bottles at work, or use stools. Includes to allow to do, change the way to do the job, or provide temporary allocation to light work.

                  a. Employer's Knowledge of Pregnancy

                  Part II in this book provides guidance on the prohibition of pregnancy discrimination in the title VII. PDA requirements that PDA apply, PDA violation method, PDA requirements that are equally treated as employees who are not pregnant but have similar working abilities or inoperability (especially light work and vacation) Focus on the policy of). Part II describes the impact of the definition of "disability" by ADA on employees with disabilities related to pregnancy, and the case where employees with disabilities related to pregnancy have the right to take rational considerations. , Explain specific consideration that may support pregnant employees. Part III briefly explains requirements other than PDA and ADA that affect pregnant workers. The IV section introduces the best practices for the employer.

                  EXAMPLE 1 Knowledge of Pregnancy

                  With the establishment of the PDA, the parliament has given women the "right of pregnancy" [13], intended to prohibit discrimination based on "all issues involved in childbirth" [12]. "Thus, the PDA is the aspect of employment, dismissal, promotion, health insurance benefits, employment abilities or abilities, and all aspects of employment compared to no n-pregnancy. 。

                  b. Stereotypes and Assumptions

                  The title VII revised by PDA prohibits the following discrimination:

                  Current pregnancy

                  EXAMPLE 2 Stereotypes and Assumptions

                  Current pregnancy

                  EXAMPLE 3 Stereotypes and Assumptions

                  Potential or expected pregnancy

                  2. Past Pregnancy

                  Pregnancy or childbirth medical condition

                  The most famous form of pregnancy discrimination is discrimination against employees based on the current pregnancy. Such discrimination occurs when the employer rejects employment, dismissal, or other disadvantageous measures because women are pregnant, regardless of their duties. [14]

                  EXAMPLE 4 Unlawful Discharge During Pregnancy or Parental Leave

                  If the person in charge of the disadvantaged disposal does not know the employee's pregnancy, it is not possible to prove intentional discrimination. [15] However, even if the employee did not tell the fact of pregnancy to the decision to the decision before the disadvantageous disposal, the gossip of the workplace and the pregnancy were revealed, so the decisive decision was pregnant. May have noticed. The obviousness of pregnancy varies in time and affected individuals [16], so it is a problem whether the employer recognized the pregnancy. [17]

                  When he knew his pregnancy, he was concerned that such a presentation would affect the opportunity to receive bonuses on the next employment anniversary, so he did not report it to the management. At three months of pregnancy, Gel main boss told me that the bonus would not be provided. The pregnancy is not clear, and there is no reasonable basis for gel main to be discriminated against because the decisive authority does not know the gel main pregnancy at the time of the bonus decision. With the establishment of the

                  3. Potential or Intended Pregnancy

                  Mistreatment of pregnant women often stems from stereotypes and assumptions about their ability and commitment to work. For example, employers may refuse to hire pregnant women based on the assumption that they will have trouble coming to work or will quit work after giving birth.

                  a. Discrimination Based on Reproductive Risk

                  Employment decisions based on such stereotypes and assumptions violate Title VII. 18] As the Supreme Court explained, "it is outrageous for an employer to evaluate an employee based on an assumption or assertion that the employee fits a stereotype associated with the group."[19] Such decisions are unlawful even if the employer relies on stereotypes unconsciously or in the belief that it is acting in the employee's best interest.

                  Three months later, Maria told her boss that she was pregnant, but she missed a few days of work due to an illness unrelated to her pregnancy. Shortly after, she missed two more days of work due to pregnancy complications. When Maria returned to work, her boss told her that her body was trying to tell her something and that she needed someone who would be comfortable participating. The next day, Maria was released. The investigation revealed that Maria's attendance record was equal to or better than that of unqualified coworkers who continued to be employed. It is reasonable to conclude that her termination was due to her supervisor's stereotypes about the attendance of pregnant employees, and therefore unlawful, rather than to Maria's actual record. [20]

                  b. Discrimination Based on Intention to Become Pregnant

                  Darlene, who is visibly pregnant, applies for a job as an office manager at a campground. The investigator tells her that July and August are the busiest months of the year and asks if she can work during those months. Darlene replies that she is due to give birth in late September and intends to work until her due date. The investigator explains that the campground cannot take the risk that Darlene will decide to quit work early, and therefore will not hire her. The campground's refusal to hire Darlene for this reason constitutes pregnancy discrimination.

                  Workers can claim that they were discriminated against for past pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. PDA's words are not limited to the current pregnancy. As one court states, "If the employer is banned from firing a pregnant woman, the employer is fired the day after giving birth if the woman was pregnant in the first place. It doesn't make sense to admit to do. " [twenty one]

                  EXAMPLE 5 Discrimination Based on Intention to Become Pregnant

                  The causal relationship between the claimant's pregnancy with the pregnancy in advance and the disputeed act is likely to be recognized when there is a close time relationship between the two. [22] For example, employees are granted for medical leave related to pregnancy (that is, given leave for pregnancy or pregnancy recovery) or childcare leave (that is, for newborns or adopted children. If you are dismissed during) and you are not trusted by the employer's explanation of the dismissal, you may be allowed to violate the title VII. [twenty three]

                  c. Discrimination Based on Infertility Treatment

                  Immediately after Teresa reported to her boss, her boss talked to her about her performance. Teresa has always been highly evaluated for eight years since joining the company. However, for the first time, his boss accused Teresa offering poor customer service to customers. Two weeks after Teresa took a medical treatment leave, the employer fired her due to poor business performance. The employer did not submit any complaints from customers or other poor performance. Before Teresa's pregnancy is notified to the employer, the evidence of exceptional performance evaluation, the lack of documents on the subsequent business performance, and the timing of dismissal support illegal pregnancy discrimination. < SPAN> Workers can claim that they were discriminated against for past pregnancy, childbirth, or relevant medical conditions. PDA's words are not limited to the current pregnancy. As one court states, "If the employer is banned from firing a pregnant woman, the employer is fired the day after giving birth if the woman was pregnant in the first place. It doesn't make sense to admit to do. " [twenty one]

                  d. Discrimination Based on Use of Contraception

                  The causal relationship between the claimant's pregnancy with the pregnancy in advance and the disputeed act is likely to be recognized when there is a close time relationship between the two. [22] For example, employees are granted for medical leave related to pregnancy (that is, given leave for pregnancy or pregnancy recovery) or childcare leave (that is, for newborns or adopted children. If you are dismissed during) and you are not trusted by the employer's explanation of the dismissal, you may be allowed to violate the title VII. [twenty three]

                  Immediately after Teresa reported to her boss, her boss talked to her about her performance. Teresa has always been highly evaluated for eight years since joining the company. However, for the first time, his boss accused Teresa offering poor customer service to customers. Two weeks after Teresa took a medical treatment leave, the employer fired her due to poor business performance. The employer did not submit any complaints from customers or other poor performance. Before Teresa's pregnancy is notified to the employer, the evidence of exceptional performance evaluation, the lack of documents on the subsequent business performance, and the timing of dismissal support illegal pregnancy discrimination. Workers can claim that they were discriminated against for past pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. PDA's words are not limited to the current pregnancy. As one court states, "If the employer is banned from firing a pregnant woman, the employer is fired the day after giving birth if the woman was pregnant in the first place. It doesn't make sense to admit to do. " [twenty one]

                  4. Medical Condition Related to Pregnancy or Childbirth

                  a. In General

                  The causal relationship between the claimant's pregnancy with the pregnancy in advance and the disputeed act is likely to be recognized when there is a close time relationship between the two. [22] For example, employees are granted for medical leave related to pregnancy (that is, given leave for pregnancy or pregnancy recovery) or childcare leave (that is, for newborns or adopted children. If you are dismissed during) and you are not trusted by the employer's explanation of the dismissal, you may be allowed to violate the title VII. [twenty three]

                  EXAMPLE 6 Uniform Application of Leave Policy

                  Immediately after Teresa reported to her boss, her boss talked to her about her performance. Teresa has always been highly evaluated for eight years since joining the company. However, for the first time, his boss accused Teresa offering poor customer service to customers. Two weeks after Teresa took a medical treatment leave, the employer fired her due to poor business performance. The employer did not submit any complaints from customers or other poor performance. Before Teresa's pregnancy is notified to the employer, the evidence of exceptional performance evaluation, the lack of documents on the subsequent business performance, and the timing of dismissal support illegal pregnancy discrimination.

                  If there is evidence that pregnancy, childbirth, or relevant medical conditions have caused the act, even if there is a long time difference between the claimant's pregnancy and the dispute, it does not necessarily hinder the certification of pregnancy discrimination. 。 [24] It may be difficult to judge whether the disadvantage of employees after pregnancy was based on pregnancy, contrasted with employee new childcare responsibilities. If the dispute measures are based on the responsibility of the employee, if there is evidence that employee gender or other protected characteristics have become motivated by the employer, a title VII can be established. There is sex. [twenty five]

                  b. Discrimination Based on Lactation and Breastfeeding

                  The Supreme Court has announced that the title VII "prohibits employers from discriminating women due to pregnancy abilities." [26] Therefore, women should not be discriminated against in employment opportunities or welfare because they may become pregnant.

                  It is rare that employees' concerns about their risks and fetuses justify se x-related labor restrictions on women who may give birth. [27] In this principle, the Supreme Court has all the pregnant women (pregnant men do not exclude as well) from the tasks that define lead concentration as excessive and may be dangerous to the fetus). He concluded that the battery manufacturing company would violate the title VII by widely excluded. [28]

                  According to the court, this policy is for women with a reproductive ability to have the options given to a fertilized man, "whether or not to expose reproductive health for a specific job." It is denied and created a classification of gende r-based people. 29] This policy can only be justified when the employer proves that a female infertility is a goo d-looking professional qualification (BFOQ). The court explained that "the decision on the welfare of children in the future should be entrusted to parents who gather, give birth, support, and grow children, and should not be left to the employer who employs their parents." 31] [31]

                  Title VII similarly prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because of their intention to become pregnant. [32] One court stated: "Discriminating against an employee because of her intention or mere ability to become pregnant is ... unlawful discrimination." [33] In addition, Title VII prohibits employers from treating men and women differently on the basis of marital status or intention to have children.

                  c. Abortion

                  Because Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, employers may not inquire about whether an applicant or employee intends to become pregnant. The EEOC considers such inquiries to be evidence of pregnancy discrimination, and generally considers such inquiries to be evidence of pregnancy discrimination when an employer makes an adverse employment decision against a pregnant employee. [34]

                  B. Evaluating PDA-Covered Employment Decisions

                  Ann, a senior executive director with a two-year-old son, told her boss that she was planning to become pregnant. Her boss resented that her pregnancy would interfere with her job duties. Two weeks later, she was demoted to a lower-paying position with no supervisory responsibilities. In response to Anne's EEOC complaint, the employer alleges that Anne was demoted because it could not effectively delegate her duties. Anne's performance reviews were always excellent, and there were no such concerns. The timing of the demotion, the management's response to Anne's complaint, and the evidence contradicting the employer's explanation make it clear that the employer engaged in unlawful discrimination.

                  1. Disparate Treatment

                  Employment decisions related to infertility treatments implicate Title VII in limited circumstances. Because pregnancy as a result of surgery is inherently linked to a woman's ability to conceive, for example, an inference of unlawful sex discrimination may be raised if an employee is penalized for taking time off work to undergo such surgery. [35] In contrast, with respect to infertility exclusions from employer-sponsored health insurance, courts have generally held that all infertility exclusions for all employees are gender neutral and do not violate Title VII. [36] Title VII may involve exclusions of certain medical treatments that apply only to one sex. [37]

                  Depending on the specific situation, employment decisions based on the use of contraceptives of employees may configure gender and/ or illegal discrimination based on pregnancy. Contraceptive is a means that women can control the ability to become pregnant, and therefore the prohibition of discrimination based on the potential pregnancy of the title VII, inevitably, include discrimination against women's contraceptive use. [38] For example, employers cannot dismiss female employees due to the use of contraceptives. [39]

                  Employers may violate the title VII by providing health insurance that excludes the application of prescribed contraceptives, whether the prescription of contraceptives is contraceptive or for medical purposes. [40] Since contraception by prescriptions is only available to women, it is excluded from contraception by prescription, and when providing comprehensive compensation, the health insurance plan becomes a discrimination of women due to gender. [41] In order to comply with Title VII, the employer's health insurance plan must cover prescription contraceptives based on prescription drugs, equipment, and services used to prevent the occurrence of no n-pregnancy. It doesn't. [42] For example, if the employer's health insurance plan covers preventive care of no n-pregnancy, such as vaccination, health checkup, prescription drugs that prevent hypertension, and prevent cholesterol levels, and preventive dentistry. , Prescription contraceptives must also be covered.

                  Title VII prohibits discrimination due to pregnancy, childbirth, or relevant medical conditions. Therefore, the employer must not discriminate a woman with a medical condition related to pregnancy and childbirth, is not affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or relevant medical condition, but has similar working abilities. It has to be treated in the same way as the person. " < SPAN> Depending on the specific situation, employment decisions based on the use of contraceptives of employees may configure gender and/ or illegal discrimination based on pregnancy. Contraceptive is a means that women can control the ability to become pregnant, and therefore prohibit discrimination based on the potential pregnancy of the title VII, inevitably, the prohibition of discrimination on women's contraceptive use. [38] For example, employers cannot dismiss female employees due to the use of contraceptives. [39]

                  • Employers may violate the title VII by providing health insurance that excludes the application of prescribed contraceptives, whether the prescription of contraceptives is contraceptive or for medical purposes. [40] Since contraception by prescriptions is only available to women, it is excluded from contraception by prescription, and when providing comprehensive compensation, the health insurance plan becomes a discrimination of women due to gender. [41] In order to comply with Title VII, the employer's health insurance plan must cover prescription contraceptives based on prescription drugs, equipment, and services used to prevent the occurrence of no n-pregnancy. It doesn't. [42] For example, if the employer's health insurance plan covers preventive care of no n-pregnancy, such as vaccination, health checkup, prescription drugs that prevent hypertension, and prevent cholesterol levels, and preventive dentistry. , Prescription contraceptives must also be covered.
                    • Title VII prohibits discrimination due to pregnancy, childbirth, or relevant medical conditions. Therefore, the employer must not discriminate a woman with a medical condition related to pregnancy and childbirth, is not affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or relevant medical condition, but has similar working abilities. It has to be treated in the same way as the person. " Depending on the specific situation, employment decisions based on the use of contraceptives of employees may configure gender and/ or illegal discrimination based on pregnancy. Contraceptive is a means that women can control the ability to become pregnant, and therefore the prohibition of discrimination based on the potential pregnancy of the title VII, inevitably, include discrimination against women's contraceptive use. [38] For example, employers cannot dismiss female employees due to the use of contraceptives. [39]
                    • Employers may violate the title VII by providing health insurance that excludes the application of prescribed contraceptives, whether the prescription of contraceptives is contraceptive or for medical purposes. [40] Since contraception by prescriptions is only available to women, it is excluded from contraception by prescription, and when providing comprehensive compensation, the health insurance plan becomes a discrimination of women due to gender. [41] In order to comply with Title VII, the employer's health insurance plan must cover prescription contraceptives based on prescription drugs, equipment, and services used to prevent the occurrence of no n-pregnancy. It doesn't. [42] For example, when the employer's health insurance plan covers preventive care of no n-pregnancy, such as vaccination, health checkup, prescription drugs that prevent high blood pressure, and prevent cholesterol levels, and preventive dentistry. , Prescription contraceptives must also be covered.
                    • Title VII prohibits discrimination due to pregnancy, childbirth, or relevant medical conditions. Therefore, the employer must not discriminate a woman with a medical condition related to pregnancy and childbirth, is not affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or relevant medical condition, but has similar working abilities. It has to be treated in the same way as the person. "
                    • Shelly went on medical leave for pregnancy-related illness. The employer's policy provided that employees with less than one year of service were provided with four weeks of medical leave. Shelly had only worked for the employer for six months and was fired when she did not return to work after four weeks. Shelly claims that the employer fired her because of her pregnancy, but the evidence shows that the employer applied its leave policy uniformly regardless of medical condition or sex and did not engage in unlawful discrimination. [44]
                    • Title VII also requires employers to provide the same benefits for pregnancy-related illnesses as for other medical conditions. [45] Courts have held that Title VII's prohibitions against sex and pregnancy discrimination do not apply to employment decisions based on the costs associated with the medical care of an employee's offspring. [46] However, taking adverse action, such as terminating an employee, to avoid insurance costs resulting from the employee's pregnancy disability or the disability of the employee's child may violate Title I of the ADA if the employee's or the child's disability is a "disability" within the meaning of the ADA. [47] It may also violate Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)[48] and/or the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).[49] There are several situations in which discrimination against lactating or breastfeeding employees may involve Title VII. Lactation (lactation after childbirth) is a physiological process triggered by hormones. [50] Because lactation is a medical condition related to pregnancy, unlawful discrimination may be inferred when lactating employees are treated less favorably. [51] For example, a manager's statement that an employee was demoted because of a breastfeeding program would lead to an inference that the demotion was unlawfully based on the medical condition of lactation related to pregnancy. [52]
                    • To maintain adequate lactation and avoid painful complications associated with delayed lactation,[53] nursing mothers should typically breastfeed or pump to produce breast milk two to three times during each eight-hour labor.[54] Employees should be given the freedom to address breastfeeding-related needs just as their coworkers address other similarly limiting medical conditions. For example, if an employer allows employees to reschedule or use sick leave to attend routine doctor appointments or to treat non-enhancing medical conditions,[55] they should also allow female employees to reschedule or use sick leave to breastfeed in similar circumstances.

                    a. Harassment

                    Finally, because only women breastfeed, the practice of giving preferential treatment to breastfeeding or breastfeeding only affects women and is therefore gender-based. For example, an employer’s discretion to allow an employee to use break time for personal reasons other than to produce breast milk violates Title VII. [56]

                    In addition to the protections of Title VII, female employees who breastfeed have rights under other laws, including provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that require employers to provide reasonable rest periods and private space for hourly employees who breastfeed. [57] For more information, see Section III C.

                    Title VII protects women from being fired for having or considering an abortion. [58] However, Title VII makes clear that employers who offer health insurance are not required to pay for abortion coverage unless the mother's life would be threatened if the fetus were transported to term or if the abortion would result in medical complications. [59] The law also makes clear that employers are permitted to offer health insurance for abortions, although they are not required to do so. [60] Title VII similarly prohibits employers from taking adverse employment action against an employee based on the decision not to have an abortion. For example, it is unlawful for a manager to pressure an employee to have or not have an abortion in order to keep her job, get a better job, or get on the path to a promotion. [61]

                    • Pregnancy discrimination can take the form of differential treatment (where pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition is the motive for an adverse employment action) or discriminatory impact (where a neutral policy or practice has a significant adverse effect on women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition, and the policy or practice is not job-related, meets business necessity, or there are less discriminatory alternatives, and the employer adopts such a policy or practice).
                    • The PDA defines sex discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. As with other discrimination claims under Title VII, an employer can be found to have discriminated on the basis of pregnancy if pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition was part of the motive for an employment decision. Intentional discrimination under the PDA can be proven with any type of evidence used in other sex discrimination cases. Discriminatory motives may be created directly or may be inferred from the surrounding facts and circumstances.
                    • The PDA further provides that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy also includes failing to treat women affected by pregnancy "for all employment-related purposes... in the same way as other persons who are not so affected but who have similar abilities or capacity to work." An employer's policy of not discriminating on the basis of pregnancy may violate this current provision of the PDA if it imposes a substantial burden on pregnant employees that is not supported by a sufficiently strong justification.[62]
                    • As with any other charge, investigators faced with a burden to induce differential treatment on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions must consider the evidence in its entirety to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that the challenged conduct was unlawfully discriminatory. All evidence must be considered in context, and the presence or absence of specific evidence cannot be used.
                    • Evidence suggesting differential treatment on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions may include:

                    An explicit policy[63] or a statement by a decision maker or a person who influenced a challenging decision that, on its face, indicates a pregnancy bias and is associated with challenging behavior.

                    EXAMPLE 7 Hostile Environment Harassment

                    In Denin's Northwest Airlines [64], a manager stated that the plaintiff would not r e-employ the plaintiff "due to complications of pregnancy." This statement clearly shows pregnancy discrimination. [65]

                    b. Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities

                    At Asmo vs. Kean [66], two months proved to discriminate pregnancy. [66] concluded that there was a tw o-month period between the time when the employer knew the plaintiff's pregnancy and the dismissal, so that the plaintiff's pregnancy and dismissal had a causal relationship. 。 [67]

                    c. Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) Defense

                    In the Wallace vs. Metropolitan Hospital System [69], the employer claims that one of the reasons for dismissing the plaintiff, a pregnant nurse, was due to a medical practice without the knowledge or consent of a doctor. did. The plaintiffs have indicated that the employer has only scolded an employee who has not become pregnant with almost the same inappropriate act, and submitted evidence that this is an excuse. [70]

                    In the Nelson vs. Wethan Group case [71], the defendant claimed that the plaintiff was not for pregnancy, but because she had to eliminate her position for excessive personnel. The court guarantee that if you were a rational jury, you would not need to worry about the plaintiffs and colleagues who had many jobs, and that the plaintiff's boss would not worry about the work after returning before childcare leave. It was determined that this could be concluded that this was an excuse. [72]

                    In the CUMPIANO V. Banco Santander Puerto Rico case [73], the court did not implement an action policy that was the basis for justifying the dismissal until the plaintiff was not implemented until the plaintiff was pregnant. Supported the certification. [74]

                    2. Disparate Impact

                    In the case of Youn g-Yunited Purcell Service [75], the court provides light work to most of the no n-pregnant employees, while most of the pregnant employees do light work. He stated that the employer's policy or proposal evidence of not providing it could prove that the policy or compassion had a substantial burden on the pregnant employees. If the reasons for the employer's behavior are not enough to justify the burden, "it will lead to intentional infrastructure." [76]

                    The title VII revised by the PDA obliges employers to provide a work environment without harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or relevant medical conditions. If the employer neglects this, it will violate laws and regulations. Responsibilities can be caused by the act of no n-boss, colleagues, or employees with some control of customers and no n-employees, such as business partners. [77]

                    EXAMPLE 8 Weight Lifting Requirement

                    Examples of pregnancy-related harassment include unwanted offensive jokes or yelling, physical attacks or threats, intimidation, ridicule, insults, offensive objects or images, and interference with work performance motivated by pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, or other related medical conditions. This motivation is often demonstrated by observation, but even if pregnancy is not explicitly mentioned, other evidence showing that pregnancy was the motivation for the conduct may implicate Title VII. Of course, as with harassment for other reasons, the conduct is unlawful only if it is severe or pervasive enough that an employee would perceive it as hostile or abusive and would, in the eyes of a reasonable person, alter the terms and conditions of employment. [78]

                    C. Equal Access to Benefits

                    Harassment must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, looking at all the circumstances in context. Relevant factors in assessing whether harassment creates a hostile work environment to violate Title VII include (but are not determined by) any of the following:

                    1. Light Duty

                    a. Disparate Treatment

                    i. Evidence of Pregnancy-Related Animus

                    The frequency of the discriminatory conduct.

                    EXAMPLE 9 Evidence of Pregnancy-Related Animus Motivating Denial of Light Duty

                    The severity of the conduct.

                    ii. Proof of Discrimination Through McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting Framework

                    Whether the conduct was physically threatening or humiliating. Whether the conduct unreasonably interfered with the employee's job performance; and

                    The circumstances in which the conduct occurred and other relevant factors.

                    The more severe the harassment, the less pervasive it should be, and vice versa. Thus, isolated or isolated incidents of offensive behavior or comments generally do not create an unlawful hostile work environment unless the harassment is sufficiently severe. Pregnancy-based comments and other conduct that is not sufficiently severe in itself may be criminal if repeated, but there is no minimum number of occurrences of harassment that would give rise to liability.

                    Bina, a black woman of Nigerian origin, claims that when it became clear she was pregnant with her second child, her supervisor increased her workload, shortened deadlines so that she could not complete her assignments, ostracized her, repeatedly excluded her from meetings to which she should have been invited, scolded her for not coming to work because of snow when others were not, and berated her. Bina claims that her supervisor subjected her to such harassment because of her pregnancy status, race, and ethnicity. If there is evidence showing that the conduct is causally related to Bina's pregnancy status, race, and/or national origin, a Title VII violation will be found. [79]

                    After an employee has a child, an employer may treat her less favorably because of the employee's responsibilities and not because of her previous pregnancy. Such situations are outside the scope of the PDA. However, as explained in the Commission's Commission Guidance: Unlawful Discrimination Against Employees with Caregiving Responsibilities (May 23, 2007),[80] while caregiver status is not a prohibited basis under federal equal employment opportunity law, employers may actively discriminate against employees with caregiving responsibilities if they discriminate on the basis of sex or other characteristics protected by federal law. For example, employers violate Title VII by denying employment opportunities to women but not men with young children, or by upgrading women who have just returned from pregnancy-related medical or parental leave to less desirable jobs on the assumption that as new mothers, they will be less committed to their work. Employers also violate Title VII by refusing to provide male caregivers with leave to care for infants and providing such leave to female caregivers, or by discriminating against Latino working mothers on the basis of stereotypes about working mothers or hostility toward Latinos in general.[81] Employers violate the ADA by denying employment opportunities to working mothers.

                    However, this defense is a very narrow exception to the general prohibition on sex discrimination. An employer seeking to establish a BFOQ must show that pregnancy interferes with a female employee's ability to perform her job,[84] and the defense must be based on objective, verifiable skills required for the job, not on vague, subjective criteria.[85]

                    b. Disparate Impact

                    Employers can rarely establish pregnancy-based BFOQs. The defense cannot be based on assumptions or stereotypes about the employment characteristics of pregnant women, such as fear of risk to the employee or her unborn child, fear of potential tort liability, or turnover or customer preferences.[86]

                    EXAMPLE 10 Light Duty Policy - Disparate Impact

                    Without a BFOQ, an employer cannot require a pregnant employee to take leave until the birth of her child or for a specified period thereafter, provided that she is able to perform her job.[87]

                    If an ostensibly neutral policy disproportionately adversely affects women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, and the employer cannot show that the policy is relevant to the job at issue and consistent with business necessity, it violates Title VII. [88] Proving disparate impact usually requires statistics showing that a particular employment practice has a discriminatory effect on employees of a protected class. However, statistics may not be required if it can be shown that all, or substantially all, pregnant women are adversely affected by the challenged policy. [89]

                    2. Leave

                    a. Disparate Treatment [109]

                    An employer may prove business necessity by showing that the requirement is "necessary for the safe and efficient performance of the business." [90] Even if an employer proves this, a violation may be found if a less discriminatory alternative exists that meets the business necessity and the employer refuses to adopt it. [91] Title VII's discriminatory impact provisions have been used by pregnant plaintiffs to challenge, for example, burden shifting requirements,[92] light work restrictions,[93] and restrictive leave policies. [94]

                    EXAMPLE 11 Forced Leave

                    Carol applied for a work in the warehouse. During the interview, the recruiter told her about the conditions of work and asked if he could satisfy it. One of the conditions was to lift up to 50 pounds (about 1. 5 kg). Carol replied that he was pregnant and could not meet the conditions for lifting, but could meet the work conditions. She was not hired. The employer claims that Carol did not meet the lift requirements and did not choose, and submit evidence that all applicants were treated in the same way for this recruitment standard. If the exemption requirements have evidence indicating that they are unfairly eliminating the applicants during pregnancy, the employer proves that the requirements are related to the job of the job and meet the need for business. I have to do it. [95]

                    Under the title VII, the employer provides additional allowances such as changing duties, changing duties, or unpaid leave for employees who cannot temporarily perform their duties due to pregnanc y-related symptoms. As a result, it is obliged to treat it in the same way as other employees whose employment abilities or abilities are similar. [96] In addition to vacation, the term "temporary allowance" includes, for example, medical allowance and retirement allowance.

                    If there is a direct evidence that the motivation of the employer's decision to not let the pregnant employees do light work were hostile to pregnancy, the employees were treated more advantageously than themselves. There is no need to prove.

                    EXAMPLE 12 Pregnancy-Related Medical Leave - Disparate Treatment

                    One employee wanted a light work for pregnancy. The employee's boss knows that the employee is pregnant and has a light work that can be made by pregnant employees. However, his boss refused to request employees, saying that putting pregnant employees at work is simply too responsible for the company. In this case, it is not necessary to present the pregnant employees that they are not pregnant and have the same working capabilities or inoperable work that is given a light work position. < SPAN> Carroll applied for a work in the warehouse. During the interview, the recruiter told her about the conditions of work and asked if he could satisfy it. One of the conditions was to lift up to 50 pounds (about 1. 5 kg). Carol replied that he was pregnant and could not meet the conditions for lifting, but could meet the work conditions. She was not hired. The employer claims that Carol did not meet the lift requirements and did not choose, and submit evidence that all applicants were treated in the same way for this recruitment standard. If the exemption requirements have evidence indicating that they are unfairly eliminating the applicants during pregnancy, the employer proves that the requirements are related to the job of the job and meet the need for business. I have to do it. [95]

                    EXAMPLE 13 Medical Leave Policy -- No Disparate Treatment

                    Under the title VII, the employer provides additional allowances such as changing duties, changing duties, or unpaid leave for employees who cannot temporarily perform their duties due to pregnanc y-related symptoms. As a result, it is obliged to treat it in the same way as other employees whose employment abilities or abilities are similar. [96] In addition to vacation, the term "temporary allowance" includes, for example, medical allowance and retirement allowance.

                    b. Disparate Impact

                    If there is a direct evidence that the motivation of the employer's decision to not let the pregnant employees do light work were hostile to pregnancy, the employees were treated more advantageously than themselves. There is no need to prove.

                    One employee wanted a light work for pregnancy. The employee's boss knows that the employee is pregnant, and also knows that there is a light work that can be made by pregnant employees. However, his boss refused to request employees, saying that putting pregnant employees at work is simply too responsible for the company. In this case, it is not necessary to present the pregnant employees that they are not pregnant and have the same working capabilities or inoperable work that is given a light work position. Carol applied for a work in the warehouse. During the interview, the recruiter told her about the conditions of work and asked if he could satisfy it. One of the conditions was to lift up to 50 pounds (about 1. 5 kg). Carol replied that he was pregnant and could not meet the conditions for lifting, but could meet the work conditions. She was not hired. The employer claims that Carol did not meet the lift requirements and did not choose, and submit evidence that all applicants were treated in the same way for this recruitment standard. If the exemption requirements have evidence indicating that they are unfairly eliminating the applicants during pregnancy, the employer proves that the requirements are related to the job of the job and meet the need for business. I have to do it. [95]

                    3. Parental Leave

                    Under the title VII, the employer provides additional allowances such as changing duties, changing duties, or unpaid leave for employees who cannot temporarily perform their duties due to pregnanc y-related symptoms. As a result, it is obliged to treat it in the same way as other employees whose employment abilities or abilities are similar. [96] In addition to vacation, the term "temporary allowance" includes, for example, medical allowance and retirement allowance.

                    If there is a direct evidence that the motivation of the employer's decision to not let the pregnant employees do light work were hostile to pregnancy, the employees were treated more advantageously than themselves. There is no need to prove.

                    EXAMPLE 14 Pregnancy-Related Medical Leave and Parental Leave Policy - No Disparate Treatment

                    One employee wanted a light work for pregnancy. The employee's boss knows that the employee is pregnant and has a light work that can be made by pregnant employees. However, his boss refused to request employees, saying that putting pregnant employees at work is simply too responsible for the company. In this case, it is not necessary to present the pregnant employees that they are not pregnant and have the same working capabilities or inoperable work that is given a light work position.

                    EXAMPLE 15 Discriminatory Parental Leave Policy

                    A plaintiff need not rely on the shifting-of-liability analysis set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Greene [97] to establish an intentional violation of the PDA if there is direct evidence that an ANIMUS-related pregnancy motivated the refusal of light work. However, such evidence must establish that similarly situated employees were treated differently from or more favorably than pregnant employees to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

                    4. Health Insurance

                    a. Generally

                    According to the Supreme Court decision in Young v. United Parcel Serve, Inc. [98], a PDA plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that "she belongs to a protected class, that she asked for an accommodation, that the employer did not accommodate her, and that the employer accommodated other employees similar in ability or lack of ability to work." "[100] To establish prima facie evidence, a plaintiff need not point to an employee who is "similar in all but the protected manner." [101] For example, a plaintiff may satisfy a showing by identifying employees who are similar in ability or inability to work due to their disability and who were given the accommodation requested by the pregnant employee (e. g., employees with lifting limitations).

                    Once an employee has established a prima facie case, the employer must demonstrate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for treating the pregnant employee differently from unqualified employees with similar ability or inability to work. "That reason will ordinarily not be based merely on a claim that it would be more costly or less convenient to place the pregnant woman in the category of employees for whom the employer provides accommodations ("similar degree of ability or inability to work")."[102]

                    • Even if an employer can assert a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for differential treatment, a pregnant employee can show that the reason is pretextual. Young explains:
                    • A plaintiff may obtain a jury verdict on this issue by presenting sufficient evidence that the employer's policy imposes a substantial burden on pregnant employees and that the employer's "legitimate, non-discriminatory" reasons are not strong enough to justify that burden, but rather, considered in tandem with the burden, would withstand an enhancement for intentional discrimination. [103]
                    • While accepting a lot of pregnant employees with limited restrictions, the employer's policy of refusing many pregnant employees can have a heavy burden on pregnant employees. [104] For example, in Young, the court has a policy in which the courts are forced to use up most of the employees who are restricted and are not pregnant, but will not be able to make convenience for pregnant employees with restricted lifting. He pointed out that it would present a serious problem. [105]
                    • The policy of restricting lighting allocation may have a different impact on pregnant employees. [106] If the impact is raised, the employer must prove that the policy is associated with duties and meets the need for business. [107]
                    • Leslie, a police officer, asked for a light work at six months pregnant, and was told by a doctor not to push or lift more than 20 pounds. The police station did not allow this demand because the police station had a policy that light work was limited to employees who were injured during work. Therefore, Leslie had to use undigested leave during the period when normal patrols were not possible. In the subsequent lawsuit, Leslie proved that almost all employees who were refused light work were pregnant, and that police lighting policies had a negative effect on pregnancy police officers. Police stations are obliged to pay for labor, regardless of labor, regardless of labor, and the light work policy is that taxpayers will receive some benefit from the wages paid to the police. I claimed that it was proven. However, there was evidence that a police officer who was not injured during his work was assigned to light work. This evidence is inconsistent with the assertion that the police station actually had the need for business. [108]

                    This policy is objection to pregnant workers and no n-pregnant workers because they are not unreasonably distinguished because the lack of labor or lack of abilities is the same, based on the restrictions. You can also file a petition.

                    • Employers cannot forcibly take vacation due to pregnancy as long as employees can do their job. Such an act violates the title VII, even if the employer thinks that the employer is acting for the best benefits of employees. [110]
                    • Lena worked for a coordination service that provides an office spac e-time cleaning service. When she told the site that she was pregnant, the director told me that she could no longer work because she could hurt her body due to the flexion and pus h-up necessary for her daily work. She explained that she was in good physical condition, and her physician told me that she did not need to change her current activities, including her work, and she was not particularly worried that she had to stop working. The site director immediately took Lena on a pregnancy unpaid vacation. Lena's vacation was cut before giving birth, and she was fired. Rena was rejected due to a stereotype of pregnancy. [111]

                    b. Insurance Coverage of Abortion

                    The policy of demanding employees for vacation during pregnancy or eliminating all pregnancy or pregnant women from work can prove that employers are no n-pregnant or no n-pregnancy. It is illegal unless the possibility is low [112]. In order to prove BFOQ, the employer shall show that the issue of issues is "reasonably necessary for specific business or corporate normal management." [113]

                    Employers cannot forcibly acquire vacation to pregnant workers, but women who have physical restrictions due to pregnancy should be allowed to work in the same condition as other or other workers who can work in the same way. It is. [114] Therefore, the employer cannot be dismissed due to absence, as long as the employee's absence is within the employee's disease leave regulations. [115] Employers cannot request employees with disabilities related to pregnancy or associated medical condition to exercise their sick leave before using other no n-digested leave. Similarly, the employer cannot impose the longest period of time shorter than other types of medical leave or shor t-term disability leave. However, the title VII does not require employers to give employers to provide medical leave related to pregnancy, childcare leave, or to treat their absence related to pregnancy more advantageously than absence for other medical conditions. 。 [116] < SPAN> Lena worked for a coordinating service that provides an offic e-spaced tim e-cleaning service. When she told the site that she was pregnant, the director told me that she could not work anymore because she could hurt her body due to the succession and pus h-up necessary for her daily work. She explained that she was in good physical condition, and her physician told me that she did not need to change her current activities, including her work, and she was not particularly worried that she had to stop working. The site director immediately took Lena on a pregnancy unpaid vacation. Lena's vacation was cut before giving birth, and she was fired. Rena was rejected due to a stereotype of pregnancy. [111]

                    5. Retirement Benefits and Seniority

                    The policy of demanding employees for vacation during pregnancy or eliminating all pregnancy or pregnant women from work can prove that employers are no n-pregnant or no n-pregnancy. It is illegal unless the possibility is low [112]. In order to prove BFOQ, the employer shall show that the issue of issues is "reasonably necessary for specific business or corporate normal management." [113]

                    II. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT [133]

                    Employers cannot forcibly acquire vacation to pregnant workers, but women who have physical restrictions due to pregnancy should be allowed to work in the same condition as other or other workers who can work in the same way. It is. [114] Therefore, the employer cannot be dismissed due to absence, as long as the employee's absence is within the employee's disease leave regulations. [115] Employers cannot request employees with disabilities related to pregnancy or associated medical condition to exercise their sick leave before using other no n-digested leave. Similarly, the employer cannot impose the longest period of time shorter than other types of medical leave or shor t-term disability leave. However, the title VII does not require employers to give employers to provide medical leave related to pregnancy, childcare leave, or to treat their absence related to pregnancy more advantageously than absence for other medical conditions. 。 [116] Lena worked for a coordination service that provides an office space for office spaces. When she told the site that she was pregnant, the director told me that she could no longer work because she could hurt her body due to the flexion and pus h-up necessary for her daily work. She explained that she was in good physical condition, and her physician told me that she did not need to change her current activities, including her work, and she was not particularly worried that she had to stop working. The site director immediately took Lena on a pregnancy unpaid vacation. Lena's vacation was cut before giving birth, and she was fired. Rena was rejected due to a stereotype of pregnancy. [111]

                    A. Disability Status

                    The policy of demanding employees for vacation during pregnancy or eliminating all pregnancy or pregnant women from work can prove that employers are no n-pregnant or no n-pregnancy. It is illegal unless the possibility is low [112]. In order to prove BFOQ, the employer shall show that the issue of issues is "reasonably necessary for specific business or corporate normal management." [113]

                    Employers cannot force their vacation to the pregnant workers, but women who have physical restrictions due to pregnancy should be allowed to work in the same way as other workers who can work or cannot work. It is. [114] Therefore, the employer cannot be dismissed due to absence, as long as the employee's absence is within the employee's disease leave regulations. [115] Employers cannot request employees with disabilities related to pregnancy or associated medical condition to exercise their sick leave before using other no n-digested leave. Similarly, the employer cannot impose the longest period of time shorter than other types of medical leave or shor t-term disability leave. However, the title VII does not require employers to give employers to provide medical leave related to pregnancy, childcare leave, or to treat their absence related to pregnancy more advantageously than absence for other medical conditions. 。 [116]

                    Jill applied for two months of leave due to pregnancy-related complications. Her employer denied her request, even though the company's sick leave policy permitted such leave. Jill's supervisor recommended that the company deny her request, arguing that her absence would cause staffing issues and that the request could lead to additional leave requests if her condition did not improve. Jill was unable to come to work due to her medical condition and was released. The evidence showed that the alleged staffing issues were not significant and that the employer had approved extended sick leave requests from non-pregnant employees in similar circumstances. Moreover, the employer's concern that Jill was likely to request additional leave was based on stereotypes about pregnant employees. [117] This evidence is sufficient to establish that the employer's explanation of the difference in treatment between Jill and her non-pregnant coworkers was a pretext for pregnancy discrimination. [118]

                    Michelle applied for two months of leave due to pregnancy-related complications. Her employer denied her request because its policy providing medical leave did not allow employees to be eligible for such leave unless they had been employed for at least 90 days. Michelle had only been employed for 65 days at the time she requested leave. There was no evidence that non-pregnant employees with fewer than 90 days of service were granted medical leave. Because the leave decision was made under the eligibility policy and not because of Michelle's pregnancy, there is no evidence of pregnancy discrimination under a disparate treatment analysis. [119] For the same reason, if the employer provided family and medical leave to other employees with serious health conditions, it was not required to provide the same leave to the pregnant employee if she had not worked the required number of hours for the employer in the past 12 months to qualify. [120]

                    Policies that limit leave can disproportionately affect pregnant women. For example, policies that cap sick leave at 10 days or that do not allow sick leave during the first year of employment have been found to have adverse effects on pregnant women. [121]

                    EXAMPLE 16 Pregnancy-Related Impairment Constitutes ADA Disability Because It Substantially Limits a Major Life Activity

                    If the client determines that such a policy has a different impact, the employer must show that the policy is in line with the duties and meets the need for business. The employer must have evidence to justify the policy. Business needs cannot be proven by simply explicit. Therefore, one court claims that the employer had a high turnover rate and wanted to give a vacation only to employees who proved "sustainability", so that employees did not give vacation to employees who were less than one year of service. However, if he did not present any evidence, he did not acknowledge the need for business. [122] The court also determined that most of the first year had been acquired three months after joining the company, so that the alternative policy that refuses shor t-term vacations will be the same for business purposes. [one two three]

                    In order to judge the requirements of Title VII, the employer is to deepen the bond with the child (described in this book as a medical leave related to pregnancy) and the child. You should carefully distinguish the vacation to take care of your child (in this book, a childcare leave).

                    EXAMPLE 17 Discrimination Against a Job Applicant Because of Her Record of a Disability

                    Leave for pregnancy, childbirth, or relevant medical condition can be determined only for women who are affected by these medical conditions. [124] However, childcare leave must be provided to men and women in similar circumstances under the same conditions. [125] For example, if the employer extends a vacation to a newly recovered period from childbirth (for example, to take care of the baby, or to take care of the baby). For the same purpose, it is not possible to provide the same vacation to the new father.

                    Employers offer pregnant employees for up to 10 weeks of pregnancy and childbirth as part of shor t-term disability insurance. The employer also gives new parents six weeks childcare leave, regardless of gender. One male employee claims that this policy gives women a 1 6-week vacation, giving men only six weeks of vacation, and is discriminatory. The employer's policy does not violate the title VII. Both women and men take childcare leave for six weeks, and women who give birth take up to 10 weeks of vacation to recover from pregnancy and childbirth under a shor t-term disability plan. < SPAN> If the claimant determines that such a policy has a different effect, the employer must show that the policy is in line with the duties and meets the need for business. The employer must have evidence to justify the policy. Business needs cannot be proven by simply explicit. Therefore, one court claims that the employer had a high turnover rate and wanted to give a vacation only to employees who proved "sustainability", so that employees did not give vacation to employees who were less than one year of service. However, if he did not present any evidence, he did not acknowledge the need for business. [122] The court also determined that most of the first year had been acquired three months after joining the company, so that the alternative policy that refuses shor t-term vacations will be the same for business purposes. [one two three]

                    EXAMPLE 18 Pregnant Employee Regarded as Having a Disability

                    In order to judge the requirements of Title VII, the employer is to deepen the bond with the child (described in this book as a medical leave related to pregnancy) and the child. You should carefully distinguish the vacation to take care of your child (in this book, a childcare leave).

                    B. Reasonable Accommodation

                    Leave for pregnancy, childbirth, or relevant medical condition can be determined only for women who are affected by these medical conditions. [124] However, childcare leave must be provided to men and women in similar circumstances under the same conditions. [125] For example, if the employer extends a vacation to a newly recovered period from childbirth (for example, to take care of the baby, or to take care of the baby). For the same purpose, it is not possible to provide the same vacation to the new father.

                    EXAMPLE 19 Conditions Resulting from Interaction of Pregnancy and an Underlying Disability

                    Employers offer pregnant employees for up to 10 weeks of pregnancy and childbirth as part of shor t-term disability insurance. The employer also gives new parents six weeks childcare leave, regardless of gender. One male employee claims that this policy gives women a 1 6-week vacation, giving men only six weeks of vacation, and is discriminatory. The employer's policy does not violate the title VII. Both women and men take childcare leave for six weeks, and women who give birth take up to 10 weeks of vacation to recover from pregnancy and childbirth under a shor t-term disability plan. If the client determines that such a policy has a different impact, the employer must show that the policy is in line with the duties and meets the need for business. The employer must have evidence to justify the policy. Business needs cannot be proven by simply explicit. Therefore, one court claims that the employer had a high turnover rate and wanted to give a vacation only to employees who proved "sustainability", so that employees did not give vacation to employees who were less than one year of service. However, if he did not present any evidence, he did not acknowledge the need for business. [122] The court also determined that most of the first year had been acquired three months after joining the company, so that the alternative policy that refuses shor t-term vacations will be the same for business purposes. [one two three]

                    In order to judge the requirements of Title VII, the employer is to deepen the bond with the child (described in this book as a medical leave related to pregnancy) and the child. You should carefully distinguish the vacation to take care of your child (in this book, a childcare leave).

                    • Leave for pregnancy, childbirth, or relevant medical condition can be determined only for women who are affected by these medical conditions. [124] However, childcare leave must be provided to men and women in similar circumstances under the same conditions. [125] For example, if the employer extends a vacation to a newly recovered period from childbirth (for example, to take care of the baby, or to take care of the baby). For the same purpose, it is not possible to provide the same vacation to the new father.
                    • Employers offer pregnant employees for up to 10 weeks of pregnancy and childbirth as part of shor t-term disability insurance. The employer also gives new parents six weeks childcare leave, regardless of gender. One male employee claims that this policy gives women a 1 6-week vacation, giving men only six weeks of vacation, and is discriminatory. The employer's policy does not violate the title VII. Both women and men take childcare leave for six weeks, and women who give birth take up to 10 weeks of vacation to recover from pregnancy and childbirth under a shor t-term disability plan.
                    • An employer provides medical leave for women with pregnancy-related illnesses, leave for new mothers to recover from childbirth, and an additional six months of paid leave for new mothers to bond with and care for their newborns. The employer does not provide paid parental leave to fathers. This employer's policy violates Title VII because it does not provide equal paid parental leave to men and women.
                    • As with other fringe benefits, employers who offer health insurance to employees must include coverage for pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. [126]
                    • Employers with health insurance benefit plans must apply the same conditions to pregnancy-related expenses as they do to non-pregnancy-related medical expenses. [127] For example,
                    • if a health insurance plan covers a pre-existing condition, it must cover the costs of pregnancy, which is an insured's pre-existing condition. [128]
                    • If the plan covers a percentage of medical expenses incurred for conditions not related to pregnancy, it must also cover the same percentage of recoverable expenses for pregnancy-related conditions.

                    III. OTHER REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING PREGNANT WORKERS

                    A. Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

                    If a health insurance benefit is subject to a deductible, pregnancy-related medical expenses are not subject to the higher deductible.

                    Plans must not impose limitations that apply solely to pregnancy-related medical expenses, such as office visits, lab tests, x-rays, ambulance services, or recovery room use.

                    • Plans must cover prescription contraceptives on the same basis as prescription drugs, devices, and services used to prevent the occurrence of medical conditions other than pregnancy. [129]
                    • The following principles apply to pregnancy-related medical coverage for employees and their dependents:
                    • Employers must provide the same level of medical coverage for female employees and their dependents as they provide for male employees and their dependents.
                    • Employers are not required to provide the same level of medical coverage for employees' spouses as they provide for female employees.

                    The PDA makes clear that if an employer provides health insurance benefits, it is not required to pay for abortion coverage unless the mother's life would be endangered if the fetus died. If complications arise during an abortion, the health insurance plan must pay for the costs resulting from those complications. [130]

                    • The Act also clarifies that it does not prevent employers from offering abortion benefits directly or through collective bargaining agreements. If an employer decides to cover the cost of an abortion, it must do so in the same manner and to the same extent as it covers other medical conditions. [131]
                    • Employers must accord seniority to women who take pregnancy-related medical leave in the same way as women who take leave for reasons unrelated to pregnancy. Thus, if an employer allows employees who take medical leave to retain their accumulated seniority and accrue additional service credits during the leave, the employer must treat women who take pregnancy-related medical leave in the same way. Similarly, employers should treat pregnancy-related sick leave the same as other sick leave in calculating years of service when assessing an employee's eligibility for retirement or early retirement. [132]
                    • Title I of the ADA protects individuals from employment discrimination on the basis of disability. Disability discrimination occurs when a covered employer or other entity treats an applicant or employee less favorably because the applicant or employee has or has a history of a disability, or is believed to have a physical or mental disability. [134] Discrimination under the ADA also includes the application of selection criteria that project or tend to project a disability or a class of disabled people, unless the qualifications, tests, or other selection criteria can be shown to be related to the job at issue and consistent with business necessity. [135] The ADA prohibits discrimination in all aspects of employment, including hiring, promotion, wages, duties, offers, termination, training, fringe benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment. Under the ADA, employers are restricted from making disability-related inquiries or requiring medical examinations. [136] The law also requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees and job applicants with disabilities. [137]
                    • The ADA defines that the term "disability" is considered to have a disorder that substantially restricts one or more major living activities, record of such disability, or have a disability. [138] U. S. Congress does not require a wide range of analysis in the 2008 ADA Revision Law (ADAA), and the definition of disability is widespread. Clarified that it should be interpreted in an advantage in the applicable range. Judgment of whether or not individuals have disabilities should be regarded as relevant to the improvement effect of pharmacotherapy and treatment such as drug therapy and treatment that reduce or remove the disability. [139] ADAAA does not require a specific period to last a specific period in order to be regarded as a substantive limit. [140] ADAAA contains major body functions as major living movements, in addition to major living movements, such as walking, standing, and lifting, which can be affected by disability related to pregnancy. Major physical functions include a nerve system, muscular skeleton, endocrine system, genital system, and a single organs in the body system.

                    B. Executive Order 13152 Prohibiting Discrimination Based on Status as Parent

                    Prior to the enactment of ADAA, some courts found that pregnanc y-related medical condition is generally not a disability in the meaning of ADA, but therefore no obstacles. [141] The pregnancy itself is not an obstacle in the ADA, but it is not a failure in itself, but some of the pregnant employees are disabled by the revision of ADA. Sometimes it has a disability related to pregnancy. The cause of the disability does not matter in the judgment whether the disability is a disability. [144] Furthermore, under the revised ADA, it is likely that a specific pregnancy that imposes restrictions on work is a substantial limit, even if it is temporary. [145]

                    • Some disorders of the reproductive system may make pregnancy more difficult and therefore require certain physical restrictions to allow a full-term pregnancy, or may lead to restrictions after birth. Uterine and cervical disorders may cause such complications. [146] For example, a person diagnosed with cervical insufficiency may require bed rest during pregnancy. One court has concluded that multiple physiological disorders of the reproductive system that require birth by Caesarean section are disorders for which an employee is entitled to reasonable accommodation. [147]
                    • Disorders that involve other important bodily functions may also lead to pregnancy-related restrictions. For example, pregnancy-related anemia (affecting normal cell growth); pregnancy-related sciatica (affecting musculoskeletal function); pregnancy-related carpal tunnel syndrome (affecting nervous system function); gestational diabetes (affecting endocrine function); nausea that may cause severe dehydration (affecting digestive or genitourinary function); heart rhythm abnormalities that may require treatment (affecting cardiovascular function); swelling (especially in the legs) due to restricted circulation (affecting circulatory function). and depression (affecting brain function).[148]
                    • [150], pregnancy-related complications with a breech presentation that led to an emergency department visit and bed rest.[151]In another case, the court concluded that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff had a disability within the meaning of the amended ADA when a doctor, despite not identifying a specific disability, deemed the pregnancy "high risk" and recommended that the plaintiff limit her work hours and avoid heavy lifting.[152]
                    • At the fifth month of pregnancy, Amy developed hypertension, severe headache, abdominal pain, nausea, and dizziness. The attending physician diagnosed her as pr e-embraulania, and ordered her to rest in the remaining pregnancy in bed. This evidence indicates that Amy was a physically disabled in the meaning of ADA. Amy had a physiological disorder that substantially restricts the main physical functions, such as standing, sitting, and walking, as well as cardiovascular and circulating functions. The effects of the rest of the bed that would have gained on bed to relieve Amy's pr e-embraulania symptoms may not be taken into account. The ADA Revision Law demands that a person has a disability or not, regardless of the easing measures.
                    • Employers will discriminate against pregnant employees if they have disadvantaged in the past due to a seriously restricted disability.
                    • A prefectural police has arrested the applicant as a police officer. He filled the questionnaire after the job offer and called for a medical examination. [153] In the questionnaire, the applicant stated that the applicant had pregnancy diabetes three years ago, but the symptoms had subsided after giving birth. The police station is now an ADA if the applicant has now canceled his job offer based on the past background of this pregnancy diabetes, despite the fact that the applicant has no disabilities affecting the ability to perform his duties safely. It will violate.
                    • Finally, the employer is prohibited to pregnant employees based on actual or recognized obstacles that are not transient (expected to be permanent or 6 months or less). If the acts (such as dismissing or relocating to a less desirable occupation), the employees are deemed to be impaired. [154] < Span> At the fifth month of pregnancy, Amy developed hypertension, severe headache, abdominal pain, nausea, and dizziness. The attending physician diagnosed her as pr e-embraulania, and ordered her to rest in the remaining pregnancy in bed. This evidence indicates that Amy was a physically disabled in the meaning of ADA. Amy had a physiological disorder that substantially restricts the main physical functions, such as standing, sitting, and walking, as well as cardiovascular and circulating functions. The effects of the rest of the bed that would have gained on bed to relieve Amy's pr e-embraulania symptoms may not be taken into account. The ADA Revision Law demands that a person has a disability or not, regardless of the easing measures.

                    C. Reasonable Break Time for Nursing Mothers [167]

                    Employers will discriminate against pregnant employees if they have disadvantaged in the past due to a seriously restricted disability.

                    • A prefectural police has arrested the applicant as a police officer. He filled the questionnaire after the job offer and called for a medical examination. [153] In the questionnaire, the applicant stated that the applicant had pregnancy diabetes three years ago, but the symptoms had subsided after giving birth. The police station is now an ADA if the applicant has now canceled his job offer based on the past background of this pregnancy diabetes, despite the fact that the applicant has no disabilities affecting the ability to perform his duties safely. It will violate.
                    • Finally, the employer is prohibited to pregnant employees based on actual or recognized obstacles that are not transient (expected to be permanent or 6 months or less). If the acts (such as dismissing or relocating to a less desirable occupation), the employees are deemed to be impaired. [154] At the fifth month of pregnancy, Amy developed hypertension, severe headache, abdominal pain, nausea, and dizziness. The attending physician diagnosed her as pr e-embraulania, and ordered her to rest in the remaining pregnancy in bed. This evidence indicates that Amy was a physically disabled in the meaning of ADA. Amy had a physiological disorder that substantially restricts the main physical functions, such as standing, sitting, and walking, as well as cardiovascular and circulating functions. The effects of the rest of the bed that would have gained on bed to relieve Amy's pr e-embraulania symptoms may not be taken into account. The ADA Revision Law demands that a person has a disability or not, regardless of the easing measures.
                    • Employers will discriminate against pregnant employees if they have disadvantaged in the past due to a seriously restricted disability.
                    • A prefectural police has arrested the applicant as a police officer. He filled the questionnaire after the job offer and called for a medical examination. [153] In the questionnaire, the applicant stated that the applicant had pregnancy diabetes three years ago, but the symptoms had subsided after giving birth. The police station is now an ADA if the applicant has now canceled his job offer based on the past background of this pregnancy diabetes, despite the fact that the applicant has no disabilities affecting the ability to perform his duties safely. It will violate.
                    • Finally, the employer is prohibited to pregnant employees based on actual or recognized obstacles that are not transient (expected to be permanent or 6 months or less). If the acts (such as dismissing or relocating to a less desirable occupation), the employees are deemed to be impaired. [154]
                    • The employer assigned a pregnant welding work in the tool room in the factory. The job is to check whether it has been used, monitor the tools that return at the end of the day, and create documents and tools that require repair. The job is much lower than welding work, and most employees think they are "working." The manager who changed the relocation was because the employee had experienced "complications related to pregnancy" and thought that if he continued to work on solving work, he could be dismissed. Employees said that there were no complications related to pregnancy, and the attending physician could continue to work as a welding. Employees needed to have a prohibited measure (returning to work that is less desirable at low wages) based on the belief that employees have a slight disability rather than transient. I thought it was. Employers are also responsible for discrimination because they have no evidence that employees could not fulfill the essential function of welding work, and that there was no evidence that they had threatened the safety of others and others in their duties. According to evidence, employees were able to perform welding duties.

                    D. State Laws

                    Pregnant employees have the right to take rational consideration under the ADA for restrictions caused by the pregnancy that consists of disability or the restrictions caused by the interaction between pregnancy and basic disorders. [156] Reasonable consideration is that people with disabilities apply for employment, perform essential functions for duties, and enjoy equal employment welfare and privileges. It is a change in the method. [157] Employers may refuse rational consideration for employees with disabilities only when they cause unreasonable hardships. [158] Unfair difficulties are defined as acts that require substantial difficulties and costs. [159]

                    Jennifer has succeeded in treating neuropathy with drug therapy for several years. Without pharmacotherapy, Jennifer experienced severe fatigue and difficult to do one day work. However, the combination of prescribed drugs was able to work while resting during a break scheduled for all employees. Jennifer, who became pregnant, was stopped by his doctor in consideration of the risk of pregnancy. There was no appropriate alternative. She began to feel fatigue and noticed that short breaks during the day and lunch were inadequate. Jennifer demanded a more frequent break during the day to relieve fatigue. Unless there is an unreasonable hardship, the employer should have provided such convenience.

                    There are examples of rational considerations necessary for pregnanc y-related disabilities, but not limited to these: [160]

                    IV. BEST PRACTICES

                    R e-distribution of the marginal functions that employees cannot execute due to disabilities. Limit functions are no n-basic (or indispensable) duties. Examples of the organic agricultural product market manager has been restricted by £ 20 in the late pregnancy due to sciatica related to pregnancy. Usually, when the delivery truck carries daily shipments, one of the suppliers drops fruit and vegetables and carries them to the store. If farmers are delayed or absent, the store manager needs to lower agricultural products from the truck. During the cancellation period of the store manager, the employer can remove the limit of unloading the product from the duties of the store manager as long as one of the cashiers can respond to unloading the product.

                    Change the basic or restricted work function (for example, change the requirements for standing, up and down, lifting, and flexing). Example The warehouse administrator, which developed carpal tunnel syndrome associated with pregnancy, was told by a doctor to avoid working on a computer keyboard. She is responsible for managing the inventory record on the site and completing a weekly summer report. District managers approve the plan for employees to enter the data required for the summary report on the computer based on the notes of employees and to confirm that employees input are accurate based on the memo described by employees. did. < SPAN> Jennifer has succeeded in treating neuropathy with drug therapy for several years. Without pharmacotherapy, Jennifer experienced severe fatigue and difficult to do one day work. However, the combination of prescribed drugs was able to work while resting during a break scheduled for all employees. Jennifer, who became pregnant, was stopped by his doctor in consideration of the risk of pregnancy. There was no appropriate alternative. She began to feel fatigue and noticed that short breaks during the day and lunch were inadequate. Jennifer demanded a more frequent break during the day to relieve fatigue. Unless there is an unreasonable hardship, the employer should have provided such convenience.

                    There are examples of rational considerations necessary for pregnanc y-related disabilities, but not limited to these: [160]

                    • R e-distribution of the marginal functions that employees cannot execute due to disabilities. Limit functions are no n-basic (or indispensable) duties. Examples of the organic agricultural product market manager has been restricted by £ 20 in the late pregnancy due to sciatica related to pregnancy. Usually, when the delivery truck carries daily shipments, one of the suppliers drops fruit and vegetables and carries them to the store. If farmers are delayed or absent, the store manager needs to lower agricultural products from the truck. During the cancellation period of the store manager, the employer can remove the limit of unloading the product from the duties of the store manager as long as one of the cashiers can respond to unloading the product.
                      • Change the basic or restricted work function (for example, change the requirements for standing, up and down, lifting, and flexing). Example The warehouse administrator, which developed carpal tunnel syndrome associated with pregnancy, was told by a doctor to avoid working on a computer keyboard. She is responsible for managing the inventory record on the site and completing a weekly summer report. District managers approve the plan for employees to enter the data required for the summary report on the computer based on the notes of employees and to confirm that employees input are accurate based on the memo described by employees. did. Jennifer has succeeded in treating neuropathy with drug therapy for several years. Without pharmacotherapy, Jennifer experienced severe fatigue and difficult to do one day work. However, the combination of prescribed drugs was able to work while resting during a break scheduled for all employees. Jennifer, who became pregnant, was stopped by his doctor in consideration of the risk of pregnancy. There was no appropriate alternative. She began to feel fatigue and noticed that short breaks during the day and lunch were inadequate. Jennifer demanded a more frequent break during the day to relieve fatigue. Unless there is an unreasonable hardship, the employer should have provided such convenience.
                      • There are examples of rational considerations necessary for pregnanc y-related disabilities, but not limited to these: [160]
                      • R e-distribution of the marginal functions that employees cannot execute due to disabilities. Limit functions are no n-basic (or indispensable) duties. Examples of the organic agricultural product market manager has been restricted by £ 20 in the late pregnancy due to sciatica related to pregnancy. Usually, when the delivery truck carries daily shipments, one of the suppliers drops fruit and vegetables and carries them to the store. If farmers are delayed or absent, the store manager needs to lower agricultural products from the truck. During the cancellation period of the store manager, the employer can remove the limit of unloading the product from the duties of the store manager as long as one of the cashiers can respond to unloading the product.

                      Change the basic or restricted work function (for example, change the requirements for standing, up and down, lifting, and flexing). Example The warehouse administrator, which developed carpal tunnel syndrome associated with pregnancy, was told by a doctor to avoid working on a computer keyboard. She is responsible for managing the inventory record on the site and completing a weekly summer report. District managers approve the plan for employees to enter the data required for the summary report on the computer based on the notes of employees and to confirm that employees input are accurate based on the memo described by employees. did.

                      • Changes in workplace policies. Example employees in charge of accepting and submitting a construction plan for development proposals were diagnosed with kidney disease related to pregnancy, and regularly intake during work. She was forbidden to remove water at her workplace because of the risk of liquid spilling and damaged documents. With the boss's measure, a table was placed right outside the file room, making it easy to drink water.
                      • Most of the eigh t-day shifts had to stand at the counter with the purchase or remodeling examples of equipment and equipment. During pregnancy, she developed severe pelvic pain due to loose joints, and was unstable and had to sit for most of the time. Her manager provided a stool to work comfortably at the height of the counter.
                      • Change work schedule. Symptoms worsened because depression employees did not take regular medicine during pregnancy. The attending physician submitted a document indicating that the symptoms would be alleviated if counseling was received every week. Since the counseling session was reserved only during the day, the employees asked to work one hour later in the afternoon to manage their time. Managers do not adversely affect the ability of employees to meet their clients and customers, and some of the employees' operations, such as preparing mail and reports, do it late in one day. He concluded that this accommodation would not be excessive hardship. < SPAN> Changes in workplace policy Examples, employees in charge of accepting and submitting a construction plan for development proposals have been diagnosed with kidney disease related to pregnancy, and regular water intake during work. She was forbidden to remove water at her workplace because of the risk of liquid spilling and damaged documents. With the boss's measure, a table was placed right outside the file room, making it easy to drink water.
                      • Most of the eigh t-day shifts had to stand at the counter with the purchase or remodeling examples of equipment and equipment. During pregnancy, she developed severe pelvic pain due to loose joints, and was unstable and had to sit for most of the time. Her manager provided a stool to work comfortably at the height of the counter.
                      • Change work schedule. Symptoms worsened because depression employees did not take regular medicine during pregnancy. The attending physician submitted a document indicating that the symptoms would be alleviated if counseling was received every week. Since the counseling session was reserved only during the day, the employees asked to work one hour later in the afternoon to manage their time. Managers do not adversely affect the ability of employees to meet their clients and customers, and some of the employees' operations, such as preparing mail and reports, do it late in one day. He concluded that this accommodation would not be excessive hardship. Changes in workplace policies. Example employees in charge of accepting and submitting a construction plan for development proposals were diagnosed with kidney disease related to pregnancy, and regularly intake during work. She was forbidden to remove water at her workplace because of the risk of liquid spilling and damaged documents. With the boss's measure, a table was placed right outside the file room, making it easy to drink water.
                      • Most of the eigh t-day shifts had to stand at the counter with the purchase or remodeling examples of equipment and equipment. During pregnancy, she developed severe pelvic pain due to loose joints, and was unstable and had to sit for most of the time. Her manager provided a stool to work comfortably at the height of the counter.
                      • Change work schedule. Symptoms worsened because depression employees did not take regular medicine during pregnancy. The attending physician submitted a document indicating that the symptoms would be alleviated if counseling was received every week. Since the counseling session was reserved only during the day, the employees asked to work one hour later in the afternoon to manage their time. Managers do not adversely affect the ability of employees to meet their clients and customers, and some of the employees' operations, such as preparing mail and reports, do it late in one day. He concluded that this accommodation would not be excessive hardship.

                      Allowing leave (which may be unpaid if the employee does not have paid leave) for disability-related reasons in addition to the leave the employer would normally provide under its sick leave policy. Example: A bank account clerk is diagnosed with cervical abnormalities while pregnant and is ordered by her doctor to remain on bed rest until delivery. The employee has not worked at the bank long enough to qualify for Family and Medical Leave Act leave, and although she has sick leave under the employer's policy, it is insufficient to cover the recommended period of bed rest. The company determines that granting a request for sick leave beyond the terms of the unpaid leave policy would not be an undue hardship.

                      • Temporary assignment to light duty. [161] Example: An employee at a garden center was tasked with watering plants, pushing a cart, and lifting small pots from the cart to the trash can. Her doctor gives her a paperwork stating that she is not to lift or push more than 20 pounds due to pregnancy-related pelvic pain caused by hormonal changes in the pelvic joints. The manager allows her to work light duty at the cash register.
                      • Title VII does not require employers to provide pregnancy-related or parental leave, nor does it provide leave for other temporary medical or family obligations. The FMLA requires covered employers to provide such leave.[162] The FMLA covers private employers with 50 or more employees with 20 or more weeks of service in the current or preceding calendar year, as well as federal, state, and local governments.[163] Under the FMLA, eligible employees[164] may take up to 12 weeks of leave during any 12-month period for one or more of the following reasons:
                      • (1) the birth and care of the employee’s newborn baby;
                      • (2) the placement of a child for adoption or foster care;
                      • (3) the care of the employee’s spouse, son, daughter, or parent who has a serious health condition;

                      (4) medical leave when the employee is unable to work due to a serious health condition. [165]

                      • The FMLA also provides that:
                      • An employer must maintain an employee's existing level of coverage under a group health plan while the employee is on FMLA leave, just as if the employee had not taken the leave.
                      • After FMLA leave ends, the employer must reinstate the employee to his or her former job or to a comparable job with equal pay, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment.
                      • Spouses employed by the same employer may not take more than 12 weeks of family leave between them for the birth and care of a healthy newborn, the adoption or foster placement of a healthy child, or the care of a parent with a serious health condition.
                      • Employers may not obstruct, restrain, or deny an individual the exercise of FMLA rights, or discriminate against an individual for opposing conduct prohibited by the FMLA or for participating in an FMLA-related proceeding.
                      • Executive Order 13152 [166] prohibits discrimination in Federal employment based on an individual's parental status. "Parental status" means, with respect to a person under the age of 18, or a person over the age of 18 who is unable to care for himself/herself because of a physical or mental disability, the status of the person as follows:
                      • (1) Biological parent
                      • (2) Adoptive parent;- (2) Foster parent;- (2) Foster parent;- (2) Foster parent;- (2) Foster parent;- (2) Foster parent;- (2) Foster parent;- (2) Foster parent;- (2) Foster parent;- (2) Foster parent

                      (3) Foster parent;- (3) Foster parent;- (3) Foster parent;- (4) Pedestrian

                      • (4) Pedestrian.
                      • (5) Legal custodian
                      • (6) Parent with custody of such person ή
                      • (7) Actively seeking legal custody or adoption of such person.
                      • Section 4207 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [168] states: [169]
                      • Employers must provide "reasonable breaks" for nursing employees to express breast milk until the child's first birthday.

                      Employers must provide a private place, other than a bathroom, for this purpose.

                      Employers are not required to pay employees for time worked for this purpose. [170]

                      Hourly employees who are not exempt from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act are entitled to breastfeeding breaks.

                      Employers with fewer than 50 employees are not subject to these requirements if the requirements "would impose an undue hardship by causing substantial hardship or expense when considered in relation to the size, nature, and structure of the employer's business."

                      The Act does not preempt state laws that provide greater protections for employees. [171]

                      Title VII does not relieve employers of their obligations under state or local laws unless those laws require or permit conduct that violates Title VII. [172] Thus, employers must comply with state or local laws regarding pregnant employees unless they require or permit discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. [173]

                      In California Federal Savings and Loan Ass'n v. Guerra [174], the Supreme Court held that the PDA does not apply to a California law that requires employers in that state to provide up to four months of disability leave for unpaid pregnancy. The California Federation of Labor argued that the state law conflicted with Title VII because it required preferential treatment for female employees who were disabled by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The Court disagreed, concluding that Congress intended the PDA to be "a floor against which pregnancy disability benefits may not fall, not a ceiling against which they may not rise." [175]

                      The Court stated in the galley that "even if Congress did in fact intend to prohibit preferential treatment, it is unlikely that it would have discussed at length its intent to only require no preferential treatment." [176] The Court noted that California law does not require employers to treat pregnant women more favorably than employees with disabilities. Rather, state law merely establishes the minimum benefits that employers must provide to pregnant employees. Employers are free to provide similar benefits to other employees with disabilities, and thus cannot treat women affected by pregnancy in the same way as other employees who are not affected but who have equal capacity or ability to work, the Court stated. [177]

                      The legal obligations regarding pregnancy discrimination and related issues are stated above. Below are suggested best practices that employers can adopt to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy-related PDA and ADA violations and remove barriers to equal employment opportunity.

                      Best practices are proactive measures that may exceed federal non-discrimination requirements or increase the likelihood that such requirements will be met. These policies may reduce complaints of unlawful discrimination and improve employee productivity. They may also aid in recruiting and retention efforts.

                      General

                      Develop, communicate, and enforce strong policies based on the requirements of the PDA and the ADA.

                      Ensure that policies address the types of conduct that may constitute unlawful discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, maternity, and related medical conditions.

                      Ensure that policies provide multiple avenues for complaint.

                      Review relevant federal, state, and local laws and regulations, such as Title VII as amended by the PDA, the ADA as amended, the FMLA, and relevant employer policies.

                      Hiring, promotion, and other employment decisions

                      Focus on the applicant's or employee's qualifications for the job. Do not ask applicants or employees about their pregnancy status, whether they have children, plans to start a family, or other related matters during interviews or performance reviews.

                      Develop specific, job-related qualification criteria for each position that reflect the duties, functions, and competencies of the job and minimize the possibility of gender stereotyping or discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, maternity, or related medical conditions. Ensure that these criteria are applied consistently when selecting candidates.

                      Ensure that job vacancies, substitute positions, and offers are communicated to all qualified employees.

                      Make hiring, promotions, and other employment decisions without regard to stereotypes or assumptions about women affected by pregnancy, maternity, or related medical conditions.

                      When reviewing and comparing the employment histories of applicants and employees for hiring and promotion purposes, focus on work experience and achievements, and give equal weight to accumulated relevant experience given to employees with continuing service.

                      Ensure that employment decisions are fully documented and explained to affected individuals, whenever possible. Ensure that management keeps records for at least as long as necessary. See 29 CFR § 1602.

                      Disclose information about fetal risks to applicants and employees and accommodate reassignment requests, if possible. [178]

                      Leave and other fringe benefits

                      Leave for pregnancy, childbirth, or related conditions may be limited to women who suffer from these conditions. Parental leave should be given to men and women on the same terms.

                      If you have restrictive leave policies (such as leave restrictions during probationary periods), evaluate whether they disproportionately affect pregnant employees and, if so, whether they are necessary for business operations. Ensure that your policies state that employees have the right to take leave as a reasonable accommodation.

                      Check whether workplace policies that limit employee flexibility, such as set work hours or mandatory overtime, are necessary for business operations.

                      Consult with employees who will be taking pregnancy and/or parental leave to determine how they will handle their work responsibilities.

                      Ensure that employees who are absent due to pregnancy, maternity, or related medical conditions can receive training, if they so choose, while away from the workplace. [179]

                      Terms and Conditions of Employment

                      Monitor compensation practices and performance evaluation systems for potential patterns of discrimination based on pregnancy, maternity, or related health conditions. Ensure that compensation practices and performance appraisals are based on actual employee performance, not on stereotypes about these conditions.

                      Check light work policies. Ensure that light work policies are structured to provide pregnant employees with light work equivalent to employees with similar work restrictions.

                      If possible, temporarily shuffle duties that employees cannot perform due to pregnancy or related medical conditions.

                      Protect against unlawful harassment.

                      Adopt and communicate a strong anti-harassment policy that includes information about pregnancy-related harassment.

                      Train employees and managers on the contents and procedures of the policy.

                      Develop the potential of employees, supervisors, and managers regardless of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

                      Train all employees, including those affected by pregnancy or related medical conditions, so that everyone has the information they need to perform their jobs well.

                      Ensure that workers have equal opportunities to participate in complex or high-visibility tasks that will help them develop their skills and experience and advance to higher-level positions.

                      Evaluate whether restrictive leave policies (such as probationary leave restrictions) have a disproportionate impact on pregnant employees and, if so, whether they are necessary to operate the business.

                      Make sure that your policy clearly states that employees have the right to take leave as a reasonable accommodation.

                      Determine whether workplace policies that limit employee flexibility, such as set work hours or mandatory overtime, are necessary for business operations.

                      Consult with employees who will be taking pregnancy and/or parental leave to determine how they will handle their work responsibilities.

                      Ensure that employees who are absent due to pregnancy, maternity, or related medical conditions can receive training, if they so wish, while away from the workplace. [179]

                      Conditions of Employment

                      Monitor compensation practices and performance appraisal systems for potential patterns of discrimination based on pregnancy, maternity, or related health conditions. Ensure that compensation practices and performance appraisals are based on actual employee performance, not on stereotypes about these conditions.

                      Check light work policies. Ensure that light work policies are structured to provide pregnant employees with light work equivalent to employees with similar work limitations.

                      If possible, temporarily shuffle off duties that employees cannot perform due to pregnancy or related medical conditions.

                      Protect against unlawful harassment. Adopt and publicize a strong anti-harassment policy that includes information about pregnancy-related harassment. Provide regular training for employees and managers on the content and procedures of the policy.

                      Develop the potential of employees, supervisors, and managers regardless of pregnancy, maternity, or related medical conditions.

                      Provide training for all employees, including those affected by pregnancy or related medical conditions, so that everyone has the information they need to perform their jobs well. [180]

                      Ensure that workers have equal opportunities to participate in complex or high-profile tasks that will help them develop their skills and experience and advance to higher-level positions.

                      Evaluate any restrictive leave policies (such as leave restrictions during probationary periods) to see if they disproportionately affect pregnant employees and, if so, whether they are necessary for business operations.

                      Make sure that your policies state that employees have a right to take leave as a reasonable accommodation.

                      Identify whether workplace policies that limit employee flexibility, such as set work hours or mandatory overtime, are necessary for business operations.

                      Consult with employees who will be taking pregnancy and/or parental leave to determine how they will handle their work responsibilities. Allow employees who are absent due to pregnancy, maternity, or related medical conditions to receive training, if they so wish, while away from the workplace. [179]

                      Terms and Conditions of Employment

                      Monitor compensation practices and performance appraisal systems for potential patterns of discrimination based on pregnancy, maternity, or related medical conditions. Ensure compensation practices and performance appraisals are based on actual employee performance, not on stereotypes about these conditions.

                      Check light work policies. Ensure that light work policies are structured to provide pregnant employees with light work equivalent to employees with similar work limitations.

                      If possible, temporarily shuffle duties that employees cannot perform because of pregnancy or related medical conditions.

                      Protect from unlawful harassment. Adopt and publicize a strong anti-harassment policy that includes information about pregnancy-related harassment. Provide regular training for employees and managers on the contents and procedures of the policy.

                      Develop the potential of employees, supervisors, and managers, regardless of pregnancy, maternity, or related medical conditions.

                      Provide training for all employees, including those affected by pregnancy and related medical conditions, to ensure that everyone has the information they need to perform their jobs well. [180]

                      Ensure that workers have equal opportunities to participate in complex and visible work that will help them develop skills and experience and advance to higher-level positions.

                      Gives employees giving employees equal access to the workplace network, promoting specialized relationships and exchanging ideas and information.

                      Rational consideration

                      We will promptly examine the request for rational consideration by employees with disabilities related to pregnancy, and introduce a process to provide consideration when necessary.

                      In writing, a rational consideration in writing can provide rational consideration for individuals with temporary disabilities, including disability related to pregnancy.

                      The employer's rational consideration procedures are widely published to all employees, and the employer provides rational consideration to employees with disabilities that require reasonable consideration unreasonably. Make employees remember this regularly.

                      Recognize the request for rational consideration and educate administrators to respond quickly to all requests. Considering the width of the impairment related to pregnancy under the revised ADA, the administrator requests a request from a pregnant employee, unless it is clear that there is no disability. It should be treated as a request for convenience.

                      Employees who have been specified to handle the request for rational consideration have a wide range of terms of "disability", and employees, including employees with disabilities related to pregnancy, Confirm that it is recognized that it is not necessary to submit more than a reasonable document to prove that it is a target obstacle. A reasonable document means that the employer requires only the necessary documents to prove that the individual has an ADA disability and the disability requires a reasonable convenience. The focus of the process that determines rational consideration should be placed on whether or not we can provide consideration to support employees unless there is excessive difficulties.

                      If you cannot provide a specific convenience requested by an employee, we will explain the reason and discuss the possibility of providing alternative convenience.

                      [1] PDA's text is as follows: < SPAN> Gives employees with equal access to the workplace network, promoting specialized relationships and exchanging ideas and information.

                      Rational consideration

                      We will promptly examine the request for rational consideration by employees with disabilities related to pregnancy, and introduce a process to provide consideration when necessary.

                      In writing, a rational consideration in writing can provide rational consideration for individuals with temporary disabilities, including disability related to pregnancy.

                      The employer's rational consideration procedures are widely published to all employees, and the employer provides rational consideration to employees with disabilities that require reasonable consideration unreasonably. Make employees remember this regularly.

                      Recognize the request for rational consideration and educate administrators to respond quickly to all requests. Considering the width of the impairment related to pregnancy under the revised ADA, the administrator requests a request from a pregnant employee, unless it is clear that there is no disability. It should be treated as a request for convenience.

                      Employees who have been specified to handle the request for rational consideration have a wide range of terms of "disability", and employees, including employees with disabilities related to pregnancy, Confirm that it is recognized that it is not necessary to submit more than a reasonable document to prove that it is a target obstacle. A reasonable document means that the employer requires only the necessary documents to prove that the individual has an ADA disability and the disability requires a reasonable convenience. The focus of the process that determines rational consideration should be placed on whether or not we can provide consideration to support employees unless there is excessive difficulties.

                      If you cannot provide a specific convenience requested by an employee, we will explain the reason and discuss the possibility of providing alternative convenience.

                      [1] The body of PDA is as follows: Gives employees with equal access to the workplace network, promoting specialized relationships and exchanging ideas and information.

                      Rational consideration

                      We will promptly examine the request for rational consideration by employees with disabilities related to pregnancy, and introduce a process to provide consideration when necessary.

                      In writing, a rational consideration in writing can provide rational consideration for individuals with temporary disabilities, including disability related to pregnancy.

                      The employer's rational consideration procedures are widely published to all employees, and the employer provides rational consideration to employees with disabilities that require reasonable consideration unreasonably. Make employees remember this regularly.

                      Recognize the request for rational consideration and educate administrators to respond quickly to all requests. Considering the width of the impairment related to pregnancy under the revised ADA, the administrator requests a request from a pregnant employee, unless it is clear that there is no disability. It should be treated as a request for convenience.

                      Employees who have been specified to handle the request for rational consideration have a wide range of terms of "disability", and employees, including employees with disabilities related to pregnancy, Confirm that it is recognized that it is not necessary to submit more than a reasonable document to prove that it is a target obstacle. A reasonable document means that the employer requires only the necessary documents to prove that the individual has an ADA disability and the disability requires a reasonable convenience. The focus of the process that determines rational consideration should be placed on whether or not we can provide consideration to support employees unless there are excessive difficulties in employee duties.

                      If you cannot provide a specific convenience requested by an employee, we will explain the reason and discuss the possibility of providing alternative convenience.

                      [1] The body of PDA is as follows:

                      The terms "because of gender reasons" or "based on gender" include those that are based on pregnancy, childbirth, related medical condition, or based on pregnancy, childbirth, or relevant medical conditions. Not limited to these. In addition, women who are affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or relevant medical conditions are based on the welfare system, with other individuals who are not affected by such abilities or abilities. All employment-related purposes, including benefits, shall be treated the same, and this title shall not be interpreted to allow any provisions of Article 2000E-2 (H) to allow. In this section, if the fetus is aborted, the life of the mother is dangerous, or a medical complications caused by abortion hinders the provision of abortion benefits, or a negotiation agreement on abortion. Except for the impact, the employer does not require a health insurance benefit for abortion.

                      [2] California fed. & Amp; Loan Ass'n V. GUERRA, 479 U. S. 272, 288 (GRIGGS V.

                      [3] S. REP. 95-331, at 4 (1977), as Reprinted in Legistory of the Pregnancy Discrimility Act 1978 ATE Committee on LABOR and HUMAN RESORCES), AT 41 (1980 ). PDA is General Electric's Gilbert Case (General El Electric Co v. Unless there is an excuse, it does not make a gender discrimination), nashville gas cov. v. SATTY, 434 U. S. 136 (1977) (employees with disabilities due to pregnancy do not provide illness leave allowance The policy of providing employees with disabilities due to no n-professional diseases and injuries will not violate the title VII unless exclusion is no excuse for gender).

                      [4] California fed. Shav. & Amp; Loan Ass'n, 479 U. S. at 290.

                      [The "employer" in this paper refers to all the entities that are subject to the title VII, including labor organizations and employment agencies.

                      [6] The use of the term "employee" in this document includes an applicant to become a member of an employment or labor organization, and a former employee or member.

                      [7] National Partnership for Women & Families, The Pregnancy Discrimination Act: Where We Stand 30 Years Later (2008), available at https://nationalpartnership. org/economic-justice/pregnancy-discrimination/ (last visited May 5, 2014).

                      [8] There is no clear explanation for the increase in dissatisfaction, and several factors are likely at play, but National Partnership research suggests that women today are more likely than women of the past to stay in the workplace during pregnancy, and that some managers continue to hold negative views of pregnant workers. Ibid., No. 11.

                      [9] Research has shown how pregnant workers and applicants experience negative reactions in the workplace, which can affect hiring, pay, and the ability to manage subordinates. Stephen Benard et al, Cognitive Bias and the Motherhood Penalty, 59 Hastings L. J. 1359 (2008); Stephen Benard, Written Testimony of Dr. Stephen Benard, U. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n, http://www. eeoc. gov/eeoc/meetings/2-15-12/benard. cfm (last visited Apr. 29. gov/eeoc/meeting s/2-15-12/terman. cfm (last visited Apr. 29, 2014); Joan Williams, Written Testimony of Joan Williams, U. S. Equal Opportunity Commission, Equal Opportunity Commission, http://www. eeoc. gov/eeoc/meetings/2-15-12/williams. cfm (last visited Apr. 29, 2014) (discussed the types of experiences reported by pregnant workers sought help from advocacy groups).

                      [11] ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Pub. L. No. 110-325, 122 Stat.) The expansion of the definition of "disability" in the ADA could affect the PDA's requirement that non-pregnant employees be treated the same as employees with similar abilities or disabilities, increasing the number of non-pregnant employees to whom disparate treatment may be compared under the PDA.

                      [12] H. R. Rep. No. 95-948, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. 5, reprinted in 5 U. S. C. A. N. 4749, 4753 (1978).

                      [13] 124 Cong. Rec. 38574 (daily ed. Oct. 14, 1978) (Statement of Rep. Sarasin, Administrator of the House PDA).

                      [14] SEE, E. G., asmo v. Keane, Inc., 471 F. 3D 588, 594-95 (6th CIR., 2006) The time was helpful to create de facto demanding materials for the explanation of the employer dismissed the plaintiff). Palmer V. Pioneer Inn Assocs., LTD. 338 F. 3D 981, 985 (9th CIR. If you testified that you declined your job when providing a job, you did not have the right to receive a brief judgment); The state rules, which have taken a vacation to the teacher four months before the birth date and have to return three months after giving birth, denied the proper procedures.

                      [15] For example, prebilich-hollord v. . Ins., 203 F. 3D 997, 1006 (7th CIR., 2000) (Request for discrimination for pregnancy is based on (women) if you do not know that the employer is pregnant. ); Haman V. Penney Co, 904 F. 2D 707, 1990 WL 82720, at *5 Gnancy and Had Significant Input in The Termination Decision ).

                      [16] GERACI V. Moody-Tottrup, Int'l, Inc, 82 F. 3D 578, 581 (3D CIR., 1996).

                      [17] For example, griffin v. Sisters of Saint Francis, Inc. 489 F. 3D 838, 844 (7th Cir. But if the plaintiff has no longer hide the pregnancy, see whether or not the employer recognized the plaintiff's pregnancy). Similarly, there is a possibility that the employer knows the pregnancy in advance or the intentional pregnancy may occur. GARCIA V. Courtesy Ford, Inc., 2007 WL 1192681, at *3 (WASH.

                      [18] See, e. g., Asmo v. Keane, Inc., 471 F. 3d at 594-95 (the manager's silence, in contrast to the congratulations of coworkers, after the employee announced she was pregnant with twins, the failure to consult with the employee about how she planned to manage her travel-intensive schedule after the twins were born, and the failure to mention the pregnancy during the remainder of her employment could be construed as evidence of discriminatory animus, thereby motivating plaintiff's subsequent termination). Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F. 3d 572, 584 (5th Cir., 2003) (when a supervisor reacted negatively to plaintiff's news of her pregnancy and expressed concern about her filling in for others around the time of her delivery, it was reasonable to conclude that the supervisor made a stereotypical inference regarding plaintiff's inability to perform her job duties as a result of her pregnancy). Wagner v. Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc. 17 Fed. Appx. 141, 149 (4th Cir., 2001) (unpublished) (no evidence supported defendant's stereotype that plaintiff could not or would not come to work because of her pregnancy or after her due date). Maldonado v. U. S. Bank, 186 F. 3d 759, 768 (7th Cir. 1999) (An employer could not force a pregnant employee to work "simply because the employer expected the employee would not meet job expectations").

                      [19] Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U. S. 228, 251 (1989) (multiple opinion).

                      [20] These facts are drawn from Troy v. Baystate Computer Group, Inc., 141 F. 3d 378 (1st Cir., 1998). The Troy court found that the jury was not unreasonable in concluding that pregnancy stereotypes, not actual work participation, were the cause of the termination. See also Joan Williams, written Testimony of Joan Williams, supra note 9 (discussing examples of statements that may be evidence of stereotypes).

                      [21] Donaldson V. Am. Banco Corp., Inc., 945 F. Supp. 1456, 1464 (D. COLO. 1996); piraino v. Int'L ORIENTATION RES. 274 (7th Cir. 1996); Pacourek v. Inland Steel Co, Piraino v. Int. Orient's Res. Defendant's "surprising claim" that discrimination cannot be proven); "I quoted the legislation of" PDA of PDA.) "

                      [22] For example, NEESSEN V. Arona Corp., 2010 WL 1731652, at *7 (n. D. IOWA APr. If you claim that you did not hire, see PDA's protection class).

                      [23] See, for example, Shafrir v. Ass'n of Reform Zionists of M. A., 998 F. Supp. 355, 363 (S. D. N. Y., 1998). 1998). If you are doubtful about your willingness to continue working after giving birth, you will be appealing for pregnancy discrimination).

                      [24] Solomen V. Redwood Advisory Co., 183 F. Supp. Δ.

                      [25] Regarding discriminatory treatment for employees who are responsible for nursing care, sections I b. See. EEOC ENFORCEMENT GUIDANCE: UnLawfere Treatment of EmployEes with CareGiving Response (May 23, 2007), available atttp :/ EEOC. Gov/Policy/Docs/CareGiving. HTML (Last Visited May 5, 2014); and EEOC EMPLOYER Best Practice for Employees With CareGiving Responsibilities, Available at http:// www. EEOC. l (Last Visited May 5, 2014).

                      [26] Appellants' Employees of AM. v. Johnson Controls, 499 U. S. 187, 206 (1991). Kocak v. Cmty. Krauel v. Iowa Methodist Med. Ctr., 95 F. 3d 674, 680 (8th Cir. 1996) ("The potential for pregnancy... is a sex-related medical condition because only women can become pregnant."). [27] Johnson Controls, 499 U. S. at 206. [29] 197; see also Spees v. James Marine, Inc. 617 F. 3d 380, 392-94 (6th Cir. 2010) (finding a genuine issue of material fact as to whether an employer illegally transferred a pregnant welder to a tool room because welding while pregnant was perceived to be dangerous); EEOC v. Defendant Health West, 530 F. Supp. 2008) (hospital policy prohibiting pregnant nurses from performing certain medical procedures was facially discriminatory). Peralta v. Chromium and Polishing, 2000 WL 34633645 (E. D. N. Y. Sept. 15, 2000) (unpublished) (employer violated Title VII by instructing plaintiff that she could not continue packing and inspecting metal parts unless she provided a doctor's note that her work posed no danger to herself or her unborn child).

                      [30] Johnson Controls, 499 U. S. at 200. For BFOQ defenses, see id.

                      [32] An example of a finding of evidence of discrimination based on an employee's stated or alleged pregnancy is Walsh v. National Computer Sys, Inc., where evidence included that after plaintiff returned from parental leave, her supervisor remarked to her about a coworker's pregnancy, "You're next." After plaintiff returned from vacation with her husband, she found "Garrett (plaintiff's son's name) running around again! After passing out at work." Santiago-Ramos v. Centennial P. R. Wireless Corp., 217 F. 3d 46, 55-6 (1st Cir., 2000) (supervisor's representations regarding plaintiff's ability to have a second child, along with other evidence of sex bias and lack of evidence supporting the reason for termination, raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether the explanation for termination was pleading.).

                      [33] See also Pacourek v. Inland Steel Co., 858 F. Supp. 1393, 1401 (N. D. Ill. 1994); Batchelor v. Merck & Co., Inc., 651 F. Supp. 2d 818, 830-31 (N. D. Ind. 2008) (plaintiff was a member of a protected class under the PDA when she alleged that her supervisor discriminated against her because she expressed an intention to start a family); Cleese v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 911 F. Supp. 1312, 1317-18 (D. Or. 1995) (plaintiff was a member of a protected class under the PDA when she alleged that defendant discriminated against her because it knew that she was planning to become pregnant). [34] See below, in section II, regarding medical research prohibited by the ADA. [35] See Hall v. Nalco Co., 534 F. 3d 644, 648-49 (7th Cir. 2008) (employee fired for taking time off to undergo in vitro fertilization was not fired for infertility regardless of sex, but rather for the sex-specific quality of fertility). Pacourek, 858 F. Supp. at 1403-04 (plaintiff presented a Title VII claim, alleging that employer discriminatory application of sick leave policy while undergoing in vitro fertilization).

                      Infertility may qualify as a disability because it substantially limits the basic life activity of reproduction. For coverage of the ADA, see section II below.

                      [36] Saks v. Franklin Covey, Inc., 316 F. 3d 337, 346 (2d Cir. 2003) ("Infertility is a medical condition that affects men and women with equal frequency; Krauel v. Iowa Methodist Med. Ctr. , 95 F. 3d 674, 680 (8th Cir. 1996) ("A policy denying insurance benefits for infertility treatment does not violate Title VII because it applies to both female and male employees and is therefore sex-independent"); Int'l Union, United Auto, Aerospace & amp;? App. App. of Employees of Am. v. Johnson Controls, 499 U. S. 187, 198 (1991) (holding that an employer's policy was not permitted to classify employees for employment based on sex and fertility, but "not solely based on fertility").

                      The Eighth Circuit also rejected plaintiffs' argument that the exclusion of benefits for fertility treatments unlawfully disparaged women. 95 F. 3d at 681; see also SAKS, 316 F. 3d at 347 (exclusion of surgical fertility treatments does not discriminate against female employees because these procedures are used to sterilize both men and women, and thus intravenous male and female employees are equally disadvantaged by the exclusion).

                      [37] See, e. g., Commission Decision Concerning Coverage of Contraception (December 14, 2000) (prescription contraception is available only to women, so an employer's explicit denial of coverage is, by definition, a sex-based exclusion), available at https://www. eeoc. gov/commission-decision-coverage-contraception(last visited May 5, 2014).

                      [38] Ibid. See also Cooley v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 281 F. Supp. 2d 979, 984 (E. D. Mo. 2003) ("Because only women have the capacity to become pregnant, denial of prescription drugs that would allow women to control their fertility is necessarily an exclusion based on sex"); Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co, 141 F. Supp. 2d 1266, 1271-72 (W. D. Wash. 2001) (exclusion of prescription contraceptives from employer's general comprehensive prescription drug plan violated the PDA). The Eighth Circuit's argument in Re Union Pac. R. R. Employment Practices Litig. , 479 F. 3d 936, 942 (2007) that contraception is not "pregnancy-related" because "contraception is a treatment indicated only prior to conception" is unpersuasive because it violates the Johnson test that PDAs apply to potential pregnancies.

                      [39] Religion's free recovery (RFRA), even if the law is neutral in general in religion, imposes a substantial burden on religious practice, and the government is unavoidable. If it is not possible to promote the profits and to be the most restrictive means to promote the interests, the religious exemption of federal law is stipulated. Article 42 of the United States Code, 2000 BB-1. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Store, Inc, et al., ------, 134 S. CT. 2751 (2014) The contraceptive obligation under the "Appropriation Law is a violation of the RFRA applied to famil y-run profit companies that have religious opposition to providing some kind of contraceptives. The Supreme Court did not mention whether the owner of such a company could claim that contraceptive obligations were infringing the rights of the Constitution's free exercise clause. This enforcement guidance explains the prohibition of title VII for pregnancy discrimination, and does not mention whether a specific employer is exempted from the request of the title VII under Article 1 or RFRA. < SPAN> [39] Religion's free recovery (RFRA) imposes a substantial burden on religious practice, even if the law is a general application of religion, and the government is applied. If it is not possible to promote unavoidable government interests and prove that it is the less restricted means to promote its interests, it stipulates the religious exemption of federal law. Article 42 of the United States Code, 2000 BB-1. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Store, Inc, et al., ------, 134 S. CT. 2751 (2014) The contraceptive obligation under the "Appropriation Law is a violation of the RFRA applied to famil y-run profit companies that have religious opposition to providing some kind of contraceptives. The Supreme Court did not mention whether the owner of such a company could claim that contraceptive obligations were infringing the rights of the Constitution's free exercise clause. This enforcement guidance explains the prohibition of title VII for pregnancy discrimination, and does not mention whether a specific employer is exempted from the request of the title VII under Article 1 or RFRA. [39] Religion's free recovery (RFRA), even if the law is neutral in general in religion, imposes a substantial burden on religious practice, and the government is unavoidable. If it is not possible to promote the profits and to be the most restrictive means to promote the interests, the religious exemption of federal law is stipulated. Article 42 of the United States Code, 2000 BB-1. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Store, Inc, et al., ------, 134 S. CT. 2751 (2014) The contraceptive obligation under the "Appropriation Law is a violation of the RFRA applied to famil y-run profit companies that have religious opposition to providing some kind of contraceptives. The Supreme Court did not mention whether the owner of such a company could claim that contraceptive obligations were infringing the rights of the Constitution's free exercise clause. This enforcement guidance describes the prohibition of the title VII for pregnancy discrimination, and does not mention whether a specific employer is exempted from the request of the title VII under Article 1 or RFRA.

                      [40] See the committee decision on the application of contraceptive (note 37); ) (4) See also (obligations for no n-grandparents or personal insurance to provide benefits for women's preventive medical services without expense). On August 1, 2011, the Health Resources Service Agency announced a guideline calling for contraceptive services in women's preventive medical services. These requirements were applied to most new and updated medical insurance systems in August 2012. Federal Rules Collection 26th, 54th, Article 9815-2713T (1). Federal Rules Collection Article 2590, 715-2713 (B) (1). Article 130 (B) (1). 130 (B) (1) (Insurance plans and insurers start a newly recommended preventive service one year after the new recommended issue date It must be covered from the first year). The Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Labor, and the Ministry of Health and Welfare are the exemptions of contraceptives applicable by religious employers, and the convenience of collective medical contraception (provided in connection with such plans), which is established or maintained (provided in connection with such plans). And a rule that clarifies the scope of the application.

                      [41] See. Committee decision on the application of contraceptive (prior note 37); Erickson, 141 F. Supp. 2D at 1272 The choice (defendant), which excludes this specific benefit, is discriminatory. " < Span> [40] For example, see the committee decision on the application of contraceptive (preliminary 37); Public Health Law revised by Patiance Protection and Affordable Care Act, PL 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010) Refer to Article (a) (4) (obligations for no n-grandparents or personal insurance to provide benefits for women's preventive medical services) without expense). On August 1, 2011, the Health Resources Service Agency announced a guideline calling for contraceptive services in women's preventive medical services. These requirements were applied to most new and updated medical insurance systems in August 2012. Federal Rules Collection 26th, 54th, Article 9815-2713T (1). Federal Rules Collection Article 2590, 715-2713 (B) (1). Article 130 (B) (1). 130 (B) (1) (Insurance plans and insurers start a newly recommended preventive service one year after the new recommended issue date It must be covered from the first year). The Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Labor, and the Ministry of Health and Welfare are the exemptions of contraceptives applicable by religious employers, and the convenience of collective medical contraception (provided in connection with such plans), which is established or maintained (provided in connection with such plans). And a rule that clarifies the scope of the application.

                      [41] See. Committee decision on the application of contraceptive (prior note 37); Erickson, 141 F. Supp. 2D at 1272 The choice (defendant), which excludes this specific benefit, is discriminatory. " [40] See the committee decision on the application of contraceptive (note 37); ) (4) See also (obligations for no n-grandparents or personal insurance to provide benefits for women's preventive medical services without expense). On August 1, 2011, the Health Resources Service Agency announced a guideline calling for contraceptive services in women's preventive medical services. These requirements were applied to most new and updated medical insurance systems in August 2012. Federal Rules Collection 26th, 54th, Article 9815-2713T (1). Federal Rules Collection Article 2590, 715-2713 (B) (1). Article 130 (B) (1). 130 (B) (1) (Insurance plans and insurers start a newly recommended preventive service one year after the new recommended issue date It must be covered from the first year). The Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Labor, and the Ministry of Health and Welfare are the exemptions of contraceptives applicable by religious employers, and the convenience of collective medical contraception (provided in connection with such plans), which is established or maintained (provided in connection with such plans). And a rule that clarifies the scope of the application.

                      [41] See. Committee decision on the application of contraceptive (prior note 37); Erickson, 141 F. Supp. 2D at 1272 The choice (defendant), which excludes this specific benefit, is discriminatory. "

                      [42] See the above note 37. The committee does not agree that contraceptive is neutral by gender in In Re UNION PAC. R. EMPLOYMENT PRACTICTICES LITIG. Page 942. In the court, the application of EEOC contraceptive was a health insurance contract that refused to apply for contraception with a prescription, but was the application of extermination and fallopian tube ligation. Union Pacific's employer excludes all contraceptives when used for contraceptives, both women and men, contraception by prescriptions and contraception by surgery for contraceptives. He pointed out that and distinguished the EEOC decision. However, EEOC's judgment is not based on the fact that pipe cuts and fallopian tube ligation were targeted. Instead, contraception by prescriptions can be used only by women, so it is excluded that the prescription is excluded and provided with drugs and equipment used to prevent other medical conditions is excluded. I insisted. In addition, UNION PACIFIC, 479 F. 3D at 948-49 (bye, J., Distil) (Contraceptive is "a female-specific problem that specializes in gender, because it is an unplanned pregnancy that has a negative effect on health. It is.

                      [43] For example, as follows, Miranda V. Bbii Acquisition, 120 F. Supp. About 30 minutes after telling the boss that you need to do so, there is no document about the process used to determine which employee to dismiss, and the plaintiff's position is initially dismissed. I acknowledged the de facto problem because it was not done).

                      [44] The facts of this example were quoted from Kucharski v. Cort Furniture Rental, 342 Fed. Appx. 712, 2009 WL 2524041 (2D CIR. Aug. 19, 2009) (Unpublished). Kucharsk I's plaintiffs did not claim the disparity, but may have been claimed that a restricted medical leave policy had had a disparity impact on pregnant employees. See the section I b. 2. described below for the gap effect.

                      If the employer has set an exception to an unprecedented employee who can work or impossible as sherry as Sherry, because Sherry has less than one year of employer. Refusing additional vacation will violate PDA. See Section I C. described below. Furthermore, if the symptoms related to pregnancy correspond to the disability in the meaning of ADA, the employer will extend up to 4 weeks of vacation as long as the employee has only worked for six months, unreasonably. You have to take reasonable consideration. See the section II B. described below.

                      [45] For the PDA health insurance requirements, see Section I C. Section I C. 4.

                      [42 U. S. C. C. § 12112 (B) (3), (4); The fact that it is outside or the increase in employer's premiums and wor k-related compensation costs is not a legitimate no n-discriminatory reason for justifying individuals with disabilities). The Application of the Americans with Disabouties Act of 1990 to Disability-Based Distinctions In Employer-Provied Health Insurance (JUNE 8, 1993). available at http: // www. EEOC. Gov/Policy/Docs/Health. HTML (Last Visited May 5, 2014) ("The decision on the employment of individuals with disabilities cannot be concerned about the impact of the individual's disability on the employer's health insurance system.) Trujillo v. Pacificorp, 524 F. 3D 1149, 1156-57 (10th CIR. 2008) also referring to Larimer v. Int 'that the employer was fired due to a relationship with his son who had a large amount of medical expenses. l Bus. Machs. 370 F. 3D 698, 700 (7th CIR. 2004) (Disadvantages for employees due to medical expenses caused by employee related disorders are ADA group discrimination Included in the range.

                      [48] ​​Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) (42 U. S. C. § 2000ff et seq.) prohibits making employment decisions based on an applicant's or employee's genetic information. Genetic information includes information about the occurrence of a disease or disability in the applicant's or employee's family members (i. e., family medical history). It also includes genetic testing, such as amniocentesis and newborn screening tests for phenylketonuria (PKU). The Act prohibits discrimination against an employee or applicant on the basis of the health status of his or her children. See 42 U. S. C. § 2000ff(3) (defining "family member"); 2000ff(4) (defining "genetic information"); 29 CFR § 1635. 3(a)-(c) (defining "family member," "family medical history," and "genetic information"); and 29 CFR § 1635. 4 (GINA prohibited activities). Employment decisions based on high medical expenses resulting from an employee’s current pregnancy-related medical condition may violate the ADA and PDA, but not GINA.

                      [49] Fleming, 948 F. 2d at 997 (ERISA makes it unlawful to discharge or otherwise punish a participant or beneficiary for exercising rights under the plan).

                      [50] See generally, Arthur C. Guyton, Textbook of Med. Physiology 1039-40 (2006) (describing the physiological process by which lactation occurs).

                      EEOC decision (EEOC v. V.) (it is clear that breastfeeding imposes burdens on women that male employees do not have to endure).

                      [52] Whether a demotion is ultimately found illegal depends on whether the employer relied on a legitimate non-discriminatory reason and, if so, whether the evidence reveals that the reason asserted was obvious.

                      [53] Overcoming Breastfeeding Problems, U. S. Nat'l Library of Med., http://www. nlm. nih. gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002452. htm (last visited May 5, 2014); see also Diane Wiessinger, The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding 385 (8th ed. 2010).

                      [55] The committee agrees to the conclusions of Wallace V. Pyro Mining Co., 789 F. Supp. 867 (W. D. KY. 1990), AF'D, 951 F. 2D 351 (6th Cir. 1991) (panel). do not. PDA obliges women who have been affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or relevant medical conditions as well as other employees with similar "labor or labor." The protection target is not limited to the medical condition related to pregnancy. Notter v. North Hand Prot. 1996 WL 342008, at *5 (4th Cir. June 21, 1996) (Unpublished) (PDA does not include the requirement that "relevant medical condition" is "incompetent" Therefore, it is concluded that the condition of the caesarean delivery delivery will be the subject of PDA even if it is not incompetent).

                      [56] See. HOUSTON FUNDING II, LTD., 717 F. 3D at 430. The committee does not agree to the Wallace vs pyracro mining case (789 F. Supp. At 869). The ruling depends on the General Electric Gilbert Case (429 U. S. 125, 1976), and refusal for breastfeeding is simply excluded from the conditions for given leave. He concluded that it was not based on. reference. Martinez v. N. B. C., Inc., 49 F. Supp. 2D 305, 310-11 (S. D. N. Y. 1999) (discrimination based on nursing is not recognized as gender discrimination. This is because there is no subclass to be treated.) As described in the NewPort News Shipbuilding Co. V. V. EEOC, 462 U. S. 669 (1983), when Congress approved the PDA, he denied not only Gilbert's discrimination but also its theoretical basis. Thus, refusing a personal leave for breastfeeding is a gender discrimination by limiting women to use personal leave to women and not restricting men. ALLEN V. TOTES/ISOTONER, 915 N. E. 2D 622, 629 (O'connor, J ..), also refer to the claims for gender discrimination related to nursing under the Ohio's Fair Employment Combination. It has been denied that other court evaluates that other courts rely on Gilbert.

                      [PUB. L. No. to amend the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Law (Article 207 of the United Kingdom 29)

                      [58] See 42 U. S. C. § 2000e(k). Questions and Answers on Pregnancy Nondiscrimination Act, 29 C. F. R. pt. 1604 App. at 34 (1979) ("An employer may not discriminate in its employment practices against a woman who has had or is planning an abortion"); H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 95-1786, at 4 (1978), as reprinted in 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 4, 1978 U. S. C. A. N. 4749, 4766 ("Thus, no employer may, for example, fire or refuse to hire a woman solely because she has exercised her right to an abortion"). See also Doe v. C. A. R. S. Protection Plus, Inc, 527 F. 3d 358, 364 (3d Cir., 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 576 (2008) (the PDA prohibits employers from discriminating against female employees for exercising their right to an abortion); Turic v. Holland Hospitality, Inc, 85 F. 3d 1211, 1214 (6th Cir., 1996) (fired pregnant employee for belief that abortion PDA had been violated). [59] 42 U. S. C.§2000e(k) ("This section shall not require an employer to pay health insurance benefits for an abortion unless the life of the mother would be threatened if the fetus were conceived or there is a medical complication resulting from the abortion.").

                      [61] Velez v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 244 F. R. D. 243 (S. D. N. Y. 2007) (female employee's statement that her supervisor encouraged her to have an abortion was anecdotal evidence supporting a pregnancy discrimination claim).

                      [62] See Young v. United Parcel Serv., Inc, --- U. S. ---, 135 S. Ct. 1338, 1354-55 (2015). See also Section I C, below.

                      See Apply Employees of AM. v. Johnson Controls, 499 U. S. 187, 197-98 (1991) (employer's policy prohibiting all women, except those medically proven infertile, from performing work involving actual or potential exposure to lead above a certain threshold was distinguished from facing women on the basis of their ability to become pregnant). [64] 132 F. 3d 431, 436 (8th Cir., 1998).

                      [65] Maldonado v. U. S. Bank, 186 F. 3D 759, 766 (7th Cir. 1999) (Vice President's dismissal due to her physical condition the day after the plaintiff told the vice president to pregnancy. See that it was said that it was done directly to discriminate pregnancy). Sheehan v. Donlen Corp. 173 F. 3D 1039, 1044-45 (7th CIR. 1999) (When firing a pregnant plaintiff, you can spend time with your child if you dismiss it at home. The same remarks on the next day were proven discrimination despite the lack of the boss's pregnancy that the plaintiff's pregnancy was the reason for being dismissed); flores v. Flying J. Inc, Flying J J , 2010 WL 785969, at *3 (S. D. Ill. 4, 2010) (On the last day of employment, the store manager told the plaintiff that he was pregnant and couldn't work anymore, was pregnant. He raised serious facts about whether it was due to discrimination).

                      [66] 471 F. 3D 588, 593-94 (6th CIR. 2006).

                      [67] gonzalez v. Biovail Corp. Int'l, 356 F. Supp. 2D 68, 80 (D. Puerto Rico 2005) (The time relationship between dismissal and plaintiff's pregnancy is 6 months after the plaintiff's childcare leave ends Comparing later, it is too far to support the claim). Also, piraino v. Int'l Orientation Res., Inc., 84 F. 3D 270, 274 (7th CIR. 1996) (In less than two months since the new employee announced pregnancy, the defendant will give birth leave. "Suspicion" announced a policy to be limited to employees who have worked at least one year or more); Kalia v. Robert Bosch Corp, 2008 WL 2858305, at *10 (E. D. Mich. July 22, 2008) (Unpublished) The boss began taking a note of the problem with the plaintiff the day after the pregnancy was announced, and was dismissed the following month, and plaintiffs acknowledged the relevance between pregnancy and dismissal).

                      [68] See. EEOC vs Ackerman, Hood & Amp; amp? Inc., 956 F. 2D 944, 948 (10th CIR. 1992) I am demanding a comparison of employees.

                      [69] 271 F. 3D 212, 221 (5th Cir. 2001).

                      [70] However, the Wallace Court upheld the employer's decision as a matter of law because the plaintiff failed to disprove the employer's other reason for termination, namely, falsification of medical records. See also Carreno v. DOJI, Inc. 668 F. Supp. 2d 1053, 1062 (M. D. Tenn. 2009) (plaintiff made a pregnancy discrimination case based on evidence that she was fired while similar non-pregnant coworkers were demoted and given opportunities to improve their behavior); Brockman v. Avaya, 545 F. Supp. 2d 1248, 1255-56 (M. D. Fla. 2008) (denying employer's motion for summary judgment because plaintiff, who was pregnant at the time of termination, was treated less favorably than her replacement non-pregnant female counterparts). [71] 140 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (S. D. Iowa 2001). [See also Zisumbo v. McLeodUSA Telecomm. Servs., Inc. 154 Fed. Appx. 715, 724 (10th Cir. 2005) (unpublished) (finding material facts about employer's explanation for demoting pregnant employee because that explanation differed significantly from the explanation asserted in EEOC). Kerzer v. Kingly Mfg. Servs. 156 F. 396, 403-04 (2 Cir.), 156 F. 3d 396, 403-04 (2d Cir. 1998) (pretextual pretexts in PDA discrimination termination claim included the president's statement that, when firing a pregnant woman, the employer could easily avoid firing her by stating that the position was no longer available, the president's alleged hostile conduct toward the plaintiff after she announced her pregnancy, and the plaintiff's termination shortly before she was due to return from maternity leave). 902 F. 2d 148, 157-58 (1st Cir. 1990). [74] See also DeBoer v. Musashi Auto Parts, 124 Fed. Appx. 387, 392-93 (6th Cir. 2005) (unpublished) (circumstantial evidence of pregnancy discrimination includes allegation that the employer failed to follow disciplinary policies before the plaintiff's demotion).

                      [75] --- U. S. ---, 135 S. Ct. 1338 (2015).

                      [Please refer to the following guidance for what is illegal harassment and when the employer is liable for illegal harassment. EEOC ENFORCEMENT GUIDANCE: VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR UNLAWFUL HARASSSSMENT by SUPERVISORS (JUNE 18, 1999) c. gov/policy/documents/harassment. HTML (Last Visited May 5, 2014). Harris's EnforceMent Guidance v. FORKLIFT SYS., Inc. (Mr. 8, 1994), Available at http: // www. Gov/Policy/Docs/haris. CE ON CURRENT IsSUES IN Sexual Harassment (Mar. 19, 1990), Available at http: // www. Gov/Policy/Docs/Currentissues. HTML (Last Visited May 5, 2014). § 1604. 11.

                      [78] Faragner v. CITY of Boca Raton, 524 U. S. 775 (1998). Harassment may violate the title VII if it brings specific employment measures. To date, the court has not determined that the harassment based on pregnancy has led to specific employment measures. Bread: See the guidance below for what corresponds to illegal harassment and when the employer is responsible for illegal harassment. EEOC ENFORCEMENT GUIDANCE: VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR UNLAWFUL HARASSSSMENT BY SUPERVISORS (JUNE 18, 1999) Gov/Policy/docs/Harassment. HTML (Last Visited May 5, 2014). Harris Enforcement Guidance v. FORKLIFT SYS., Inc. (Mr. 8, 1994), Available at http: // www. Gov/Policy/Docs/haris. CE ON CURRENT IsSUES IN Sexual Harassment (Mar. 19, 1990), Available at http: // www. Gov/Policy/Docs/Currentissues. HTML (Last Visited May 5, 2014). § 1604. 11.

                      [78] Faragner v. CITY of Boca Raton, 524 U. S. 775 (1998). Harassment may violate the title VII if it brings specific employment measures. To date, there is no judgment that the court has determined that the harassment based on pregnancy has led to a specific employment place. [77] See the guidance below for what corresponds to illegal harassment and when the employer is responsible for illegal harassment. EEOC'S ENFORCEMENT GUIDANCE: EMPLOYER FOR Unlassment by Supervisors (JUNE 18, 1999), Available at http: // www. CY/DOCS/Harassment. HTML (Last Visited May 5, 2014). Harris Enforcement Guidance V FORKLIFT SYS., Inc. (Mr. 8, 1994), Available at http: // www. Gov/policy/docs/haris. On Current Issues In Sexual Harassment (Mr. 19, 1990), Available at http: // www. Gov/Policy/Docs/Currentissues. HTML (Last Visited May 5, 2014). 604. 11.

                      [78] Faragner v. CITY of Boca Raton, 524 U. S. 775 (1998). Harassment may violate the title VII if it brings specific employment measures. To date, the court has not ruled that pregnanc y-based harassment has led to specific employment measures.

                      [79] These facts are drawn from Iweala v. Operational Technologies Services, Inc., 634 F. Supp. 2d 73 (D. D. C. 2009), where the court denied the employer's motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff's hostile environment claim. See also Dantuono v. Davis Vision, Inc., 2009 WL 5196151, at *9 (E. D. N. Y. Dec. 29, 2009) (unpublished) (finding substantial issues of fact regarding a hostile environment based on pregnancy) (where plaintiff alleged that a manager who learned of her intention to become pregnant behaved in a "mean" and "irritable" manner, "talked down" to her, "scolded" her, "badmouthed" other managers, contacted her by email rather than in person, and fired her). He also dismissed her from her manager's office while the manager was speaking with another manager.) Zisumbo, 154 Fed. at 726-27 (Evidence showed that plaintiff's supervisor became increasingly rude and demeaning toward her after learning of her pregnancy, told her to quit or "resign on disability" if she could not tolerate the stress of her pregnancy, and disparaged her as having performance problems despite her favorable job evaluations.) Walsh v. National Computer Sys., Inc., 332 F. 3d 1150, 1160 (8th Cir. 2003) (affirmed finding that plaintiff suffered hostile labor). [80] Further guidance on this issue can be found in the EEOC's Enforcement Directive, "Unlawful Discrimination Against Caregiver Employees," supra note 25. [81] Regarding parental leave issues, see section I C. 3, below. [82] This situation violates the ADA because it prohibits discrimination based on the disability of a person related or associated with an employee, such as the employee's child. For more information, see EEOC's Q& A on the relevance of the ADA (http://www. eeoc. gov/facts/association_ada. html, last accessed May 5, 2014). [84] International Automobile, Aerospace, and Farm Workers of America, Inc. Application of Workers of Am. v. Johnson Controls, 499 U. S. 187, 204 (1991).

                      [86] Johnson Controls, 499 U. S. at 206-07 & amp; 208-211 (no BFOQ based on risk to employee or fetus, nor on fear of tort). 29 C. F. R. §1604. 2(a)(1972). One court held that not being pregnant was a BFOQ for single employees of an agency whose mission is to prevent pregnancy: Chambers v. Omaha Girls Club, Inc. 834 F. 2d 697 (8th Cir. 1987). But the dissent from the clause denying en banc review argued that the court should have engaged in a "more thorough review of the facts and circumstances..." 840 F. 2d at 584-86. [87] Cleveland Board of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U. S. 632 (1974); Carney v. Martin Luther Home, Inc. 824 F. 2d 643 (8th Cir. 1987).

                      [88] 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2(k); see also 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2(a)(2). Title VII "prohibits not only overt discrimination, but also practices that are formally fair but functionally discriminatory." Griggs v. Duke Power Co. 401 U. S. 424, 431 (1971).

                      [89] Garcia v. Woman's Hosp. of Tex. , 97 F. 3d 810, 813 (5th Cir. 1996) (if all, or virtually all, pregnant women were advised by their obstetricians not to lift 150 pounds, they would certainly be disproportionately affected by this work requirement, making the statistic redundant).

                      

                      Elim Poon - Journalist, Creative Writer

                      Last modified: 27.08.2024

                      In effect, the EEOC has created a reasonable accommodation requirement for normal pregnancy. The rationale is that the Pregnancy Discrimination. Discrimination and Related Issues U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued updated guidance on pregnancy discrimination. July 14, an updated document on Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues was released by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportun.