When the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was enacted, Congress declared that sex discrimination includes discrimination “because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” The Act held that women affected by “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes…as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.” The act was addressed in a recent Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals case, EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.
From 2014-2017, a Wisconsin Walmart distribution center had a temporary light duty policy in place to assist employee who were suffering from temporary medical restrictions due to on-the-job injuries to continue working at its distribution centers while adhering to their personal medical restrictions. It did not extend that policy to pregnant employees who were experiencing similar limitations due to their pregnancies. In 2018, the EEOC sued on behalf of several female Walmart employees, alleging that the policy constituted disparate treatment based on sex. Following discovery, Walmart was granted summary judgment on the claim of pregnancy discrimination, and the EEOC appealed.
In analyzing the case, the court followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s analysis in Young v. UPS, which also discussed pregnancy discrimination and light duty policies. In that case, the Court applied adapted the McDonnell Douglas framework to as follows:
- Plaintiff makes a prima facie case by showing that she belongs to a protected class, that she sought accommodation, that the employer did not accommodate her, and that the employer did accommodate others similar in their ability to work;
- Once that is made, the burden shifts to the employer to offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory justification for denying the accommodation;
- The burden shifts back to the plaintiff to provide sufficient evidence that the employer’s policies “impose a significant burden on pregnant workers, and that the employer’s…are not sufficiently strong to justify the burden.”
The plaintiff in this case was able to make a prima facie case, moving the burden of persuasion to Walmart. Walmart stated that its temporary light duty policy was only available to workers who were injured on the job, and that the purpose of the policy was to implement a worker’s compensation program that benefited Walmart’s employees while limiting legal exposure and costs of hiring people to replace injured workers. Walmart considered that to be a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for denying accommodations to everyone else – including employees injured while not on the job and pregnant women.
The court found that these reasons were strong enough to justify the burden on pregnant women – it found the differences between this case and Young to be significant. The employer in the Young case allowed for multiple instances of light duty work, whereas Walmart uniformly allowed light duty work for only employees injured in the workplace.
It is important to note that this case occurred in Wisconsin (where we are available to represent employers), and not Minnesota. In Minnesota, employers have the following obligations for employees who are pregnant upon request:
- More frequent restroom, food and water breaks;
- Seating; and
- Limits on lifting over 20 pounds.
Minn. Stat. §181.939, subd. 2.
Minnesota employers may also be required to provide additional accommodations to pregnant employees upon consultation with the employee’s healthcare provider.
This was a very interesting finding by the court, and Walmart actually changed its policy after this claim was made by the EEOC to accommodate pregnant employees. Accommodation is a difficult task for any employer, and it is important that an employer is able to justify any decision it makes during the accommodation process. If you, or your organization need assistance with accommodations, our attorneys are here to advise you throughout the process. Contact Wiley Reber Law, for accommodation advice that works.