Instead, the Court held that employers can meet their burden under step two simply by providing a facially nondiscriminatory basis for choosing not to accommodate a pregnant worker, just as Wal-Mart did by explaining its basis for limiting the TAD policy to just occupationally injured workers.īecause the Court found that Wal-Mart carried its burden under step two, the burden shifted back to the EEOC to provide sufficient evidence that Wal-Mart’s policy imposed a significant burden on pregnant workers that gives rise to an inference of intentional discrimination. Specifically, the Court stated that this “heightened burden” is unsupported by Supreme Court precedent and the text of the PDA. Unfortunately for the EEOC, the Court found this argument unavailing. Instead, according to the EEOC, the employer must articulate why pregnant workers were not afforded that benefit as well. In response, the EEOC stated that it is not enough for defendants to meet their burden under step two by merely articulating why certain workers are afforded a benefit. Accordingly, as Wal-Mart argued, enabling workers who have work limitations that do not implicate worker’s compensation laws to utilize the TAD policy would not provide a benefit to Wal-Mart. At the same time, because the occupationally injured workers could continue at regular pay, Wal-Mart’s obligations to the workers under Wisconsin’s worker’s compensation law would be reduced or eliminated. As the Court explained, Wal-Mart’s TAD policy enables occupationally injured workers to continue working while recuperating from their injuries by providing new, less physically taxing job duties to the workers. While Wal-Mart did not dispute that the EEOC carried its burden in the first step, it contended that, because it only received the primary benefit of its TAD policy when occupationally injured workers utilized the policy, it had a legitimate and nondiscriminatory basis for its decision not to accommodate pregnant women under the policy. Finally, under the third step, the plaintiff must “provid sufficient evidence that the employer’s policies impose a significant burden on pregnant workers,” and that the employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its policies, in light of the burden, provide an inference of intentional discrimination. Under the second step, the employer has the burden to provide a legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason for denying the accommodation. Under the first step of this framework, the plaintiff must first establish that she belongs to a protected class, that she sought accommodations, that she did not receive accommodations, and that the employer accommodated others with a similar ability or inability to work. United Parcel Service Inc., a case that set out a three-step framework for deciding “disparate-treatment” pregnancy discrimination claims. In deciding the case, the Seventh Circuit relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Young v. As the Court noted, this policy presented several pregnant workers with a difficult choice-continue performing physically demanding work or go on unpaid leave for several months. Rather than permitting pregnant workers with lifting restrictions to utilize the TAD policy, Wal-Mart required said pregnant workers to go on unpaid leave. In 2014, Wal-Mart implemented a TAD policy that offered light duty to workers that suffered injuries on the job. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., the EEOC alleged that Wal-Mart violated its workers’ rights under Title VII and the PDA by excluding pregnant women from its TAD policy. In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. In the process, the Seventh Circuit provided valuable guidance related to an employer’s burden of production in pregnancy discrimination litigation and the propriety of exclusionary TAD policies. In a recent decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that an employer did not violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) despite excluding pregnant workers from its “Temporary Alternative Duty” (TAD) policy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |