the situation
A female employee whose job involves some potentially dangerous
activities announces she is pregnant. Thinking you are doing her and her
unborn child a favor, you reassign some of her more unsafe duties to
other employees. Could you end up facing a discrimination claim?
the ruling
Both the EEOC and the Department of Justice took the position that
the Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority had unlawfully
discriminate
d against a female in this type of scenario. The TBTA had a
practice of requiring pregnant Bridge and Tunnel Operating Force
Officers (charged with protecting the safety and security of major
bridges and tunnels) to surrender their guns and work in less than full
duty status, without taking into account their physical condition or
ability to perform the duties of the job. One pregnant employee provided
a written opinion from her doctor certifying that she could perform all
of her duties, but the TBTA decided she couldn’t, based solely on her
pregnancy, and took away her firearm privilege and gave her a choice between disability leave or toll booth duty during her pregnancy.
Last week, the EEOC reached a settlement with the TBTA in this case
under which the TBTA agreed to pay a total of $206,600 ($100,000 of
which will go to the employee whose situation prompted the investigation
and $106,500 of which will go to a group of other employees affected by
the discriminatory policy) and to revise its EEO policy, create a new
policy related to the issues raised, and train all employees on Title
VII and how it relates to pregnant employees.
the point
The EEOC has claimed that eliminating pregnancy discrimination is one
of its priorities. Even if you think you are acting for the good of a
pregnant employee, be very careful not to let stereotypes dictate your
policies and practices regarding pregnant employees and their ability to
work.
Originally published on Virginia Employer Law Blog, by Elaine Inman Hogan (November 18, 2015)