July 19, 2019

July 18, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 17, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 16, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Updates Pregnancy Discrimination Guidance

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Young v. UPS, [1]  the EEOC has modified those aspects of its Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues (“Guidance”) that deal with disparate treatment and light duty.

Under the prior guidance, issued in 2014, the EEOC asserted that a pregnant worker could prove a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”) simply by showing that she was “treated differently than a non-pregnant worker similar in his/her ability or inability to work.”  The 2014 guidance also took the position that an employer could not refuse to offer a pregnant worker an accommodation by relying on a policy that provides light duty only to workers injured on the job.  The Supreme Court, however, was highly critical of and rejected this interpretation of the PDA, finding that it would require employers who provide a single worker with an accommodation to provide similar accommodations to all pregnant workers, irrespective of other criteria.

Thus, in the Guidance the EEOC deleted that language and an entire section that discussed its interpretation of “Persons Similar in Their Ability or Inability to Work.”  The EEOC has updated its discussions about disparate treatment and light duty work assignments for pregnant workers by adopting the Supreme Court’s holding that a plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination by following the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework (i.e., by showing that she is pregnant, that she sought accommodation which was not granted, and that the employer accommodated others similar in their ability or inability to work).  Further, a plaintiff may show that the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the employer’s actions – even if supported by a facially neutral policy – were pretextual by showing the employer’s policies caused a “significant burden” on pregnant workers without reasons that were “sufficiently strong to justify the burden.”

To illustrate, the Guidance states that a practice of providing light duty to a large percentage of non-pregnant employees, while failing or refusing to provide light duty to a large percentage of pregnant workers, might demonstrate that the policy significantly burdens pregnant employees.  The Guidance, however, fails to specify what it considers a “large percentage,” and provides no detail or examples as to what reasons might be sufficiently strong to justify such a burden.

This is the second time in two years that the EEOC has updated its enforcement guidance in this area.  Last year, the EEOC revamped the Guidance to provide an overview of coverage under the PDA, to address the impact of the inclusion of pregnancy-related impairments under the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008, and to address other benefits that must be provided to pregnant workers.  These aspects of the Guidance remain unchanged.

Employers should take note of the EEOC’s increased scrutiny of facially neutral policies that may impose significant burdens on pregnant workers.  The EEOC’s current Strategic Enforcement Plan identifies the accommodation of pregnancy-related limitations as an emerging issue that will be prioritized, and the updated Guidance on this subject is evidence of the agency’s focus in this area.

[1] Young v. UPS, 135 S. Ct. 1338 (2015).

 

©2019 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

lawyer, lauren malanga casey, epstein becker green, new york, labor, employment
Member

LAUREN MALANGA CASEY is a Member of the Firm in the Labor and Employment practice in the firm's New York office.

Ms. Malanga's experience includes representing employers in a variety of industries in federal and state court and before administrative agencies in proceedings involving discrimination, harassment, and other employment laws. Ms. Malanga also engages in the mediation and arbitration of employment claims, including claims for bonuses and other compensation. In addition to her employment experience, Ms. Malanga has...

212-351-3729
john f fullerton III, epstein becker green, new york, financial services
Member

JOHN F. FULLERTON III is a Member of the Firm in the Labor and Employment practice in the New York office of Epstein Becker Green, where he co-leads the Financial Services strategic industry group.

Mr. Fullerton's practice currently focuses on representing employers in whistleblower compliance and litigation defense in retaliation cases brought pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Dodd-Frank Act, the False Claims Act, as well as state law whistleblower statutes. In this capacity, he has represented a variety of publicly traded companies and financial services companies, both public and private. He also defends employers against whistleblower retaliation charges that have been filed with the Occupational Health & Safety Administration, which has the authority to investigate whistleblower claims under dozens of statutes, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. In addition, Mr. Fullerton provides counsel and advice on whistleblower compliance issues, assisting in the development and application of internal whistleblower policies and advising and participating in internal investigations of claims made by whistleblowers. 

212-351-4580
William Milani, epstein becker green, new york, International Employment Law
Member

WILLIAM J. MILANI is a Member of the Firm in the Labor and Employment practice of Epstein Becker Green. Based in New York, he heads the firm's International Employment Law group and is the Vice Chair of the firm's Board of Directors.

Mr. Milani is actively engaged in the private practice of labor and employment law exclusively on behalf of multinational and domestic corporations, with particular experience representing clients in the financial services industry. He has received an "AV Preeminent" Peer Review Rating by Martindale...

212-351-4659
Lauri F. Rasnick, epstein becker green, new york, labor, employment
Member

LAURI F. RASNICK is a Member of the Firm in the Labor and Employment practice in the firm's New York office.

Ms. Rasnick has significant experience representing employers in labor and employment matters. She regularly advises clients in many aspects of the employment relationship, including avoidance of litigation, employee terminations, disability and religious accommodation issues, wage and hour compliance, internal investigations, labor relations, and compliance with federal, state and local statutes. Ms. Rasnick frequently...

212-351-4854
Allen B. Roberts, epstein becker green, new york, labor, employment
Member

ALLEN B. ROBERTS is a Member of Epstein Becker Green.

Mr. Roberts represents public and privately held domestic and international businesses and not-for-profit organizations in developing and effectuating strategy and policies in employment law and labor relations matters, employment agreement formulation and enforcement, employment policy audits, employment due diligence for mergers and acquisitions, and union relations and maintaining union-free status. He leads the firm’s representation of several national and multinational...

212-351-3780