Accessibility Tools

Skip to main content

Lessons in Applying The Pregnancy Act to Light Duty Jobs

Written on .

Many employers limit light duty jobs to workers who have suffered work-related injuries.  However, a new case out of the Eleventh Circuit tells us that the employer that fails to offer these light duty jobs to pregnant employees with medical restrictions risks being liable for discrimination.  Durham v. Rural/Metro Corp., 18-14687 (11th Cir., 4/17/20). 

 

The employer apparently thought it was on safe ground limiting the light duty jobs to those with workers who had suffered work-related injuries.  However, when a plaintiff sued under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), the Eleventh Circuit determined the issue as whether the employer accommodated others who were not pregnant but were "similar in their ability or inability to work" to the plaintiff.  The court went on to find that the pregnant plaintiff's temporary inability to lift more than 50 pounds and her colleagues inability to lift more than 10 or 20 pounds rendered her and her colleagues injured on the job equally unable to perform the 100-pound lifting duties.  Having found that the pregnant plaintiff and her colleagues who were injured on the job were "similar in their ability or inability to work," the court concluded that the employer would be deemed to have discriminated against the pregnant plaintiff unless it could show a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for treating the pregnant employee differently from non-pregnant employees. 

Editor's Note - The bottom line is that the case law increasingly suggests that employers need to treat employees with pregnancy-related medical restrictions similarly to other employees with medical restrictions when it comes to making accommodations at work.

Related Content

Get Email Updates

Receive newsletters and alerts directly in your email inbox. Sign up below.

Recent Content

gavel

Judge Invalidates Joint Employer Rule, and Independent Contractor Rule Takes Effect

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Joint Employer Regulation, which was set to take effect March 11, 2024, was invalidated by a Te...
balance of justice statue

The Importance of Fairness in Employment to the Law and to Job Satisfaction

Some of you may have heard about disgruntled employees taping phone conversations of their discharge and mentioning them on social media ...
we the people, focus, document

Major Employers Challenge Constitutionality of Labor Act

Amazon is the most recent major employer to challenge the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRB), joining Trader Jo...
starbucks drink on a table

Starbucks' Big Change in Labor Policies

Starbucks' new public commitment to work with its union antagonists to resolve issues has been called a landmark in labor relations.  In ...
smiling blocks

Judge Orders Survey Data to Be Revealed from Employer EEO-1 Reports

Employers are supposed to file annually the EEO-1, Standard Form 100, with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).  This requirement applies ...
mcdonalds sign, blue sky

Featured Article at The Federalist Society: Franchise With That? McDonald’s No-Poach Agreements Receive Antitrust Scrutiny

Elizabeth K. Dorminey authored another article for the Federalist Society. Here's a quick summary of what this article, Franchise With ...