|
Employee Challenges Light-Duty Policy
Employer Treated Pregnant Employee Consistently
Difference in Benefits May Not Violate the PDA
An
employer did not violate the
Pregnancy Discrimination Act ("PDA") by
denying an employee a light-duty position because of lifting
limitations imposed during pregnancy, according to the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals in Urbano v. Continental Airlines Inc., No.
96-21115 (4/15/98). The court determined that an employer may
distinguish between work-related and non-work-related injuries in
its assignment of positions. In this case, the pregnant employee was
not entitled to a light-duty position available only to employees
who suffered on-the-job injuries.
Get your FREE
access to this and 100's of FREE HR resources today.
Employee Challenges
Light-Duty Policy
[Download
Free Policies]
The airline’s policy reserved
"light-duty" positions for employees who had experienced
occupational injuries. Because the employee’s back pain was not
work-related, the airlines denied her request for a light-duty
position. As a result, the employee had to use accumulated sick
leave, a ninety-day family leave, and unpaid medical leave. The
employee filed suit in federal district court, alleging Continental
violated the PDA by denying her the light-duty assignment. The
district court granted summary judgment to the employer, and the
employee appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
Employer
Treated Pregnant Employee Consistently
The Fifth Circuit upheld the
district court decision and found that the employee was not denied a
light-duty assignment because she was pregnant but rather because
she was not injured on the job. According to the court, the PDA
requires an employer to treat a pregnant employee the same as it
would treat any other non-pregnant employee who was not injured on
the job. The court determined that the employer did not discriminate
against the employee by refusing to give her a light-duty position
available only to employees with occupational injuries. As long as
Continental treated the employee no differently than it did other
employees with non-work related injuries, the airline did not
violate the PDA.
[Creating HR Policies or Employee Handbook?]
Difference
in Benefits May Not Violate the PDA
This court decision indicates that
employers may be able to distinguish between work-related and
non-work-related benefits without violating the PDA. However,
employers in the jurisdiction of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
(Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, and Michigan) should note that the Sixth
Circuit, in Ensley-Gaines v. Runyon, 100 F.3d 1220 (6th Cir.
1996), ruled that pregnant employees must be treated the same as
employees with work-related injuries. Employers that
distinguish between classes of employees in benefits should consult
with legal counsel to determine the decision of the courts in their
jurisdiction. |
Personnel
Policy Service, Inc.
