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.

Employee Challenges Light-Duty Policy

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.

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. For more information on the PDA, see Leaves of Absence, page 703:17, notes 26 and 27.

This article is not intended as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to seek appropriate legal or other professional advice.

For more articles please click here.