Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits covered employers from discriminating against applicants, as well as current and former employees, based on race, gender, color, religion, or national origin. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 amended Title VII to include a prohibition of discrimination based on pregnancy in its prohibition of gender discrimination. The Act prohibits discrimination based on current, past, or potential pregnancy. In this context, “pregnancy” entails every stage of reproduction from having the capacity or wanting to become pregnant to contraception, having or choosing not to have an abortion, and childbirth and related medical conditions, including breastfeeding and lactation. A claim of discrimination against an employee based on current or past pregnancy requires (1) an adverse employment action, (2) the employer’s awareness of the employee’s pregnancy, and (3) a causal connection between the adverse employment action and the employee’s pregnancy. First, an adverse employment action may result from a decision an employer makes with respect to hiring, firing, promoting, demoting, disciplining, training, assigning work, paying wages, or conferring other benefits. Second, the employer’s awareness of the pregnancy need not be through the employee’s direct disclosure; an inference of awareness may be drawn from the obviousness of the pregnancy ( See Griffin v. Sisters of Saint Francis, Inc. (7 th Cir. 2007)). Third, a causal connection may be inferred from the close timing between the employer’s awareness of the employee’s pregnancy and the employer’s adverse employment action (two months in Asmo v. Keane, Inc. (6th Cir. 2006)), although a lengthy time difference between the complainant’s pregnancy and the employment action at issue may not prevent a finding of pregnancy discrimination where there is evidence that the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions motivated the adverse employment action ( Solomen v. Redwood Advisory Co. (E.D. Pa. 2002)). The causal connection may be strengthened by the employee’s showing that the employer’s stated motive for the adverse employment action is not believable ( Shafrir v. Ass’n of Reform Zionists of Am. (S.D.N.Y. 1998)). To assert their claim, an employee who believes they have suffered from discrimination based on pregnancy should file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission .

Topics

Geographical location

Keywords

Year

  • 2015

External URL

Type

Jurisdiction