Specifically, pregnancy discrimination claims filed by women of color increased by 76% from FY 1996 to FY 2005, while pregnancy discrimination claims overall increased 25% during the same time period.
The issues most commonly alleged in pregnancy discrimination charges have remained relatively consistent over the past decade.
Employment decisions based on such stereotypes or assumptions violate Title VII.
Three months after Maria told her supervisor that she was pregnant, she was absent several days due to an illness unrelated to her pregnancy.
Adverse treatment of pregnant women often arises from stereotypes and assumptions about their job capabilities and commitment to the job.
In fiscal year (FY) 1997, more than 3,900 such charges were filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and state and local Fair Employment Practices Agencies, but in FY 2013, 5,342 charges were filed.
OBSOLETE DATA: This Enforcement Guidance supersedes the Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues dated July 14, 2014.
Most of this revised guidance remains the same as the prior version, but changes have been made to Sections I. C.1 (Light Duty) in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Congress enacted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) in 1978 to make clear that discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). employees over other employees.'" By enacting the PDA, Congress sought to make clear that "[p]regnant women who are able to work must be permitted to work on the same conditions as other employees; and when they are not able to work for medical reasons, they must be accorded the same rights, leave privileges and other benefits, as other workers who are disabled from working." on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and 2) Women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions must be treated the same as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.
However, even if the employee did not inform the decision makers about her pregnancy before they undertook the adverse action, they nevertheless might have been aware of it through, for example, office gossip or because the pregnancy was obvious.
Since the obviousness of pregnancy "varies, both temporally and as between different affected individuals," When Germaine learned she was pregnant, she decided not to inform management at that time because of concern that such an announcement would affect her chances of receiving a bonus at the upcoming anniversary of her employment.
Part II addresses the impact of the ADA's expanded definition of "disability" on employees with pregnancy-related impairments, particularly when employees with pregnancy-related impairments would be entitled to reasonable accommodation, and describes some specific accommodations that may help pregnant workers.