Question

Instructions:

1. Research a case that involves any of the employment law concepts ( The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Enforcement of Title VII, Equal Pay Act of 1963, 1866 Civil Rights Act, Section 1983, Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA)
2. Read the case. Feel free to use secondary sources to help with understanding the case.
3. Answer the following questions in your own words and in complete sentences:
   1. Who were the parties involved in the case?
   2. In 3-4 sentences, what were the facts of the case (what were the parties suing about)?
   3. What law(s) were involved in the case?
   4. What did the highest court decide in the case?
   5. Do you agree or disagree with the court's holding? Why?
4. Post your answers along with the case citation as a discussion post.

Answer 1

The Pregnancy Discrimnation Act of 1978 prohibits discrimination based on pregnancy of female employees in any aspect of employment including hiring, promotions,incentives , layoffs, training , work related accomodations etc.

Example of a case :

LA Louisanne Inc vs. Jane Doe :

FACTS OF CASE : Jane Doe was a server employed with LA Louisanne Inc , a restaurant and night club. Jane Doe sued the company when they reduced her work hours after they learned that she is pregnant. Once she delivered, they removed her from the work schedule completely .

Jane Doe sued LA Louisanne for discrimination under the pregnancy act - she did not ask for her hours to be reduced and as servers are paid by the hour, it reduced her income . As per the pregnancy discrimination act, an employer must not demand that the pregnant employee goes through any procedures or drills to assess ability to perform job unless all other employees undergo the same drill. In addition, if the pregnant employee asks for lightening the load due to inability to perform the job, then she must be treated on par with other employees who are temporarily disabled. In this case , Jane Doe neither asked for lightening the load nor was she asked if she could continue to work her usual hours. An arbitrary decision was taken by her employer which could not be justfied legally.

The case was decided in favour of Jane Doe and $82000 was paid and case settled before EEOC . In addition , EEOC ruled that the restaurant would be monitored to ensure that they publish equal opportunities process and comply with all anti-discrimnation and anti-harassment regulations in place.

Agree with the case - the law clearly says that it is illegal for employers to ask whether a lady is pregnant - however pregnancy discrimination is more common than believed. Many women dont sue as it harms their career prospects. Hence it is important for the government to make examples of organisations that blatantly discriminate and send a message to others who do similar things in the name of gender, race, religion etc