Pregnancy Discrimination Act Case Study

After she was fired, Leger filed a lawsuit alleging that HCS Staffing was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act). After hearing both sides, a federal court ruled in favor

The significance of Lorena Week’s sex discrimination case was that women can use the legal system to achieve for equality. Week’s case led the National Origination for Women to challenge discriminatory laws. Lorena weeks was a single mother of three children living in Wadley, Georgia. She worked as a telephone operator for many years at the Southern Bell Company. As a single mother, Weeks struggled to provide for her family on her low wages. When the position of Switchman opened, Weeks applied for the position. The switchman job had higher wages and since weeks had been with the company for many years she had seniority rights for the position. When Weeks confronted the company, they said the position was reserved for men and didn’t consider

children, the option of adoption still remains complicated, as disabled individuals are often viewed as incapable as parents in this culture (Lightfoot et al., 2010; Smith, 2015).

Facts of the Case: LaNisa Allen appealed the original judgment in favor of Totes/Isotoner Corporation on the issue of whether the Ohio Fair Employment Practices Act, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, prohibits an employer from discriminating against a female employee because of or on the basis of lactation. Relevant law associated includes whether Allen established a prima facie case of “sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy,” or whether she “was simply and plainly terminated as an employee at will for taking an unauthorized, extra break.” Allen’s original complaint was termination attributable to discrimination, based on pregnancy and related

Jennifer alleges that she was terminated because of her pregnancy. She neglects the fact that Greene’s discharged her because her position, junior executive secretary, is redundant to the company. It is transparently that Jennifer is a member of protected class and was dismissed. Yet Greene’s did not violate The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) under Title VII. According to Title VII 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), it is an unlawful employment practice if an employer discharges any individual because of such individual 's race,

With an increasing number of women entering the workforce, pregnancy discrimination has become a pervasive problem. This paper, which focuses on the United States (US), thus considers the underlying reasons and impacts of this biasness from the perspectives of both employee and employer. It then follows with a study on the legal protections in place to prevent such behaviour. And lastly, it will analyse various ethical issues involved in this unequal treatment of pregnant employees in the workplace using ethical frameworks such as Utilitarianism theory, Kantian Ethics and John Rawls’ Justice as Fairness. These ethical frameworks will help highlight

(defendant) accusing them of making her a victim of gender and disability based discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. United Parcel Service moved for summary judgment and claimed that Young did not have any prove that UPS’s decisions were based on Young’s pregnancy, or that she was differently treaded as other same situated co-workers. Moreover, United Parcel Service said that they were not obligated to offer her accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act because Young’s pregnancy did not create a disability. As result, the district court dismissed Young’s claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. The Fourth Circuit’s judgment and remanded was vacated by the Supreme Court for further

The plaintiff, who is 63 years old, brought this employment discrimination suit against her employer, J.C. Penney, after the company failed to promote her to the position of shift operations manager at the company 's Moosic, Pennsylvania Customer Service Center. She alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She brought these claims against both the company and the PHRA claims against her supervisor at the Moosic center, James Johnson. She was the first associate hired at the new Customer Service Center in Moosic. James Johnson became personnel manager at the facility in March 1990.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 is an amendment to the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Under the act, an employer cannot lawfully refuse to hire a woman if she is pregnant unless her condition makes it impossible for her to perform the major functions of the position. I think this amendment was a great achievement for all woman trying to show they are equals to men, while still trying to

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act was an amendment to title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, it is illegal for an employer of 15 or more workers, to discriminate against a person because of pregnancy, childbirth, or pregnancy-related conditions. This means

Besides the previous reasons stated, one of the most common problems for women in the workplace is being discriminated against due to pregnancy. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has stated seeing a 65 percent increase in complaints about discrimination against pregnant women in the workplace between 1992 and 2007 (Chaney, 2008). Example of pregnancy discrimination are refusing to hire a pregnant woman, firing or demoting a pregnant women, denying a woman the same or similar job when she returns, or treating a pregnant employee differently than other temporarily disabled employees. Many women get laid off and even fired from their jobs because they get pregnant. Often male bosses will give excuses for these situations saying that the woman is unable to do their job or that their missing attendance will be a problem due to their pregnancy. Some bosses simply give the reason that women will not be as interested in their job once the child is born, which is an outrageous assumption to make.

Currently, in the State of Michigan, there is an additional 6% sales tax that is imposed on menstruation items like pads and tampons. Senate Bill 0091 which was reintroduced by Senator Rebekah Warren on February 1st, 2017 was created in response to Michigan’s gendered tax system. In summary, this bill along with SB 0092 would eliminate the current sales tax and use tax that classify feminine hygiene products as “optional” or as “luxury items.” This paper seeks to further examine how women are directly impacted by this reproductive justice issue by providing a micro-level assessment. Furthermore, an examination of how community agencies are affected by lack of access to feminine hygiene products will be explored in addition to a macro-level

The need for the new law to be established began with the conflicting outcomes coming from the various levels of the court system. The courts disagreed on what constituted sex discrimination. Six different United States Courts of Appeals had ruled in favor of pregnant women saying that any employment act that would adversely affect a pregnant woman was sex discrimination as outlined by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Supporting this position was the view of the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission who also agreed that discrimination based on a pregnancy would be considered sex discrimination. However, the United States Supreme Court would change all of that with its ruling in two separate court

Title VII states that an employee cannot be treated differently because of sex unless sex is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). When used as a defense, bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) allows an organization to hire and employ individuals on the basis of the qualifications reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. This paper will discuss the necessary steps employers must take in order to justify using sex as a discriminator when hiring employees and review some known cases where BFOQ was used as a defense.

In a precedent-setting decision in 2000, the state Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a superior court ruling in Carmichael Vs. Wynn & Wynn noting in the text that "discriminatory animus was a factor in the decision not to hire a pregnant woman."