The Employer Handbook Blog

*** Googles "sans," wipes brow while sighing in relief  ***

I'm not aware of any studies or surveys that the Sandbar Mexican Grill conducted on this subject. Instead, I imagine something like this:

Sandbar Customer: "Two please."

Sandbar Manager: "Sure. But before I seat you, do you see that bartender over there? She's *gasp* pregnant. That's why we have her behind the bar, instead of in your face distracting you from watching the Arizona Cardinals, losers of eight in a row. Given that it's Football Sunday, we even raised the bar an extra foot just in case her fetus is sitting high. And, as an extra precaution, we have a curtain between the bar and the employee bathroom so that you won't have to avert your eyes should nature call. We used to have a bucket behind the bar for her, but our lawyers frowned on that. Really, what am I saying is, should we just fire her? Uh, fellas?!? Come back! I'll make the other servers pee on sticks. Don't run away! I assure you, it's EPT; not that ClearBlue crap! Come one guys! Half-price Vodka/Rock Stars! Fellas! 

[Dramatization: Never occurred. Ever.]

Anyway, I gather that when the EEOC sued the Sandbar for pregnancy discrimination on behalf of a waitress whom the Sandbar had fired, the EEOC wasn't all that concerned with anecdotal or scientific evidence concerning customer preferences. That's the sense I got from this EEOC press release. Rather, the EEOC believed that the waitress was fired because she was pregnant -- as opposed to the Sandbar having a legitimate business reason.

So, is it legal to fire a female bartender at a sports bar because customers supposedly prefer their waitresses without baby bumps? Probably not, as we know from the Handbook's transparent attempt to boost SEO hard-hitting two-part exposé covering the Wild Beaver Saloon. 

But, a definitive answer will have to wait for another day. Wisely, the Sandbar, where "Shiturday" is just a dream, but kids eat free on Monday, settled with the EEOC.

Does an employer have to provide a reasonable accommodation to a pregnant employee to allow her to perform the essential functions her job?

Let's see.

Americans with Disabilities Act? No. Pregnancy is not a disability. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act? Well that depends. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act is part of Title VII. But the current state of law is such that employers need only treat pregnant employees as they would other employees with temporary disabilities. However, most employers do afford accommodations (e.g., light duty) to employees with temporary disabilities. So, they would have to do the same for pregnant employees too.

But do I smell some duplicative federal legislation after the jump? I sure do. Click through for details...

* * *

Continue reading "New bill would require accommodations for pregnant employees" »

That according to a a new survey from The National Partnership for Women & Families.

The survey compared how state-based rights and protections compare to the 12 weeks of leave for new and expecting parents provided by the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the protections provided by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), and the right to express breast milk at work provided to some nursing mothers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The report card covers all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia. No state earned an A. Only 1/3 scored a C- or higher, while more than 1/3 flat-out failed. The highest grades went to California and Connecticut, each earning an A-. Locally, New Jersey ranked near the top with a B+, while Pennsylvania scraped by with a D.

Earlier this week, Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Jackie Speier (D-CA) and Susan Davis (D-CA), introduced the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

What's in the bill and how will it affect employers? Find out after the jump...

Continue reading "Pregnant Workers Fairness Act introduced in Congress" »

My loyal readers know that yesterday the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission held a public meeting to discuss pregnancy discrimination and caregiver issues.

Conversely, my disloyal readers can go to hell. No, no, I forgive you. Just send me a check and we'll call it even.

*** Takes meds ***

*** Flashes Men In Black red light ***

Ah, yes, pregnancy discrimination. Click through for a summary of what happened at yesterday's EEOC meeting...

Continue reading "A recap of yesterday's EEOC meeting on pregnancy discrimination" »

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will hold a public meeting on the subject of pregnancy discrimination and caregiver issues at 9:30 a.m. today in Washington, DC. If you are in the area, feel free to stop by. The meeting is open to the public.

According to this press release, the Commission will examine "recent trends in discrimination against pregnant workers and workers with caregiving responsibilities, examining these two forms of discrimination as a continuum."

The timing of this meeting couldn't be better. The blogosphere has been abuzz about this recent decision in which a federal judge reasoned that lactation "is not pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition" and, therefore, is not pregnancy-related. Consequently, "firing someone because of lactation or breast-pumping is not sex discrimination."

Methinks that may get discussed. I'll have a follow-up post on the meeting after it concludes.

I have no idea. I was hoping that one of you could help me out.

Oh, wait, I'm supposed to be the expert here. Ok. Fine. I'll play some music and dish the deets -- hint, it has something to do with the picture -- after the jump...

Continue reading ""Sex-plus" discrimination: Illegal? Yes. But what the heck is it?" »

That's right folks. It's time for another edition of "Fact or Fiction" a/k/a "Quick Answers to Quick Questions" a/k/a QATQQ f/k/a "I don't feel like writing a long blog post".

The answer to today's question is fiction. Pregnancy is not a "disability" for purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act. To be considered a disability under the ADA, covered persons must actually have physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities. Pregnancy is not considered an impairment under the law.

However, when it comes to pregnant employees, keep three things in mind:

1. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act prohibits pregnancy-related discrimination. It requires that employers treat pregnant employees in the same manner as male and non-pregnant female employees in determining their ability to work.
2. If an employer offers temporary or short-term disability leave, Title VII requires the employer to treat pregnancy and related conditions the same as non-pregnancy conditions.
3. Last week, a federal appeals court ruled, for the first time, that pregnancy-related health complications can render an employee "disabled" under the ADA.

I can pinpoint the exact moment that this blog transcended to the next level of internet excellence.

It was back in late March, when I blogged here about a female bartender/server who had sued her employer, the Wild Beaver Saloon, for pregnancy discrimination. The retweets that day were off the heezy fo sheezy, yo. (The hyperlink is a courtesy to my NPR listeners).

***Wait. Hold on one sec. I have to take this call from "1993". They say they want their dated hip-hop lingo back. OK, I'm back.***

When I first wrote about the Wild Beaver Saloon, the question was whether a business could make an employment decision based on the preferences of co-workers, the employer, clients or customers. I concluded, in this instance, that the Beave could not get away with it.

Well, the case ended last week. So was I right? Click past the jump to find out if I know my stuff...

Continue reading "Final score: Pregnant bartender 45,000 - Wild Beaver Saloon 0" »

Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D-NY14] is at it again.

A sponsor of a bill that would greatly expand the scope and reach of the FMLA, Rep. Maloney has co-sponsored another bill, the Breastfeeding Promotion Act of 2011, which would amend both the Fair Labor Standards Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect breastfeeding by nursing new mothers.

Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which is part of Title VII, it is already illegal to discriminate in the workplace "because of sex" or "on the basis of sex," which includes, but is not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The Breastfeeding Promotion Act of 2011 would amend Title VII to explicitly include "lactation."

The proposed legislation would also expand the breastfeeding provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act to cover salaried office workers.

According to a press release from Rep. Maloney, the Breastfeeding Promotion Act of 2011 would cover an additional approximate 13.5 million executive, administrative, and professional women in the workplace.

Employers that need more information on breastfeeding in the workplace, can check out these other posts at TheEmployerHandbook.com:

• 1 lactating employee + 0 place to pump = 1 messy complaint
• Breastfeeding in the workplace: Is your business compliant?
• Breastfeeding in the workplace: DOL seeks comments

Congratulations!

Because you are reading this post, you somehow made it past your company's internet firewall. That, or you're a horny perv, Googling some effed-up search terms. But I'm a lawyer; I don't judge.

Either way, continue reading. 

After the jump, it's the female bartender/server who is now suing her employer, the Wild Beaver Saloon, *** borderline-NSFW link *** because she claims they fired her for getting pregnant!

Continue reading "Booze, wild beaver, and a pregnant bartender. What!" »