Pregnancy Discrimination Act: Guarantee of Equal Treatment, Not Preferential Treatment
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin › Vol. 77 Nbr. 3, March 2008
Linked as:
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin › Vol. 77 Nbr. 3, March 2008
Linked as:Summary
In 1976, the Supreme Court addressed the scope of the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex and whether pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions fell within its parameters in General Electric Co. v. Gilbert.3 In Gilbert, the employer's benefits program was alleged to be discriminatory in violation of Title VII as it excluded pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions from its coverage while including other nonoccupational illnesses and accidents. If benefits, such as accrual of seniority, vacation calculation, or pay increases, are provided to workers on leave for nonpregnancy-related disabilities, they must be given on the same terms and conditions for those on leave as a result of pregnancy or pregnancy-related conditions.31 Limited Preference and the Family Medical Leave Act While a complete discussion of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is beyond the scope of this article, any discussion of pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions should address provisions of the FMLA that relate to the care of a newborn.32 The FMLA entitles eligible employees to a minimum of unpaid leave (or paid leave if available) during any 12 weeks during any 12-month period on account of the birth of a child.
See the full content of this document
Extract
Pregnancy Discrimination Act: Guarantee of Equal Treatment, Not Preferential Treatment
"Lieutenant, I have some exciting news, and I wanted to let you know first before word spread through the department; my husband and I are expecting our first child." "Congratulations, Officer Smith, that is exciting news. We'll have to talk at some point about how you want to handle your work responsibilities." "Well, Lieutenant, I was hoping that as the pregnancy proceeds, I could go on light duty." The preceding dialogue illustrates a common personnel issue that arises in law enforcement agencies more so today than ever before. How should the law enforcement manager handle this situation? Should the manager immediately take action to minimize the risk to the mother and unborn child? Is there a legal entitlement to such a response? Is there a legal entitlement to a light-duty assignment because of pregnancy? This article addresses the mini...
See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other documents:
James E Redus Appellant v Harold R Swenson Appellee. 468 F.2d 606 8th Cir 1972 | glastrusions, inc., plaintiff-appellant, v. new plastic corporation, defendant-appellee., 339 f.2d 1022 (9th cir. 1965) | quality molding company, plaintiff-appellant, v. american national fire insurance company ... | Notice: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 Provides that Dispositions Other Than Opinion... | sentencia nº 2892 de consiglio di stato june 03 2008 | sentencia nº 39040 de corte de apelaciones de san miguel sala cuarta november 16 2009 | resolución nº 172912 de corte de apelaciones de santiago sala séptima september 14 2009 | Conclusioni nº C-25/03 de Corte di giustizia delle Comunità Europee November 11 2004