In the high-stakes world of trucking, the looming threat of serious accident litigation is a constant reality for many companies. When such situations arise, it’s crucial for owners and executives to understand that the future of their company may be at stake. This was a key takeaway from the recent address by Rob Moseley, a
Discrimination Claim Against Walmart Fails in the Seventh Court of Appeals
Posted by
Can two different company policies regarding physical restrictions and leave of absence constitute a type of discrimination? That is the question the Seventh District Circuit Court of Appeals sought to answer in EEOC v. Walmart Stores East.
In this case, a discrimination claim was filed on behalf of pregnant Walmart employees by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. They claimed that the differences between Walmart’s policies for injured and pregnant workers constituted discrimination.
The Policies in Question
Two specific Walmart policies were highlighted by the case:
- Employees injured on the job will be offered Temporary Alternative Duty (TAD) – light duty that enables the injured workers to keep working and earning their full wages while complying with any relevant medical restrictions.
- Pregnant employees with lifting restrictions or other physical limitations related to their pregnancy are required to go on an unpaid leave of absence, and no TAD is or will be made available.
The plaintiffs argued that the exceptions made for employees injured on the job must also be made for pregnant employees, or else their policies were inherently discriminatory. The Seventh District Circuit Court of Appeals did not agree.
Walmart’s Defense
Walmart argued that their TAD exceptions were only meant for workers who were injured on the job. Their stated reasons for this policy were:
- To reduce their costs and exposure under state workers’ compensation laws.
- Build and sustain employee morale and other related purposes.
Referring to Young v. United Parcel Service Inc, the Seventh District Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Walmart. According to their ruling, Walmart may maintain separate and unequal policies for those injured while working and those who had become pregnant.
Although Walmart successfully argued its case, there is still legal uncertainty surrounding separate and unequal employment policies. If additional instances of discrimination had been established in court, the resultant ruling may have been different.
Why Should Employers Care About this Case?
Examine your pregnancy leave policy. Does it treat pregnant employees less favorably than those with similar physical restrictions? If so, you might want to revisit and revise that policy with legal guidance. Cases like these are costly and can potentially hamper your ability to recruit new talent. Develop employment policies that minimize the potential for discrimination claims.
If your business faces a discrimination claim or potential case, reach out immediately to develop your legal response. Hughes Lawyers has experience and specialty in many aspects of Employment Law. We can help employers prevent, address, or resolve a variety of issues related to the employer-employee relationship. Contact us today.
