There representing the obscure number of women who are

Topic: BusinessComparative Analysis
Sample donated:
Last updated: June 26, 2019

Thereis no denying that women have made considerable progress from the struggles anddiscrimination they faced in the past 50 years. However, women are still facing manyobstacles in the workplace including unequal pay, sexual harassment, and genderdiscrimination. One particular challenge women face is the fundamental right tohave a family. Having a baby is a joyous occasion for families,and most employers are more than happy to make the proper accommodations forwomen expecting a child. Unfortunately, there are other individuals who sharethe conclusion that women contribute less while pregnant, and that may contactthe judgment that women don’t work as hard as men.

Pregnancy discrimination isan all too common and unfortunately growing threat to women’s rights. “Pregnancydiscrimination lawsuits in the United States have risen nearly 50% in the last15 years despite the passing of the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act”(Spiggle). Furthermore, these are only the cases that women actually bring tocourt, not representing the obscure number of women who are victimized, harassed,let go, downgraded, or struck back against for being pregnant but who never actuallyfiled a complaint.”The Pregnancy Discrimination Actof 1978 (PDA) is an amendment to Title VII. It was passed in response to theU.S.

Don't use plagiarized sources.
Get Your Custom Essay on "There representing the obscure number of women who are..."
For You For Only $13.90/page!


Get custom paper

Supreme Court holdings that pregnancy discrimination does not violate theConstitution or other federal laws” (Guide to Pregnancy Discrimination). ThePDA ensures your entitlement to work during pregnancy. As demonstrated by thisact, a business can’t decline to hire you in light of your pregnancy as long asyou are able to perform the major functions of the job. You can’t beterminated, downgraded, or denied an advancement if you are or may end up pregnant.Your manager can’t compel you to quit working and take pregnancy leave wheneveramid your pregnancy in the event that you’re still willing and able to performyour job. In the event that you are incidentally unfit to perform the functionsof your job because of your pregnancy, your employer must treat you in the samemanner as any other temporarily disabled employee, by giving adjusted errands, alternativeassignments, inability leave, or leave without pay. “You have the right to befree from pregnancy discrimination on the job or when looking for work, and thePDA mandates that employers must treat pregnancy the same way they treattemporary illnesses or other medical conditions” (Guide to PregnancyDiscrimination).Prior to1993, when the FMLA(Family and Medical Leave Act) was passed, a business was not required to offerleave to a worker who either was too sick to work or required time off to watchover an infant, or a truly sick parent, child or life partner.

If you took abreak from work for any of these reasons, you might not have a job to go backto. “When the FMLA was passed, if you were employed for at least one year bythe company you now work for, and work at least 25 hours a week, you can takeup to 12 weeks of unpaid leave before or after the birth of your baby” (McKay).When you return to work, your employer must reinstate you to the same positionyou had prior to your pregnancy. Your employer cannot take away your benefitsand must continue your benefits during your leave.

An employer cannotdiscriminate against you for taking leave under the FMLA.A very popular case thatdeals with pregnancy discrimination is the “Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc.”Peggy Young was employed as a part-time delivery driver for UPS. Although alldrivers were required to have the capacity to lift things weighing up to 70pounds as a basic capacity of their employments, the plaintiff’s obligationsfor the most part included carrying lighter letters and bundles.

After Youngbecame pregnant, she asked for a brief leave of absence. She presented aspecialist’s note with a proposal that she not lift more than 20 pounds. The companydenied her demand yet in addition denied her return to work on the basis thatlifting more than 20 pounds was an essential function of her job. Eminently,UPS, as do numerous businesses, gave employees who had at work injuries withlight-obligation assignments. Moreover, the company consistently gave lightobligation or different housing to certain different classifications ofworkers, (for example, the individuals who had handicaps under the ADA anddrivers who lost DOT accreditation and were not able to drive). Workers who didnot fall into any of these classes were not qualified for light-obligationassignments. Since Young did not, she stayed on an unpaid time away. She atthat point filed a claim against the company, contending that the PDA expectsbosses to give pregnant employees light-obligation work in the event that theygive comparative work to different employees in different conditions.

“The Supreme Court cobbled together a 6-3majority to rule in favor of Peggy Young, a UPS employee who was not offered anaccommodation by her employer when she waspregnant. The justices didn’t accept the broadest version of Young’sdiscrimination argument, but they certainly made it clear that nobody can betreated as she was by an employer without recourse to the courts” (Lithwick).Anothercase is the “Garcia Hernandez v. Chipotle.” Doris Garcia Hernandez was a formeremployee at a Washington, D.C., Chipotle restaurant.

She claimed that she hadreceived positive feedback about her performance before she announced that shewas pregnant. Hernandez guaranteed that in the wake of learning of herpregnancy, her supervisor yelled at her for taking a long time in the bathroom,denied her access to drinking water during her 4-hour shifts and denied herrequest to leave early for a prenatal appointment. Hernandez was purportedlyterminated in an open territory of the restaurant before customers andemployees for “not giving 100 percent” to Chipotle. She asserted, inany case, that she was really terminated as a result of her pregnancy. The juryfor the situation, which documented in the U.S. District Court for the Districtof Columbia in 2014, granted Doris Garcia Hernandez $550,000 in compensatoryand punitive damages after determining that her former manager did indeed terminateher due to her pregnancy.

“This is a victory for working women. It sends a clear messageto employers that pregnancy is not incompatible with the workplace”(Bhattarai). A third case involved Motel 6 being sued by the U.

S. EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The suit claims that Adrian Johnson,who worked at a New Orleans Motel 6, informed management that she was pregnantand that her pregnancy was viewed as high-risk. On March 1, 2015, Johnsoncalled her manager to educate him that she would be not able work that daybecause of a pregnancy-related sickness. The supervisor disclosed to Johnsonthat he was adjusting the work schedule and taking her off the calendar for thewhole week, despite the fact that she just required one free day. After sixdays, Johnson endeavored to call the supervisor to ask when she would be putback on the schedule.

Moments later, she got a text message from him expressingthat she was being placed on a leave of absence until the point that herpregnancy was over. Johnson did not ask to be placed on a leave of absence. EEOCcharged that Motel 6 set Johnson on constrained time away without pay becauseof her pregnancy, infringing upon Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “Title VII prohibits an employer from”discriminating against any individual with respect to…compensation,terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’ssex. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA) amended Title VII toinclude discrimination based on pregnancy and related medical conditions” (TheNational Law Review). EEOC is seeking injunctive relief prohibiting Motel 6from engaging in unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex in the future, aswell as compensatory and punitive damages for Johnson, and other relief thecourt deems proper.”This lawsuit should remind everyoneunmistakably that federal law protects pregnant workers from suchtreatment,” said Jim Sacher, regional attorney for EEOC’s HoustonDistrict.

“The fact that a manager would send a text explicitly suspendingan employee because she is pregnant highlights the need for EEOC to continueits vigorous enforcement of pregnancy discrimination law – and that’s what we’lldo.” Keith Hill, New Orleans Field Office director, added, “EEOC willaggressively investigate allegations of pregnancy discrimination and pursuemeaningful relief in order to eliminate this type of unlawful conduct.”

Choose your subject

x

Hi!
I'm Jessica!

Don't know how to start your paper? Worry no more! Get professional writing assistance from me.

Click here