Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (the Seventh Circuit) found Walmart not liable in a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit filed in 2018 by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Several advocacy groups had filed complaints with the EEOC alleging this specific instance of discrimination. The Seventh Circuit covers the Midwest states of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Earlier, the EEOC successfully sued a Washington-based company in a sexual harassment case, securing $361K in relief for several female employees.
Background of the Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit
In September 2018, the EEOC filed a lawsuit alleging Walmart of pregnancy discrimination at a Wisconsin warehouse. According to the EEOC, Walmart denied pregnant workers’ participation in a company program to accommodate workers’ restrictions. These would include exemptions from heavy lifting and other physical tasks as a part of their job.
Indeed, federal law requires that employers accommodate workers’ pregnancies just as they would a qualifying disability, barring undue hardship. The lawsuit alleged that Walmart forced the workers to take unpaid leave, denying their accommodation requests. The EEOC was seeking full relief, including:
- back pay,
- compensatory and punitive damages, and
- non-monetary measures to correct Walmart’s practices going forward.
Pregnancy Status as a Protected Class
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex or gender. Title VII’s definition for this protected class expands to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy-related conditions. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA) amended Title VII and prohibits pregnancy discrimination in employment and harassment based on a pregnancy-related condition. Under the PDA, employees temporarily disabled related to pregnancy may take disability leave if the employer normally allows it in other situations. Finally, federal wage and hour law protects nursing mothers’ rights to break time for the purpose of expressing milk in the workplace.
Court Rules in Favor of the Employer
Walmart denied the claims against them in the pregnancy discrimination lawsuit. Firstly, Walmart maintained that its anti-discrimination policy lists pregnancy status as a protected classification. Additionally, they claimed that their accommodations policy fully meets or exceeds both state and federal law. Secondly, Walmart claimed its policy, in this case, was not based on pregnancy discrimination. Rather, Walmart based it on the need to limit their liability under workers’ compensation law. After all, it would involve significant cost and undue hardship for the Wisconsin warehouse to replace several injured workers with new hires.
In EEOC v. Walmart Stores East, L.P., the Seventh Circuit ruled in Walmart’s favor, dismissing the EEOC’s claims of pregnancy discrimination. In sum, the Seventh Circuit recognized Walmart’s policy of offering light duty applied equally to all employees, including pregnant individuals. Lastly, the Seventh Circuit ruled that Walmart had acted out of a legitimate need to protect against liability under workers’ compensation.