Pregnant and newly hired
![MaryJ](http://hrforms.blr.com/plugins/DefaultAvatars/design/LBlueAvatar.jpg)
One of our department heads just hired a young lady who is 7 months pregnant. The department head was unaware of this at the time of hire. Of course the young lady did not divulge the information either. I realize she can't be terminated for pregnancy but can she be terminated for absenteeism? She already has been unable to attend orientation due to illness.
If she stays, must we give her a three month pregnancy leave although she will not qualify for FMLA due to length of service?
If she stays, must we give her a three month pregnancy leave although she will not qualify for FMLA due to length of service?
Comments
You get into trouble when you begin to treat a pregnant EE different than others.
Half HR
Terminating an employee (who by the way happened to be pregnant, blind, obese and African American) for violating attendance policies is not illegal.
I read her post to say there is no federal law that governs pregnancy discrimination, when in fact there is.
Thanks for the lesson on terminating pregnant employees, but I don't need it. If you see in my post where I said you can't fire her, let me know.
Pregnancy Leave
Washington law regarding pregnancy and childbirth leave, located at Wash. Admin. Code § 162.30.020, applies only to state employees. Under this section, an employer must provide a woman a leave of absence for the period of time that she is sick or temporarily disabled because of pregnancy or childbirth. Employers must treat a woman on pregnancy-related leave the same as other employees on leave for sickness or other temporary disabilities. For example:
¨ If an employer provides paid leave for sickness or other temporary disabilities, the employer should provide paid leave for pregnancy-related sickness or disabilities.
¨ If the uniform policy requires a physician’s statement to verify the leave period, a physician’s statement may be required to verify the leave period relating to pregnancy or childbirth.
¨ If the uniform policy permits the retention and accrual of benefits such as seniority, retirement, and pension rights during the leave period for other temporary disabilities, the policy must also permit it during leave for pregnancy-related temporary disabilities.
¨ If the employer permits extensions of leave time (for example, use of vacation or leave without pay) for sickness or other temporary disabilities, the employer should permit extensions for pregnancy-related sickness or disabilities.
Disparate Impact
There may be circumstances when the application of the employer’s general leave policy to pregnancy or childbirth will not afford equal opportunity for women and men. One circumstance would be where the employer allows no leave for any sickness or other disability by any employee or so little leave time that a pregnant woman must terminate employment. Because such a leave policy has a disparate impact on women, it is an unfair practice unless the policy is justified by business necessity.
Reinstatement
An employer must allow a woman to return to the same job, or a similar job with at least the same pay, if she has taken a leave of absence only for the actual period of disability relating to pregnancy or childbirth. Refusal to do so must be justified by adequate facts concerning business necessity.
I agree with Don. The PDA treats pregnancy as a disablity and says that you have to treat pregnancy the same as any other disability. So if you have a policy that states any employee who misses XX amount of time regardless of the reason is terminated and you apply it consistently, you are not in violation of the PDA. It is not the federal equivalent of a state law. CT has CFEPA which covers employers with 3 or more employees and is much more employee friendly. If the person goes out on disability in month 1 of thier pregnancy and exhausts all 16 weeks of their CFMLA you still have to hold their job as long as the doctor says they are disabled.
> Normal pregnancy is not a disability. There
>is no requirement to make accomodations for a
>pregnant employee. The PDA requires employers
>to treat pregnant employees the SAME as any
>other employee. There are no special
>arrangements required. The employee may not
>discriminate against the pregnant employee
>BECAUSE they are pregnant.
I did not misread his post. He stated that the PDA was not the federal equivalent of state law. That is correct. The PDA is an anti discrimination provision that analogizes pregnancy to a physical or medical condition. It requires only that pregnancy be treated the same as other physical conditions with similar employment effects. When the woman goes out to have the baby she is considered disabled and unable to work. I did not say that they require a special arrangement.
If you had read my post closely, you would see that I mentioned state law in CT, to show that the PDA was not the equivalent of state law in all cases.