HRM textbook

34 PART 1 INTRODUCTION
Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 prohibits using pregnancy, childbirth,
or related medical conditions to discriminate in hiring, promotion, suspension, or
discharge, or in any term or condition of employment. Furthermore, under the
act, if an employer offers its employees disability coverage, then it must treat
pregnancy and childbirth like any other disability, and include it in the plan as a
covered condition. 10
More women are suing under this act. Pregnancy discrimination claims to the
EEOC rose about 50% from 2000 to 2010, to 6,119 charges in fiscal year 2010. 11
(Progressive human resources notwithstanding, one firm, an auto dealership, fired an
employee after she said she was pregnant. The reason? Allegedly, In case I ended up
throwing up or cramping in one of their vehicles. They said pregnant women do that
sometimes, and I could cause an accident, which might mean a lawsuit against
them. ) 12 Managers therefore shouldn t jump to conclusions. They should base any
[such] decision on whether an employee can do the job on medical documentation,
not on a manager s interpretation. 13
Federal Agency Guidelines
The federal agencies charged with ensuring compliance with these laws and executive
orders issue their own implementing guidelines. These spell out recommended procedures
for complying with the law. 14
The EEOC, Civil Service Commission, Department of Labor, and Department of
Justice together issued uniform guidelines. These set forth highly recommended
procedures regarding things like employee selection, record keeping, and preemployment
inquiries. As an example, they specify that employers must validate any
employment selection devices (like tests) that screen out disproportionate numbers
of women or minorities. And they explain how to validate a selection device. (We
explain this procedure in Chapter 6.) The EEOC and other agencies also periodically
issue updated guidelines clarifying and revising their positions on matters such as
sexual harassment. (The OFCCP has its own guidelines.) The American Psychological
Association has its own (non legally binding) Standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing.
Early Court Decisions Regarding Equal
Employment Opportunity
Several court decisions between 1964 and 1991 helped clarify courts interpretations of
EEO laws such as Title VII.
GRIGGS V. DUKE POWER COMPANY Griggs was a landmark case, because the
Supreme Court used it to define unfair discrimination. Lawyers sued the Duke Power
Company on behalf of Wilie Griggs, an applicant for a job as a coal handler. The
company required its coal handlers to be high school graduates. Griggs claimed this
requirement was illegally discriminatory. He said it wasn t related to success on the job,
and it resulted in more blacks than whites being rejected for these jobs. Griggs won the
case. The Court s decision was unanimous. In his written opinion, Chief Justice Burger
laid out three crucial guidelines affecting equal employment legislation.
* First, the Court ruled that the discrimination does not have to be overt to be illegal.
In other words, the plaintiff does not have to show that the employer intentionally
discriminated against the employee or applicant. Instead, the plaintiff just has
to show that discrimination took place.
* Second, the Court held that an employment practice (in this case, requiring the
high school degree) must be job related if it has an unequal impact on members of
a protected class. (For example, if arithmetic is not required to perform the job,
don t test for arithmetic.)