Press & News

Jerry Maatman Quoted in Business Insurance
05/29/2006

The May 29 issue of Business Insurance includes the article "Court rules on pregnancy bias: Employers not obligated to modify duty: 6th Circuit" that states "Federal pregnancy anti-discrimination law does not require employers to offer job-saving light-duty work to pregnant employees if such work is not offered to disabled employees who were not injured on the job, a federal appeals court has ruled.  Even if an employer offers light-duty work to employees injured on the job, the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 does not require extending the program to pregnant workers, a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled unanimously on May 16. The decision, which affirms a lower court's ruling, is in line with the appellate court's rulings in earlier cases and essentially concurs with rulings in two other federal appellate courts.

"A truck driver in Tennessee for Phoenix-based Swift Transportation Co. Inc. for a few months in 2002 when she became pregnant and was medically restricted from lifting more than 20 pounds. Her physician, though, permitted her to continue driving.  But citing an employment policy requiring drivers to push and pull up to 200 pounds of freight on a dolly, Swift terminated Ms. Reeves in November 2002. The company refused to offer her light-duty work, because her physical limitations did not result from a workplace injury. Ms. Reeves was not eligible for unpaid leave under either the federal Family Medical Leave Act or a Tennessee maternity leave statute because she had not met their minimum length-of-employment requirements. According to court papers, Ms. Reeves argued that Swift's light-duty policy is discriminatory because it allows the company to offer light-duty work to employees with similar physical limitations to hers but not pregnant employees. Additionally, the policy violates the provision of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act that provides that pregnant employees "shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work."  Also, according to court papers, Ms. Reeves never had to load or unload her truck or lift, push or pull heavy weight during her tenure with Swift. In addition, another company employee testified in a deposition that she did not know of any drivers who have had to push or pull 200 pounds.  But in its ruling, the 6th Circuit panel called Swift's light-duty policy "indisputably pregnancy blind," because "it simply does not grant or deny light work on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions." Therefore, it complies with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act's employer requirement to "ignore" employee pregnancies, the court ruled. Citing decisions by the 5th and 11th federal appellate circuits, the 6th Circuit panel reasoned that Ms. Reeves demanded preferential, not equal, treatment under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, because she sought better treatment than other employees with nonwork-related infirmities."

Employer attorney Gerald L. Maatman Jr. characterized Swift's light-duty policy as "a little unusual" and "a little edgy," because it also would have to apply to employees contending with nonwork-related medical conditions such as heart attack, stroke and cancer. Mr. Maatman, a partner at Syfarth Shaw L.L.P. in Chicago, said he would not recommend that other employers adopt a similar light-duty policy. But he said the ruling does underscore that pregnant employees must be treated the same as employees with disabilities. Mr. Maatman also said employers must have legitimate business reasons for their employment polices and apply them consistently.