Brenda Feis Quoted in ABA Journal

“Pregnant Pause,” an article in the August issue of the ABA Journal, provides an overview of recent high profile pregnancy discrimination cases and a rise in what lawyers are more broadly calling “family responsibilities discrimination.” The increase is due to a host of factors, including changes in the 1991 Civil Rights Act, which led to an initial rise in general discrimination cases.

Among the cases the article highlights is Reeves v. Swift Transportation Co., in which the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit ruled in May that a Memphis federal court correctly dismissed a disparate lawsuit by a pregnant worker who claimed she was discriminated against because she wasn’t given a light-duty assignment. This is cited as an example in which light-duty policies can be tools of discrimination when used to provide greater protection and benefits to pregnant woman than to other employees who suffered from non-work-related injury or illness. “I think the 6th Circuit got it just right,” says Chicago employment lawyer Brenda Feis. “The Pregnancy Discrimination Act does not require or even allow preferential treatment for pregnant employees.“ The 1978 statute amended Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. The act requires that employers treat pregnant women the same as other employees with similar abilities or physical limitations. “Whatever policy you’re going to have, treat pregnant women the same as anyone else in a similar situation.”