LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS IN I/O PSYCHOLOGY

Full Answer Section

          In this scenario:

1. Request for Accommodation: The employee was struggling with morning sickness and requested a break from some duties, and later, with a doctor's note, asked to avoid heavy lifting. This is a request for a reasonable accommodation due to a pregnancy-related condition.
2. Supervisor's and HR's Response: The supervisor's initial demand for a doctor's note is standard, but HR's subsequent declaration that she could not return to work until after birth because she was a "liability" and must take unpaid leave is problematic. This suggests that Walmart was treating her differently because of her pregnancy, rather than evaluating her ability to perform her job with or without reasonable accommodation, as they would for any other employee with a temporary medical condition or injury.
3. "Liability" Argument: Labeling a pregnant employee as a "liability" and forcing them onto unpaid leave, especially when a doctor's note indicates specific restrictions (avoiding heavy lifting), rather than engaging in an interactive process to find suitable light duty or other accommodations, is a strong indicator of discrimination. If Walmart would accommodate other employees with temporary lifting restrictions (e.g., due to a sports injury or a non-pregnancy related medical condition) by assigning light duty or temporary modifications, but denied the same to the pregnant employee, it would be a clear violation of the PDA.

Therefore, Walmart's actions likely constitute disparate treatment under the PDA, as the employee was treated unfavorably because of her pregnancy. It also raises questions under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) if her pregnancy-related condition was considered a disability, which might also require reasonable accommodation. This case underscores why the EEOC exists: to investigate such allegations and enforce these protections.

Sample Answer

       

Analysis of the Walmart Case and the Role of the EEOC in Anti-Discrimination

  Did Walmart discriminate against this employee? Based on the information provided and in the context of U.S. anti-discrimination laws, it is highly probable that Walmart discriminated against this employee. The key federal law applicable here is the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) of 1978, which is an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The PDA states that discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII. Crucially, it mandates 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."