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.