CASE STUDY OF PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION 2

Case Study of Pregnancy Discrimination

Case Study

A friend of mine called Ann used to work in one of the largest restaurants in the city.
When she became pregnant a few years ago, she informed some of her colleagues about her
pregnancy. Four months later, the management of the restaurant told her that it had decided to
fire her because of poor job performance. Ann was surprised at the reason given for her firing
because she had won Employee-of-the-Year award just a year before. Additionally, out of
more than 30 employees at the restaurant, she was the only one who was fired. She, therefore,
concluded that the real reason for her firing could have been her pregnancy.

Analysis of the Case Study

The firing of Ann is an example of pregnancy discrimination. Pregnancy
discrimination is considered a form of sex discrimination because it only affects women. This
kind of discrimination occurs when an employer discriminates against someone in different
aspects of employment such as hiring, job assignments, training, promotions, firing, layoffs,
and conditions of terms of employment based on a person’s pregnancy (Rose, 2016).
Pregnancy discrimination is explicitly prohibited by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA)
of 1978 (Deardorff & Dalhl, 2016). The Act was an amendment to Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 that makes it illegal for employers to discriminate against people based on
their race, country of origin, religion, and sex (Deardorff & Dahl, 2016).
In the case of Ann, Pregnancy Discrimination Act was violated because she was
clearly fired because of her pregnancy rather than her poor job performance as alleged by the
employer. The fact that Ann had been recognized for excellent performance the previous year
shows that the employer had a different reason for firing her. The employer could have felt
that Ann, being pregnant, could no longer perform well in the conditions of a restaurant

CASE STUDY OF PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION 3
which require one to be constantly on the move. If this is the case then the employer did not
just violate Pregnancy Discrimination Act but also Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Passed in 2008, ADA requires employers to treat pregnant women as persons with temporary
disabilities (Rose, 2016). For instance, if their pregnancy prevents them from doing their
normal jobs, they should be provided with alternative assignments or lighter duties (Rose,
2016). So, if the employer felt that Ann could not effectively discharge her duties because of
her pregnancy, instead of firing her, the employer should have looked ways to accommodate
her at the workplace. The firing of Ann, therefore, constituted a violation of both Pregnancy
Discrimination Act and Americans with Disabilities Act.
The firing was not only a violation of Pregnancy Discrimination Act and American’s
with Disability Act but also a violation of the restaurant’s work policies which explicitly hold
that women are valued at the workplace and are entitled to respect, dignity and equality. This
workplace policy is meant to ensure that women do not suffer terrible workplace
consequences of being pregnant. Based on this policy, it was the responsibility of the
employer to find ways of accommodating needs of Ann that are pregnancy-related instead of
firing her.
Even though it is clear that Ann was fired because of her pregnancy, there is still need
for proper investigations to effectively establish wrongdoing on the part of her employer. For
instance, the investigation should establish that Ann was indeed not a poor performer as
alleged by the employer. Her employee-of-the-year award that she earned a year before her
firing can be used to show that she was actually a performer. Other records that show her
good job performance, such as work evaluations, important contributions at her work, and
letters of recommendation can be used to weaken the employer’s defense that she was sacked
because of poor job performance and not her pregnancy. The lack of any warning letters
about her performance could also be used against the employer’s action. Another important

CASE STUDY OF PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION 4
information that the investigators should look for is the number of employees in the
restaurant. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act only applies to organizations that have more
than 15 employees (Rose, 2016). It is, therefore, important to ascertain that the organization
has more than that number of employees. Fulfilling all of these conditions will significantly
increase the chances of Ann winning against her employer in case she decides to take legal
action.
As for the restaurant, there are many ways that it can use to minimize future violations
of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Americans with Disabilities Act. One of them is
conducting harassment and discrimination training for managers (Rose, 2016). Such training
will provide them with information on actions that constitute pregnancy-based discrimination
and the consequences for such actions. Apart from training, there is also need to explicitly
write down anti-discrimination policies so that all employees and managers become aware of
them and the consequences of violating the policies.
In conclusion, it is clear that Ann’s sacking was discriminatory and unlawful. It
violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Americans with Disability Act. For these
reasons, Ann can successfully sue her employer for the illegal firing. As for the restaurant, it
can ensure that there are no future violations of the two laws by taking managers and
employees through training on various forms of workplace discrimination that are illegal and
the consequences of such discrimination.

CASE STUDY OF PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION 5

References

Deardorff, M. D., & Dahl, J. G. (2016). Pregnancy discrimination and the American worker.
Springer.
Rose, R. V. (2016). Pregnancy and the Workplace. Federal Lawyer