10-2201 Serednyj v. Beverly Healthcare, LLC

Listen to this article

Employment
Pregnancy discrimination

An employer’s policy against giving any employees light duty does not violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
“The PDA requires that an employer ignore a female employee’s pregnancy and treat that employee the same as it would have if she were not pregnant. Piraino v. Int’l Orientation Resources, Inc., 84 F.3d 270, 274 (7th Cir. 1996); Troupe, 20 F.3d at 738. In the context of this case, this means that an employer is not required to provide an accommodation to a pregnant employee unless it provides the same accommodation to its similarly situated nonpregnant employees. See Dormeyer v. Comerica Bank- Illinois, 223 F.3d 579, 583 (7th Cir. 2000) (‘[T]he Pregnancy Discrimination Act does not protect a pregnant employee from being discharged after her absence from work even if her absence is due to pregnancy or to complications of pregnancy, unless the absences of nonpregnant employees are overlooked.’); Troupe, 20 F.3d at 738 (‘The Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires the employer to ignore an employee’s pregnancy, but . . . not her absence from work, unless the employer overlooks the comparable absences of nonpregnant employees.’).

“Contrary to Serednyj’s assertion, Beverly’s modified work policy is not direct evidence of discrimination. The policy complies with the PDA because it does, in fact, treat nonpregnant employees the same as pregnant employees—both are denied an accommodation of light duty work for non-work-related injuries. This is all the PDA requires. We, therefore, agree with the district court and find that Beverly’s modified work policy is ‘pregnancy-blind,’ and therefore valid. See Spivey v. Beverly Healthcare Enterprises, Inc., 196 F.3d 1309, 1312-13 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that the same policy against the same defendant is valid under the PDA and citing Troupe and Piraino); see also Reeves v. Swift Transp. Co., 446 F.3d 637, 641 (6th Cir. 2006) (holding a similar policy valid because the policy ‘does not grant or deny light work on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition’ and citing Troupe); Urbano v. Cont’l Airlines, Inc., 138 F.3d 204, 206 (5th Cir. 1998) (holding a similar policy valid because the light-duty policy treated pregnant employees the same as nonpregnant employees and citing Troupe and Piraino).”

Affirmed.

10-2201 Serednyj v. Beverly Healthcare, LLC

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Miller, J., Young, J.

Full Text