This case need to be heard by the federal judge and stop discriminating against pregnant women employment on America Airline. The practice of policy, and precedures of America Airline need to be change and EEOC should stand behind this complaint..

Let me preface this comment with my position that I feel that AA ought not to have dismissed this woman and allowed her to work in whatever capacity until she was unable to. The following comment is a strictly critical piece based on what little I know of the case. The EEOC may have a hard time beating AA in court if the above piece is accurately reported. In the above it says: "American Airlines has a “light-duty” program for employees who are injured on the job. AA, however does not allow pregnant women at JFK to use that benefit. " I believe that the crux of any court case will be the fact that they offer the program to employees "who are injured on the job". It certainly cannot be argued that getting pregnant qualifies as an "on the job injury" and therefore AA's rule would not apply. I believe that the only way that the EEOC could prevail here would be to show that AA allowed employees who were NOT injured on the job to avail themselves of the "light duty" provision. For example, if an employee sprained is ankle playing basketball on his own time, is he able to get the "light duty" or id he required to take his sick days or non-pay until he can perform his duties? Failing to show such a pattern, I believe a judge would have to side with AA since it's provision is apparently very clear in regards to who qualifies. I can also foresee AA arguing that with the increasing number of statutes that hold persons liable for harm inflicted on a fetus, that they must protect themselves from legal liability should the this employee's fetus become harmed on the job. Futhermore, unless there is a legal requirement for AA to offer paid time off for pregnant employees, I don't see how the EEOC will prevail in court. Certainly this makes for bad press for AA, and they will probably offer some sort of settlement. Just a few thoughts..

I would like to take a moment to respond to the guest above who believes that because AA has a light duty policy for employees who are injured at work does not mean that they are not required to provide light duty to an employee who has restrictions because of an injury or illness that did not happen in the workplace. Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Acts, pregnancy must be viewed as you would any other illness. That's the purpose of the law - it won't allow you to "discriminate" against an employee because they are pregnant and have received restrictions. Under the ADA, it says that an employer must make a "reasonable accommodation that does not cause an undue hardship on the employer". Surely if you have a light duty program for employees who are injured you have already set a precedent (practice) for making reasonable accommodations. Forget bad publicity, the actions that AA took against this employee are "illegal" on so many levels. I believe EEOC and Ms. Welfare can prevail against AA and I also think it's about time that AA took the time to look at their policies and make sure they're legal and that they don't discriminate against a certain group of people, be it men, women, blacks, whites, latinos, gay, lesbian, Etc., Etc., Etc - NOBODY - It's a lot less expensive to provide the accommodation and it's also says to your employees that you respect and value the work they do. .

To the responding guest. You miss the point that I highlighted. AA's 'light duty" policy as stated in this piece is specifically for "employees who injured themselves on the job". The piece does not say "employees who are ill". The court can not and should not attempt to restate, reword or otherwise twist the AA policy. I may be wrong (and I don't mind being wrong) but unless the EEOC can show that AA has habitually allowed "injured" employees who did not get injured on the job to use "light duty" then I do not believe that AA can be found liable in court. Pregnancy may be a medical condition, but it is not an illness. Secondly, as you point out there is accommodation in the law for a burden on the employer. I gave an example (in terms of legal repercussions of harm to the fetus). I can foresee Insurance issues as well. Again, I don't know all the specifics of the case, but the language in AA's policy appears to be very specific and the EEOC will have to show that AA allowed non on-the-job injured employees were allowed access to "light duty". And yes, I object to classifying pregnancy as an illness..

Actually, I did not miss your point at all. What must be considered is, if you as an organization have a light duty policy, regardless of who it's for, it means that you have taken into consideration there are certain situations and/or circumstances that would require you to provide an opportunity for an employee to continue working while recovering for an injury or illness. What EEOC has said is that AA's policy discriminates based on sex and that is totally and 100% correct because men don't get pregnant and have babies, so they don't have a policy that covers women in this particular area of their work force. I agree that the court cannot restate or "twist" a companies' policy, but a reasonable person would and could assert that if you are willing to make accommodates for the male employees you should, by law, make accommodations for any employee who has medical restrictions for other types of illnesses. EEOC does not have to show that AA has habitually allowed "injured" employees who did not get injured at work to use light duty, what they have to show is that as I stated above, because men don't get pregnant, their policy discriminates against pregnant women. I would agree with you that AA's policy on light duty is very specific, therein lies the problem. It does not taken into consideration a certain percentage of their work force that may have a need for light duty restrictions and that's where the discrimination comes in. Even under FMLA, if an employee has a restriction that will not allow them to do the "essential functions" of their job, you must transfer them to a position for which they qualify that will allow them to work while maintaining the restrictions posed by their Physician. I don't know the specifics of her job description, but I would assert that lifting is not the only "essential function" and it could be accommodated without an undue hardship. I know that it sounds as if I keep adding new issues, but that is what's going to happen when this issue comes up before they court. They are going to bring up all these issues because they have a direct correlation to the suit that will be brought before them. It's complicated, but not impossible to resolve. I agree with you, pregnancy is not an illness, but under the law you must "treat it like you would any other illness", thereby not discriminating against a women because she is pregnant. You can't treat pregnant woman differently, that's the purpose of the Pregnancy Discrimination Law. There are always issues of a person getting hurt at work, that's where the Worker's Compensation Law comes in. If you can't treat pregnant women any differently, then they also have to know that if they are injured at work and that injury causes harm to the unborn child, it must also be handled just like any other worker's compensation case. It also means that a pregnant women has to accept that continuing to work, if the situation could cause harm to her and her unborn child, is a personal choice and she cannot hold the employer responsible for something that might happen. You may object to classifying pregnancy as an illness, but let's face it, some portions are an illness. You get sick, you get tired faster, you may have high blood pressure, you might get light headed, your feet may swell, your harmones are out of wack, you act and react differently because your body is going through a change, you get stressed a lot quicker and undue stress has an adverse effect on anyone. That is not meant to be an insult, but it is a fact. It is also not to say that every pregnant women goes through the same thing because they don't, I know, I've been there (twice). I also know that we live in a world that is now "lawsuit happy" and if something were to happen, we always want to find someone to blame, but it's about accepting responsibility for doing what's right and taking all the necessary precautions to ensure that nothing bad happens. Those steps must then be taken by both the employee and the employer. We can't have it both ways - equal is equal in every aspect of employment..