Monday, December 4, 2023
HomeEmploymentPregnant Employees Equity Act Quiz!: Employment & Labor Insider

Pregnant Employees Equity Act Quiz!: Employment & Labor Insider

How a lot have you learnt in regards to the new Pregnant Employees Equity Act, which can take impact solely six brief weeks from now? Take our Mom’s Day quiz and discover out! You don’t should be a mom (and even have a mom) to take part. As all the time, the solutions will seem on the finish of every query, so you’ll be able to cheat all you need, and we’ll by no means know.

If you happen to make it to the top, there shall be a particular present, chosen particularly for you.

Prepared? Right here we go!

No. 1: Title VII was amended in 1979 to ban being pregnant discrimination. So, what’s the purpose of this newfangled Pregnant Employees Equity Act, which can take impact on June 27?

A. The PWFA was enacted to replicate that transgender males will also be pregnant, one thing that nobody thought of in 1979.

B. Title VII prohibits discrimination based mostly on being pregnant however doesn’t clearly require cheap lodging of being pregnant. The PWFA expressly requires coated employers to accommodate staff’ momentary limitations ensuing from being pregnant or pregnancy-related situations except doing so can be an undue hardship.

C. There’s no level. Congress simply wanted to justify its existence. Our tax {dollars} at work.

ANSWER: B. Title VII was amended again within the days when employers usually did blatantly (however legally) discriminate in opposition to staff for being pregnant – for instance, by requiring them to stop, or failing to advertise them, or paying them much less. “Cheap lodging” was a reasonably new idea. Since 1979, many states have enacted legal guidelines requiring employers to make cheap lodging for being pregnant and associated situations, and with the PWFA, federal regulation is catching up.

No. 2: Why wouldn’t the Individuals with Disabilities Act cowl cheap lodging for pregnant employees?

A. As a result of being pregnant will not be often a “incapacity.”

B. As a result of being pregnant is a short lived situation, and the ADA covers situations which can be comparatively long-term.

C. As a result of being pregnant will not be a illness.

D. All the above.

E. Not one of the above.

ANSWER: D. A traditional, uneventful being pregnant will not be a “incapacity” inside the that means of the ADA as a result of it’s not an sickness and since its limitations are very momentary in nature. So, yeah, the ADA isn’t a lot assist in terms of the vast majority of being pregnant lodging conditions.

(Nevertheless . . . an worker who has problems of being pregnant, or who has long-term well being points ensuing from childbirth, might be protected by the ADA. As of June 27, such an worker can be coated below each the ADA and the PWFA.)

No. 3: Elvira is six months pregnant, however she hasn’t advised anybody at work but. So far as they know, she’s simply getting a bit chubby. On June 28, 2023, she picks up a heavy field within the copy room and throws out her again, which requires her to take mattress relaxation for the remainder of her being pregnant. Elvira sues her employer below the PWFA for failing to reassign her lifting duties as an inexpensive lodging for her being pregnant. Does her lawsuit have an opportunity?

A. Sure, as a result of she is pregnant, and her employer didn’t accommodate her. Case closed.

B. Sure, as a result of a lady ought to by no means should carry a heavy field by herself.

C. No, as a result of her employer didn’t know she was pregnant and due to this fact had no purpose to imagine lodging had been wanted.

D. No, as a result of Elvira was an fool for attempting to carry a heavy field by herself when she was six months pregnant.

ANSWER: C. Below the PWFA, the employer is required to attempt to accommodate “identified limitations” associated to being pregnant or pregnancy-related situations. Elvira stored her being pregnant a secret, so she can not sue her employer for violating the PWFA. Properly, let me rephrase that. Anybody can sue anybody for something, however Elvira ought to lose her PWFA lawsuit.

No. 4: Which of the next violate the PWFA?

A. Refusing to make an inexpensive lodging for a identified limitation associated to being pregnant or a pregnancy-related situation when the lodging wouldn’t be an undue hardship.

B. Requiring an worker to simply accept an inexpensive lodging that was not arrived at utilizing the “interactive course of.”

C. Taking antagonistic motion in opposition to an worker as a result of she sought an inexpensive lodging for being pregnant or a pregnancy-related situation.

D. Patting the stomach of a pregnant worker with out being requested and saying “Awwww . . ..”

E. Teasing a pregnant worker in her eighth month about how “enormous” she’s develop into.

F. Asking a pregnant worker what her due date is and what she goes to call the infant.

G. All the above.

H. A, B, and C.

ANSWER: H. Nonetheless, D and E can and shall be used in opposition to you in a court docket of regulation, so in the event you’re doing these issues, cease it proper now. F might be all proper, however even there, keep away from following up with damaging editorial feedback. (“You’re going to call him Murgatroyd? He’ll hate you the remainder of his life.”)

No. 5: Mizirlou, who’s pregnant, is a stellar candidate for the job. However the hiring supervisor gives the job to the distant second-place candidate Mediocra, who’s in her mid-50s and has grown youngsters. The hiring supervisor tells you confidentially that Mizirlou was vastly extra certified however that he selected Mediocra “due to that new regulation that requires us to make lodging for being pregnant. I don’t wish to get entangled in that.” Is that this

A. Authorized

B. Unlawful

ANSWER: B. The PWFA particularly gives that it’s illegal for an employer to fail to rent a professional candidate in order that it might keep away from having to make being pregnant lodging.

No. 6: Velveeta works at a quick meals institution and must be on her toes a lot of the day. After she turns into pregnant, she brings a word from her physician saying that she is going to want two 15-minute sit-down breaks per eight-hour shift. The shop supervisor doesn’t imagine that the breaks will be accommodated, however she remembers studying someplace {that a} depart of absence is a kind of cheap lodging. And Velveeta is even eligible for depart below the Household and Medical Depart Act! So the supervisor has an “interactive course of” assembly with Velveeta, tells her that the breaks can’t be accommodated, however offers her the excellent news that she will be able to exit on unpaid FMLA depart for 12 weeks. Is that this

A. Authorized

B. Unlawful

ANSWER: B. The PWFA additionally particularly says that an employer can not require a pregnant worker to take a depart of absence as an lodging if the worker will be accommodated on the job. Courts are unlikely to imagine that an employer could not handle to provide a pregnant worker two 15-minute sitting breaks per eight-hour shift. I’m having hassle believing it myself, and I made up this query.

No. 7: This quiz has been most informative! I can study much more in regards to the PWFA by studying a weblog put up that Robin wrote in January.

A. True

B. False

ANSWER: A. Test it out! 

*     *     *


6-7 right: Solution to go! You’re Lois Griffin, apparently America’s #1 favourite mother. (Go determine.)

4-5 right: Excellent! You’re Mommie Dearest, however in a great way!

2-3 right: You’re Morticia Addams. A bit unsettling, however Pugsley and Wednesday will vouch for you.

0-1 right: Eeeek! Mrs. Bates!

Simply kidding! You all did nice. And right here is that particular present I promised you:

     Pssst. Proper right here.

Have an incredible Mom’s Day weekend, y’all!

Picture Credit score: Roses from flickr, Inventive Commons license, by Ralph Each day. YouTube clip from Psycho (1960).


Most Popular