Introduction
According to Dessler, 2000 for each and every organization, diversity has been an issue of concern thanks to the concept of globalization. They will at all time have diverse workforce in terms of age, sex, religion, ability, disability, race, ethnic groups, color, nationality and even sex orientation.
Various organizations although opt to be in line with Equal Employment Opportunity Committee regulations, fail to handle in the most sober way its diverse workforce (Dessler, 2000). Wal-Mart is one such organization. It is one of the most recognized chains of stores across the globe dealing with a myriad of goods and services. The issue of concern addressed in this paper is with regards to pregnancy discrimination of an employee.
Discrimination has been thought as the act of unfairly treating or unequal treatment of persons based on their religion, sex/gender, sexual orientation, age, academic level, marital status and pregnancy. From this definition, pregnancy discrimination is thus a situation where a woman is unfairly treated on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, and related conditions.
Identification and impact of the problem
In this case, a branch of the multi-billion chain of stores recently hired a quality analyst who was to travel at least three times a month. However after three months into the job, her immediate boss realized that she was pregnant. Upon inquiry he established that the employee in question was 6 months pregnant.
Things got worse when the supervisor concluded that she can no longer make the desired trips and recommended that she be sacked since she was informed during the interview that her duties will entail substantial travelling. However before this stage, the two had very rough time in the office.
The employee was of the view that she was being undermined and treated unfairly due to her condition. On the other hand, the supervisor believed that having such an employee is a waste of resources and time since she cannot carry her duties as expected.
Ultimately, the lady was sacked and her position taken by a male employee. Things took another turn when the sacked employee sued Wal-Mart for discrimination.
One major problem that this brought to the company was a tarnished name. Other workers especially women began wondering as well as feeling insecure about their jobs. Additionally, the general public as well as other relevant stakeholders were amazed and started seeing the organization in a bad way.
It is worth to have in mind that the victims of pregnancy discrimination are entitled to a number of remedies including “back pay, hiring, front pay, punitive damages, reinstatement, promotion, attorney’s fees, court costs, expert witness fees, compensatory damage” (Shellenbarger, 2000) to mention but a few. All these were paid upon a court order obtained by the employee.
Review of literature
The PDA act passed in 1978 by senate clearly states that pregnancy at certain critical stage opt to be treated as a disability case and for that matter the affected individual will be protected by the same laws governing disabled people. However it is clear that at no time should the employer either stop an employee from working provided the later is capable of successfully and effectively accomplish her tasks, duties and responsibilities.
Similarly the law spells out that a pregnant employee should not be made to work in another area where she is not comfortable for instance being forced out of a place such as customer service to save the company from ‘shame’ associated with the employee pregnancy.
Statistics reveal that discrimination in terms of pregnant employees has increased by about 75% in 38 States in the United States of America. Additionally it was not of importance whether a woman is employed in a female dominated work environment or male dominated work environment as this made no differences in the filling of pregnancy discrimination cases (Lindemann, 2003).
The EEOC has established that the trend of pregnancy discrimination is overtaking other kinds of discrimination in the work place.
The department of labor in the United States established that women made up close to 47% of the total U.S labor force in 2008 and they projected the proportion to rise to about 50% by 2016. In 2006 alone the EEOC addressed 6,196 cases of pregnancy discrimination with claims and compensation totaling $17.0 million (U.S. Department of Justice, 2006).
It has also been established that there is no single cause of discrimination in terms of pregnancy. However, scholars have pointed out that “age-old stereotypes about gender combined with increasing numbers of women in the workforce are key reasons for rising numbers” (Shellenbarger, 2000).
It will be rational to bring out clearly rules of the game when dealing with pregnant employees. It is worth to remember always that at no time should an employer;
- Decline to hire, promote or fire a pregnant employee as a result of prejudice caused by co-workers, clients or customers
- At no time should an employer ask illegal questions when interviewing a pregnant applicant that they would otherwise not ask an applicant who is not pregnant
- At not time should the employer demand an employee to give a pregnancy notice unless the same serve a legitimate business purpose
- Employers should not forbid a pregnant employee from carrying out her duties if she is willing and physically able to execute her duties
- Employers are obliged to offer same level of health benefits for spouses of male employees as they do for spouses of female spouses
- Employers are also obliged to reimburse costs related to pregnancy
- Employers opt to hold open a job for a pregnant related absence for the same period of time as in situation where the absence is due to sickness or disability leave.
In situations where a pregnant woman has been unjustly treated and in the worst case losses her job as a result of pregnant related issue they suffer serious consequences later in life if they fail to secure another job. This is because their financial security is jeopardized for the rest of their live.
It has been shown that women who have lost their jobs or unfairly treated due to them being pregnant are less likely to return to work after giving birth. In case they are to be reinstated their earnings are usually decreased which translates to lower pension earning during retiring period. The law is only applicable in situation where the organization has 15 or more employees (Friedman & Strickler, 1997).
References
Dessler, G. (2000). Human resource management. New York: Prentice Hall.
Friedman, J. & Strickler, J. (1997). The law of employment discrimination. New York: Foundation Press.
Lindemann, B. (2003). American discrimination in employment law. Oxford University: OUP.
Shellenbarger, S. (2000). Pregnant employees worry about effects of workplace Stress. Wall Street Journal, 2(1): 2-45
U.S. Department of Justice, (2006). Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Pregnancy Discrimination Charges: EEOC & FEPAs Combined FY 1992–FY 2005.