Scheduling
Time & Attendance
Forecasting
Employee App
Payroll Integrations
Communications
Benefits
By Jon Hyman
Aug. 6, 2014
In Cadenas v. Butterfield Health Care II, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 7/15/14), a federal court asked the question of whether an employer could terminate a pregnant employee on the basis of its inability to accommodate her future pregnancy-related job restrictions. Even though the employee won this battle, the employer really won the war.
Araceli Cadenas worked as a certified nursing assistant at a nursing and rehabilitation facility. Her position required her to pull, push, or lift at least 20 pounds. At her 15th week of pregnancy, Cadenas presented her employer a note from her doctor stating that once she reached the 20th week of pregnancy, she would no longer be able to lift more than 20 pounds. Faced with an employee who soon would be unable to perform the essential functions of her job, the company fired her.
First, the court concluded that that Butterfield had no duty to accommodate Cadenas’s pregnancy-related restrictions.
Meadowbrook was not required to accommodate Cadenas’ physical restrictions — if it would not have accommodated a non-pregnant employee’s similar restrictions — or give her any special treatment, such as light duty, if it would not have afforded that option to a non-pregnant employee. Here, there's no evidence that Meadowbrook applied its light duty policy inconsistently to pregnant and non-pregnant employees. Cadenas submits no competent evidence to contradict the fact that Meadowbrook denied both pregnant and non-pregnant employees an accommodation of light duty work unless they had suffered a work-related injury. This neutral policy is not evidence of discrimination.
Thus, without any duty to accommodate, Meadowbrook was entitled to fire Cadenas at her 20th week of pregnancy, because, at that time, she could not perform the basic functions of the job.
In this case, Meadowbrook never suggested, or provided evidence, that there was any business reason not to let Cadenas work during the five weeks remaining before her restrictions went into effect.… Without any physical restrictions applicable between weeks 15 and 20 of Cadenas’ pregnancy, Meadowbrook has pointed to no non-discriminatory reason for terminating Cadenas effective immediately.… On these facts, a reasonable jury could conclude Meadowbrook terminated Cadenas because of her pregnancy, not because she was subject to any present restrictions.
Thus, Cadenas can take her claim to a jury, but her economic damages are limited to five weeks back pay.
What can we learn from this case?
Come see what we’re building in the world of predictive employee scheduling, superior labor insights and next-gen employee apps. We’re on a mission to automate workforce management for hourly employees and bring productivity, optimization and engagement to the frontline.
Benefits
What is Earned Wage Access (EWA)? A Few ConsiderationsSummary Earned wage access (EWA) programs are an increasingly popular way for employees to access their...
benefits, earned wage access products, payroll, time and attendance
Benefits
EEOC says that employers legally can offer incentives to employees to get vaccinated in almost all instancesIf you’re an employer looking to get as many of your employees vaccinated as possible, you can rest eas...
ADA, CDC, COVID-19, EEOC, GINA, pandemic, vaccinated
Benefits
Fixing some common misconceptions about HIPAAEver since the CDC amended its COVID-19 guidance to say that the fully vaccinated no longer need to wea...
COVID-19, health care, HIPAA, human resources, wellness