The EEOC sued Walmart claiming that the denial of temporary light duty to pregnant employees violated the Civil Rights Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

The trial court granted summary judgment to Walmart, and the 7th Seventh Circuit affirmed. EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores East (7th Cir 08/16/2022) [PDF]

Walmart had a pretty simple policy. It offered temporary light duty to employees who were injured on the job, but did not offer similar light duty to employees who were pregnant or who were injured outside of their work for Walmart.

The EEOC argued that by accommodating all workers injured on the job, and denying all pregnant women a similar accommodation, Walmart engaged in sex discrimination.

Walmart offered evidence that the purpose of its policy is to implement a worker’s compensation program that benefits Walmart’s employees while limiting the company’s “legal exposure” and costs of hiring people to replace injured workers.

The 7th Circuit said, "Offering temporary light duty to workers injured on the job pursuant to a state worker’s compensation law is a 'legitimate, nondiscriminatory' justification for denying accommodations under the TAD Policy to everyone else, such as individuals not injured on the job, including pregnant women.”

Finally, the court said, "the burden shifts back to the EEOC to 'provid[e] sufficient evidence that the employer’s policies impose a significant burden on pregnant workers, and that the employer’s "legitimate, nondiscriminatory" reasons are not sufficiently strong to justify the burden, but rather—when considered along with the burden imposed—give rise to an inference of intentional discrimination.'" The court concluded that the EEOC could not carry that burden.