Employment Law

HAWAII EMPLOYMENT LAW Basics: PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION LAW UNDER FEDERAL AND HAWAII LAW

 INTRODUCTION:

Along with other kinds of claims, there has been a significant improve in pregnancy discrimination complaints nationwide.  The increase in the number of complaints has outpaced the enhance in percentage of ladies in the workforce in the course of the exact same period.  

Accordingly, it is clear that employers require to turn out to be a lot more aware of their obligations towards pregnant employees, particularly under Hawaii state law, which covers all employers, and permits not only individual liability for violations of the law, but also unlimited punitive and compensatory damages to be awarded a plaintiff.

 FEDERAL LAW AND HAWAII LAW ARE Significantly Diverse WITH RESPECT TO PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) makes it unlawful for an employer to limit, segregate or classify employees or applicants for employment in any manner which deprives or tends to deprive an individual of employment opportunities due to the fact of the individual’s race, color religion, sex or national origin.  Typically, the law covers all employers engaged in an market affecting commerce with 15 or more employees.

Title VII was amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”) to prohibit all forms of discrimination in employment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.  Under PDA, pregnant workers need to not be treated less favorably than a non-pregnant employee under similar circumstances.

Under the PDA, pregnant employees need to not be treated less favorably than a non-pregnant employee under similar circumstances.  Therefore, an employer that refuses to hire or promote a female since of pregnancy has violated PDA.  Also, an employer that forces a pregnant employee to take a leave of absence in spite of being able to perform her job has violated PDA.  Conversely, it is unlawful to force a pregnant employee to continue performing function she is incapable of doing due to her pregnant condition from which other similarly situated disabled workers are excused.

If the employee litigates her federal PDA claim the available remedies contain the Court: Issuing an injunction prohibiting the employer from committing future violations of the law granting equitable relief such as reinstatement or promotion awarding back pay limited for a period beginning two years just before the date the charge of discrimination was filed, less any interim earnings awarding front pay, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

In addition, the total amount of compensatory and punitive damages are limited depending on the size of the employer.  Particularly, the caps are set by statute as follows:

Number of Employees            Cap

015-100 workers                $ 050,000

101-200 workers                $ 100,000

201-500 workers                $ 200,000

500 plus workers                $ 300,000

Under the Hawaii Employment Practices Act, HRS Chapter 378, covered employers are prohibited from discriminating in public and private employment on the basis of “sex.”  Like PDA, Hawaii law prohibits discriminating against girls in employment because of “pregnancy.” 

There are important differences between PDA and Hawaii law.  First, the Hawaii statute covers any employer with “one or more” workers, therefore affecting a lot of small business owners that perhaps lack resources to fully educate themselves on the law or implement danger reduction policies and procedures. 

Second, even though it is clear under federal law that individual employees can’t be held individually liable for adverse decisions deemed unlawful under the law, there is virtually uniform authority amongst state court judges that no such protection is afforded under state law.  Therefore, supervisors along with the employer are commonly named as people in lawsuits filed by plaintiffs in Hawaii state court pursuant to HRS Chapter 378.

Third, while federal law just needs the employer to treat a pregnant employee as it would similarly situated non-pregnant workers under Hawaii law employers are required to do a lot more.  Specifically, Hawaii law needs by regulatory mandate that employers “make each and every reasonable accommodation to the needs of the female affected by disability due to and resulting from pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

Regardless of the policies applicable to non-pregnant disabled workers, female employees who are disabled due to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions should be permitted to take a leave of absence, paid or unpaid, for a “reasonable period of time.”  A “reasonable period of time” is that time determined by the employee’s well being care provider.

Hawaii law demands the reinstatement of an employee returning from pregnancy leave to her original job or to a position of comparable pay, with out loss of accumulated service credits and privileges.  Prior to the employee’s return to work the employer could request a physician’s certificate approving her return to function.

Lastly, and in several circumstances most drastically, under Hawaii law a court may possibly award unlimited punitive and compensatory damages in cases brought under HRS Chapter 378.   

 CONCLUSION:

            PDA and the Hawaii Employment Practices Act are considerably distinct in scope and breadth.   Under federal law employers ought to bear in mind to treat pregnant employees the very same as similarly situated workers.  However, under Hawaii law employers are needed to afford pregnant special protections regardless of how similarly situated workers are treated. Employers really should seek counsel if they have questions regarding the law.

Roman Amaguin, Esq. romanamaguin@yahoo.com www.amaguinlaw.com

Roman Amaguin, Esq. is a Hawaii lawyer specializing in employment law, labor law, and civil litigation.