Winter 2007 SBH Quarterly Newsletter
PDF FormatEmployment Law Update: Washington Courts
Refusal to hire applicant due to pregnancy violates Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD).
In Hegwine v. Longview Fibre Company, Inc., 2007 WL 4200418, the Supreme Court of Washington, en banc, held a pregnancy-related discrimination claim requires analysis as sex discrimination and not a disability claim.
Ms. Hegwine was offered a job contingent upon completion of physical exam. The job ad did not designate any lifting requirements, although the interviewer stated the job required lifting to 25 pounds. Responding to a questionnaire during the physical exam, Ms. Hegwine disclosed her pregnancy. She was instructed to have her personal physician outline any physical limitations. Her doctor complied, limiting lifting to 20 to 30 pounds. When told this was insufficient, Ms. Hegwine received a new opinion allowing lifting of up to 40 pounds.
Upon receipt of the releases, the employer ordered a job analysis of the position, which revealed that lifting up to 60 pounds was occasionally necessary. Finding Ms. Hegwine unable to meet this requirement, the employer revoked the job offer.
The court held a "reasonable accommodation" analysis did not apply to pregnancy. Rather, a claim for pregnancy discrimination is founded in sex discrimination, requiring the employee to show the employment action was motivated by her pregnancy. The court explained that pregnancy is not a "disability" under the law. Inquiring as to the pregnancy status was an inappropriate medical inquiry. The court noted an employer can only make such inquiries when based upon a bona fide occupational qualification—an essential part of the job.
This case included several instructional points for employers spanning beyond just pregnancy in the workplace. Inquiring about pregnancy and/or assuming a pregnant individual has restrictions may be discriminatory. An inconsistency in the given reason for an employment action casts doubt on a legitimate employment action. Absence of a well-defined job description, especially when requiring a physical exam, can hinder efforts to exclude those who truly cannot perform the job. An after-the-fact evaluation (such as the job analysis performed in the Hegwine case) creates an inference of discrimination.
<< Newsletter Page