Pregnancy Discriminatory Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 is very categorical on discrimination against pregnant women. There are several forms of discriminations that are fostered towards pregnant women; the case of Jamie Davies is just one of them. Both these laws details conditions under which employees are eligible for leave. Employees must provide a generous reason for a leave to take care of their family members. PDA and FMLA are however different on how they apply to employers such as Jones. Davis is protected under several clauses as enshrined in the PDA. PDA applies to employers with 15 or more employees and has no basic requirement such as a minimum number of working hours. Davis has met all requirements to be protected under the law (Carle, 2012). The FMLA only protects Davies to the extent that she has worked with Jones for 12 months. But the fact the preparatory school only has 47 faculties meaning FMLA does not protect Davies (Mukhopadhyay, 2012).
Davies' situation not only puts the school on the limelight of law but also put you as the headmaster of Skyline preparatory school at risk of facing discrimination charges. Having in mind that Davies has already applied for leave and has justified her reason being that she is pregnant and has pre-eclampsia, the law would likely side with her. It would, therefore, be in your best interest to offer Davies the leave but however, detail a suitable duration and other information about the leave such as remuneration. According to details on Davies, you seem to have violated the PDA law that is fostered towards curbing discriminations meted against employees who are expectant.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The school should probably develop a blueprint of institution laws that govern leave as result of pregnancy or over family concerns. These laws should, however, be developed in line with the Pregnancy Discriminatory Act and FMLA. It is also important to consider the fact that in an organization such as an education institution many employees are likely to request for a leave based on a situation such as pregnancy as seen in the case facing your institution. Most of the employees in your institution are protected by the PDA (US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2013). You as the headmaster and the institution face charges of fines amounting to huge money as specified by the judges. It is therefore important to consider having long-term resolutions for this situation.
One way of dealing with this challenge is having a policy that surrounds employee hiring. Employment should, however, be free from any discrimination hence any policy taken by the institution should factor in this information, you should also consider training employees both during the hiring process and after hiring. The training should be to enlighten the employees on the institution policies surrounding pregnancy leaf. It is unlawful to terminate the employment of Davies without concrete reason that leads to termination. Your action to terminate her employment is wrong and therefore put you at risk of facing the law as detailed by PDA. On the other hand, Davies is justified to complain against your decision to terminate her employment.
Conclusion
Equal employment opportunity act details that all employees deserve equal treatment during hiring and employment. This together with laws such as the PDA and FMLA protects employees against forms of discrimination. You as the headmaster also act as the human resource manager of your institution. You are therefore required to follow all the guidelines of effective human resource management in order to avoid situations such as that of Davies case.
References
Carle, S. (2012). Employment discrimination.
Mukhopadhyay, S. (2012). The effects of the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act on female labor supply. International Economic Review , 53 (4), 1133-1153.
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2013). The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978.
