E.E.O.C. v. Wal-Mart Stores, East, L.P.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in action filed by E.E.O.C., alleging that defendant violated Title VII and Pregnancy Discrimination Act by allowing employees who were injured on-the-job to receive light-duty assignments, but not offering light-duty assignments to workers who were pregnant or who had received injuries outside of workplace. Defendant explained that its light-duty policy was meant to implement worker’s compensation program that benefited defendant’s employees who were injured on-the-job, while limiting company’s legal exposure and costs of hiring people to replace said injured workers. Ct. of Appeals found that said explanation provided neutral reason for providing benefits to employees injured on job but not to pregnant workers, and that said explanation was not discriminatory against pregnant employees, where: (1) all other non-pregnant workers who were injured outside of work were also not given light-duty assignments; and (2) defendant applied its legitimate policy in conformity with its explanation. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing action brought by two claimants, where E.E.O.C. consistently failed to abide by discovery deadlines with respect to both claimants.