Mirtha URBANO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “most courts have held that the [Pregnancy Discrimination Act] does not impose an affirmative obligation on employers to grant preferential treatment to pregnant women”
• the PDA does not compel employers to affirmatively provide accommodations, and the plaintiff failed to allege differential treatment
• “The PDA merely specifies that under Title VII an employer must not discriminate on the basis of a woman’s pregnancy.”
• “[Plaintiff]’s claim is thus not a request for relief from discrimination, but rather a demand for preferential treatment; it is'a demand not satisfied by the PDA.”
• “[PlaintiffJ’s claim is thus not a request for relief from discrimination, but rather a demand for preferential treatment; it is a demand not satisfied by the PDA.”
• “The impact of Ensley-Gaines is unequivocally to treat pregnant employees who need light duty work better than other employees with a similar medical need whose conditions arose off-the-job.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).