Case of Pregnant Lady
Was the Pregnant Teacher Unfairly Treated? Jane Mangalo an assistant professor of management just got reappointed to teach for another three years before the university's personnel committee decides to tenure her. Over the past few semesters that Jane had been teaching, she has had received excellent ratings from her students except one semester where she did not get good reviews. During that semester Jane had been pregnant and was suffering from severe nausea and weakness that she had to use an intravenous line continuously and to sit in one place in the classroom, which prevented her from writing on the blackboard or using the projectors as she led class discussions. The university's personnel committee found evidence of weak teaching performance in one semester, it decided to include in Jane's reappointment letter that encouraged her to work on improving her teaching performances. Finding out this information, naturally Jane Mangalo was angered by the negative reference to her teaching performance.
Underneath the regulations of Employment Equal Opportunity (EEO) laws, Jane is protected by The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. The university owes Jane an apology for not being able to provide assistance when she was most in need of it. For Jane's situation, I assume that Jane feels as though she had received her bad report performance just because she was physically not able to teach her class like usual and was based on that one incident due to her pregnancy. However, drawing from evidence in the case, the university did not seem to acknowledge that her pregnancy could possibly affect her work performance. This act requires employers to treat an employee who is pregnant in the same way as any other employee who has a medical condition. For instance an employer cannot deny sick leave for pregnancy-related illnesses such as morning sickness if the employer allows sick leave for other medical conditions as nausea related illnesses. She may think that another person that was temporarily disabled the committee would have acknowledge the disability and put into consideration before making a negative remark in the reappointment letter. Because of her pregnancy Jane failed to fulfill her responsibilities and needed assistance. The university committee did however take precaution in the case that a student from that particular semester decide to complain in the future. The university overlooked her medical conditions and based its decision solely on one evaluation. Jane felt as though she was treated unfairly because of her pregnancy. Besides The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, The American with Disabilities Act of 1990 was also violated. Because the committee overlooked her medical problems caused by pregnancy, one can assume that they did not find it important to put into consideration. If this case were related to another person who was suffering from an illness and was not capable of performing that well the committee would have handled it differently.
Common topics in this essay:
Discrimination Act,
Jane Solutions,
Jane Mangalo,
Disabilities Act,
Naturally Jane,
Opportunity EEO,
reappointment letter,
discrimination act 1978,
Pregnancy Discrimination,
university's personnel committee,
intravenous line continuously,
pregnancy discrimination act,
overlooked medical,
naturally jane,
sick leave,
pregnancy jane,
personnel committee,
intravenous line,
sit classroom,
teaching performance,
medical conditions,
|
Acceptance Essays
