Liz was a securities analyst at a major New York City investment bank. She had been a securities analyst at that bank for five years and had received satisfactory job evaluations, so when a position as chief securities analyst came available, she applied for the job. At about the time she applied for the job, she discovered that she was pregnant. She interviewed for the chief securities analyst position, but another applicant, a female who had also worked as a securities analyst and who had received satisfactory job evaluations, but who was not pregnant, was given the job. When Liz asked the department head who made the hiring decision why she had not gotten the job, he responded:
"It didn't bother me at all that you are pregnant. But whether or not you are going to be able to spend the time to actually perform the job and to be a mom and do all that, we factored that in, sure. We were concerned about that."
Are those legitimate concerns? Did the investment bank act properly? Were any laws violated? If so, what laws?
Your response should be a minimum of 200 words in length. You are required to use at least your textbook as source material for your response. All sources used, including the textbook, must be referenced; paraphrased and quoted material must have accompanying citations.
No, these concerns are not legitimate and the investment act did not act properly as it violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. As per this act, employers cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of their pregnancy. In this scenario, it was unlawful for the investment bank to deny ...
Discusses implications of discrimination by employers on account of pregnancy.