Case Study:
Sylvia Hayes worked as a staff technician in the radiology department of Shelby Memorial Hospital, a county hospital located in Birmingham, Alabama. In early October, Hayes was told by her physician that she was pregnant. When Hayes informed the doctor of her occupation as an X-ray technician, the doctor advised Hayes that she could continue working until the end of April as long as she followed standard safety precautions. On October 8, Hayes told Gail Nell, the director of radiology at Shelby, that she had discovered she was two months pregnant. On October 14, Hayes was discharged by the hospital. The hospital’s reason for terminating Hayes was its concern for the safety of her fetus given the X-ray exposure that occurs during employment as an X-ray technician. Hayes brought an action under Title VII, claiming that her discharge was unlawfully based on her condition of pregnancy. She cited scientific evidence and the practice of other hospitals where pregnant women were allowed to remain in their jobs as X-ray technicians. The hospital claimed that Hayes’s discharge was based on business necessity. Specifically, the hospital claimed that the potential for future liability existed if an employee’s fetus was damaged by radiation encountered at the workplace. Has the hospital violated Title VII by discharging Hayes? What remedy, if any, is appropriate in this case? Decide the case. [Hayes v. Shelby Memorial Hospital, 29 FEP 1173 (N.D. Ala.)]
Your answer must be, typed, double-spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), one-inch margins on all sides, APA format and also include references.