A decision rendered in late summer by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit provides important guidance for employers considering limiting the availability of light duty assignments. In EEOC v Wal-Mart Stores, East LP Inc., the court ruled that a light duty policy covering only workers injured on the job was lawful and didn’t illegally exclude pregnant employees. According to the court’s decision, a light or alternate duty policy limited to those injured on the job must be supported by public policy and applied consistently without exceptions. In this particular case, the court placed a great deal of emphasis on the fact that Walmart was diligent in limiting its light duty policy to ONLY those employees injured on the job. And, in light of that diligence, they did not illegally discriminate against pregnant employees because there were no exceptions to the ‘only injured on the job’ requirement. The decision, while helpful, clearly underscores the importance of consistency in the application of company policies. It should also be noted that the ruling does not eliminate the potential Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) obligations that an employer has to pregnant workers should any one or more of their impairments qualify as a “disability”, triggering a potential ‘reasonable accommodation’ requirement under the ADA.