Final answer:
The clinic's policy of reassigning Julie Jensen to a lower-paying job due to her pregnancy violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, which prohibits workplace discrimination against pregnant women.
Step-by-step explanation:
The student's question relates to whether Julie Jensen being reassigned to a lower-paying back-office job due to her pregnancy is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, it assesses if the clinic's policy constitutes discrimination against a pregnant employee under the provisions of Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978.
The correct answer is: A) The clinic's policy violates Title VII. Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, prohibits discrimination against women in the workplace who are pregnant or may become pregnant. A pregnant employee cannot be forced into a lower-paying job if she is willing and able to perform her regular duties; accommodations must be reasonable and must not result in diminished terms of employment. Alternatives should be provided without negatively impacting the employee's pay, if she is capable of performing her main duties safely, perhaps with reasonable accommodations.
Since the policy requires Julie to take a lower-paying job solely based on her pregnancy status, it likely represents discrimination according to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, a part of Title VII, which is enforceable by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).