I am a supervisor with a parttime position available in Oregon. A company employee currently holds a parttime job and would like to apply for this other parttime job which I supervise - to bring her to full time (two 20 hr positions). The catch is that she is pregnant and is on "light duty" during her pregnancy and unable to fullfill the duties of the position for which she would like to apply. Since she will be taking leave after the baby is born she will not be available to fill the position for a minimum of 12 months from the time the position is open. My HR department says this is not a legitimate reason to choose someone else for the position since pregnancy cannot be a determining factor in employment decisions.

I find this hard to believe. Is it true that even if an applicant cannot perform the duties of a position for which they apply for a full year, we would still be required to offer her the position if she were otherwise the most qualified person?

Your HR is half right. It is true that being pregnant is not a valid reason not to hire someone.

But not being able to perform the job duties for a year, is.

As long as you can demonstrate that you would not hire ANYONE who was unable to fulfil the job duties for that period of time regardless of the reason, her being pregnant does not obligate you to hire her.

That makes sense. Thanks so much for the quick reply.