Supreme Court Revives Pregnant Worker’s Case against UPS

The Supreme Court on Wednesday, March 25th, clarified the legal protections for pregnant workers who believe their employers have discriminated against them and revived the lawsuit of a former United Parcel Service worker who did not receive the accommodation she requested.

The court ruled 6 to 3 that Peggy Young, who worked for the company in Landover, Md., should get another chance to show that UPS was wrong to force her to take an unpaid leave rather than give her the lighter duty her doctor had said was appropriate.

Lower courts had agreed with UPS that it was not in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act because it provided light-duty work only to other categories of workers: those who had been injured on the job, had a condition covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act or lost their license to drive a commercial vehicle.

Click here to read the full article.

Source: The Washington Post

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Federal Agency Charged Hospital Refused to Accommodate and Fired Pregnant Employee

Roseland Community Hospital will pay $15,500 and make policy changes to prevent any future discrimination to settle a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced.

In its lawsuit, EEOC alleged that Roseland Community Hospital, located on Chicago's South Side, had refused to accommodate the medical restrictions of a pregnant female employee and then terminated her because of her pregnancy.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The lawsuit was assigned to Judge Charles Kocoras of the Northern District of Illinois and captioned EEOC v. Roseland Community Hospital, 1:14-cv-07235.

In addition to requiring that Roseland pay monetary relief to the former employee, the two-year consent decree resolving the case prohibits Roseland from engaging in pregnancy discrimination and retaliation in the future.

Roseland will adopt a policy to that effect, and provide information to employees on how to request an accommodation for pregnancy. The decree also requires that Roseland provide training to its human resources staff, managers and supervisors about pregnancy discrimination; submit periodic reports to the EEOC about pregnancy discrimination complaints; and post a notice within its facility regarding the outcome of the lawsuit.

"Unfortunately, pregnancy discrimination remains a reality for many working women in the United States, and the EEOC will continue to work tirelessly to fight this type of unlawful conduct," said John Hendrickson, regional attorney of the Chicago District Office. "Fortunately, in this case, we were able to reach an early resolution that fairly compensates the harmed employee and implements changes that will protect other pregnant Roseland employees from any future harm."

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Justice Department Settles Second Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit Against Florida Fire Department

The Justice Department announced that it has reached a consent decree with the town of Davie, Florida, to resolve allegations that the Davie Fire Department discriminated against firefighter/paramedic Lori Davis because of her pregnancy and retaliated against firefighter/paramedic Monica Santana because she complained about gender discrimination. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin and religion.
 
According to the Justice Department, the consent decree resolves allegations of disparate treatment based on pregnancy that resulted from light duty policies implemented by the Davie Fire Department. In 2012, the Department of Justice challenged those discriminatory light duty policies in a related pattern or a practice Title VII case resulting in the filing of a complaint and consent decree to resolve the case. The consent decree entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida required that the fire department abandon its existing discriminatory light duty policies and adopt new, non-discriminatory policies. This new complaint is the result of individual charges of discrimination referred to the Justice Department by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
 
As alleged by the Justice Department in this complaint, Davis worked for the Davie Fire Department under its prior policies and was adversely affected by those policies which were implemented in violation of Title VII. Under Title VII, discrimination based on sex includes discrimination due to pregnancy, and requires that women affected by pregnancy be treated the same as other employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work. Under federal law, an employer may not retaliate against employees because they complain about discrimination based on sex.

As alleged in the complaint, Davis’s doctor wanted Davis on light duty during her pregnancy. The fire department’s policy, however, would not allow her light duty during her first trimester. Davis continued to work and eventually was required to fight a fire while pregnant. She suffered a miscarriage after doing so. The complaint also alleges that Santana complained about other policies and practices at the fire department that she reasonably believed discriminated against female firefighters. After she complained about the discriminatory treatment, the fire department responded to her complaints by taking adverse actions against her designed to discourage similar complaints.

The consent decree, filed simultaneously with the complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida must still be approved by the federal court. Under the terms of the agreement, the fire department must review and adopt appropriate anti-retaliation policies to protect its employees from further violations of Title VII and conduct training of its personnel to ensure that they properly handle future complaints under Title VII. The fire department must also pay monetary awards to compensate Davis, Santana, and two other similarly-situated, pregnant firefighters. The total monetary awards to all four women will exceed $400,000.
 
“Every day, expectant mothers after consulting with their doctors make difficult decisions about how and, more importantly, when to restrict their work duties due to pregnancy,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta of the Civil Rights Division. “The Civil Rights Division is firmly committed to vigorous enforcement of Title VII’s prohibitions against pregnancy discrimination and retaliation so that women can make decisions regarding their pregnancies and try to remedy discriminatory treatment without fear of unwarranted repercussions in the work place after doing so.”

“Firefighters are dedicated public servants who put their lives at risk every day to protect the citizens of our community,” said U.S. Attorney Wilfredo A. Ferrer of the Southern District of Florida. “We are committed to enforcing the federal laws that protect expectant mothers against discrimination so that they will not be forced to choose between their job and their decision to have a family.”

Source: DOJ

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

That Was Then. This Is Now.

The Labor Department announced a plan on January 28, 2015 to modernize outdated guidelines on sex discrimination. The proposal addresses a myriad of issues from sexual harassment, pay discrimination and pregnancy accommodations to safeguards for transgender workers and combating hostile work environments. Donna Lenhoff, a civil rights specialist at the Department of Labor, discusses the need for these new rules.

In 1970, less than 0ne-third of married women with children under the age of six participated in the labor force. Today, that figure has more than doubled.

In 1970, some states had “protective laws” that explicitly barred women from certain jobs or, for example, prohibited women from continuing to work once they became pregnant. Employers would advertise jobs in sex-segregated newspaper columns – women’s work separate from men’s work. And it was not uncommon for employers to make their female employees retire at earlier ages than their male counterparts.

In 1970, the Supreme Court had not yet recognized that sex stereotyping and sexually hostile work environments could constitute unlawful sex discrimination. Congress had not yet enacted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, requiring employers to treat pregnancy the same as other conditions that similarly affect a person’s ability to work.

And in 1970, the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs adopted its Sex Discrimination Guidelines under Executive Order 11246, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment by federal contractors and subcontractors.

Those guidelines have not been substantially updated since 1970.

Click to view the full-size timeline of laws about sex discrimination in the workplace.

 

OFCCP’s guidelines were designed to address laws and employment practices as they existed 45 years ago. They read almost like a history textbook, a relic of our past. They certainly do not address the changes to the law that have occurred since they were written, nor the barriers to equal opportunity and fair pay that women continue to face in the workplace today.

Today, women who work full-time earn only 78 cents on the dollar compared to men. Sex segregation remains widespread; women are underrepresented in higher-level and more senior jobs. Women still report that they have been discriminated against because of pregnancy. Assumptions that family caregiving responsibilities will interfere with work performance still limit opportunities. Sexual harassment remains pervasive, especially in jobs that are not considered traditional for women.

Progress has been happening on all these fronts – in courtrooms and city halls and state legislative chambers across the country. In the past year alone, Illinois, Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey and West Virginia have enacted legislation requiring employers to provide accommodations, such as stools to sit on or light-duty assignments, to pregnant workers.

Now, it’s time – past time, really – for us to do our part. We announced a proposal to finally revise OFCCP’s Sex Discrimination Guidelines so that they reflect changes in the law and in the workplace that have taken place since 1970. Our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will be published in the Federal Register this Friday, and we invite you to share your feedback on it by going to www.dol.gov/ofccp/SDNPRM. The comment period closes on March 31.

Our revisions of these guidelines are about good government. They’re about ensuring that both women and men are treated fairly in the workplace. And they will provide employers with much needed clarity in understanding their obligations under the law.

Source: DOL Donna Lenhoff is the senior civil rights advisor in the department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.



EEOC Issues Updated Enforcement Guidance On Pregnancy Discrimination And Related Issues

Fact Sheet for Small Businesses and Question and Answer Document Also Released

 

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues, along with a question and answer document about the guidance and a Fact Sheet for Small Businesses. The Enforcement Guidance, Q&A document, and Fact Sheet will be available on the EEOC's website.

This is the first comprehensive update of the Commission's guidance on the subject of discrimination against pregnant workers since the 1983 publication of a Compliance Manual chapter on the subject. This guidance supersedes that document and incorporates significant developments in the law during the past 30 years.

In addition to addressing the requirements of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), the guidance discusses the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as amended in 2008, to individuals who have pregnancy-related disabilities.

"Pregnancy is not a justification for excluding women from jobs that they are qualified to perform, and it cannot be a basis for denying employment or treating women less favorably than co-workers similar in their ability or inability to work," said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. "Despite much progress, we continue to see a significant number of charges alleging pregnancy discrimination, and our investigations have revealed the persistence of overt pregnancy discrimination, as well as the emergence of more subtle discriminatory practices. This guidance will aid employers, job seekers, and workers in complying with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Americans with Disabilities Act, and thus advance EEOC's Strategic Enforcement Plan priority of addressing the emerging issue of the interaction between these two anti-discrimination statutes."

Much of the analysis in the enforcement guidance is an update of longstanding EEOC policy. The guidance sets out the fundamental PDA requirements that an employer may not discriminate against an employee on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and that women affected by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions must be treated the same as other persons similar in their ability or inability to work. The guidance also explains how the ADA's definition of "disability" might apply to workers with impairments related to pregnancy.

Among other issues, the guidance discusses:

• The fact that the PDA covers not only current pregnancy, but discrimination based on past pregnancy and a woman's potential to become pregnant;
• Lactation as a covered pregnancy-related medical condition;
• The circumstances under which employers may have to provide light duty for pregnant workers;
• Issues related to leave for pregnancy and for medical conditions related to pregnancy;
• The PDA's prohibition against requiring pregnant workers who are able to do their jobs to take leave;
• The requirement that parental leave (which is distinct from medical leave associated with childbearing or recovering from childbirth) be provided to similarly situated men and women on the same terms;
• When employers may have to provide reasonable accommodations for workers with pregnancy-related impairments under the ADA and the types of accommodations that may be necessary; and
• Best practices for employers to avoid unlawful discrimination against pregnant workers.

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Chick-Fil-A Franchisee Settles EEOC Pregnancy Discrimination Suit

Restaurant Refused to Hire Pregnant Applicant, Federal Agency Charged

A Concord, N.C. Chick-fil-A franchise restaurant has agreed to pay $10,000 and provide substantial injunctive relief to settle a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced.


According to the EEOC's complaint, John Charping, d/b/a Chick-fil-A at Concord Commons, refused to hire Heather Morrison because she was pregnant. The EEOC said Morrison interviewed for a team member position with the restaurant's owner at the restaurant around Nov. 16, 2012. At the time of the interview Morrison was six months pregnant. During the interview, the owner asked Morrison a series of pregnancy-related questions such as how many months she had been pregnant; when she was expected to deliver; her childcare plans after giving birth; and how much maternity leave she planned to take. Morrison felt that questions were inappropriate, but answered them because she wanted the job. Three days after the interview, the owner called Morrison and informed her that she would not be hired, and to call back after she'd had the baby and had childcare in place.


Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. John Charping d/b/a Chick-fil-A at Concord Commons, Civil Action No.1:13-CV-00535), after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement through the agency's conciliation process.


In addition to providing monetary relief to Morrison, the company entered into a two-year consent decree requiring it to develop and implement a policy that prohibits pregnancy-based discrimination. The decree further requires the company to conduct preventive annual training on pregnancy discrimination for employees, supervisors and managers. Finally, the company will report to the EEOC all job openings it has over the next two years, as well as its hiring decisions on any pregnant applicants.


"Working women who choose to have children shouldn't be treated differently from other employees or applicants simply because they are pregnant," said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC's Charlotte District Office. "The EEOC will continue to enforce federal law against pregnancy discrimination."


Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Weight Watchers Settles EEOC Pregnancy Discrimination Suit

Farmington Hills WW Refused to Hire Pregnant Applicant, Federal Agency Charged

The WW Group., Inc., a company based in Farmington Hills, Mich., doing business as Weight Watchers, will pay $45,000 and furnish other relief to settle a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced.

According to the EEOC's suit, Weight Watchers' Farmington Hills location violated federal law when it refused to hire an applicant as a group leader because she was pregnant. The applicant was a lifetime member of Weight Watchers who had successfully met and maintained her weight goals before becoming pregnant. When Weight Watchers learned of the applicant's pregnancy, it told her that it did not hire pregnant women and refused to consider her any further, the EEOC said. The agency also claimed that Weight Watchers discriminated against the applicant based on pregnancy-related weight when Weight Watchers disqualified her by using its "goal weight" requirement.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), which prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees due to their pregnancies. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. The WW Group, Inc., d/b/a Weight Watchers, Case No. 2:12-cv-11124) in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan after first attempting a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

The consent decree settling the suit, in addition to the monetary relief, includes provisions for equal employment opportunity training, posting of anti-discrimination notices and a revision to the company's "goal weight" policy to comply with the PDA.

"Under the PDA, pregnant applicants have the right to fair and equal consideration for employment," said Omar Weaver, senior trial attorney for the EEOC's Detroit Field Office. "The EEOC is committed to ensuring that employers understand that a pregnant applicant's ability or inability to perform the job is the only factor that may be considered."

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

EEOC Sues Triple T Foods for Pregnancy Discrimination

Federal Agency Charges Pet Food Company Fired Lab Technician Due to Pregnancy

Triple T Foods, an Arkansas pet food processor, violated federal law by firing a female lab technician because of her pregnancy, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced.

According to the EEOC's lawsuit, the technician worked in the quality control section of Triple T's Springdale, Ark., plant where the company processes meat by-products used in pet food. Approximately one month after she was hired, the employee told Triple T's management she was pregnant. Later that same day, the company terminated her employment.
 
Pregnancy discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division, (Civil Action No. 5:13-cv-05198) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The lawsuit asks the court to grant a permanent injunction enjoining the defendant from engaging in any employment practice that discriminates against an employee on the basis of pregnancy. The lawsuit further asks the court to grant appropriate back wages, compensatory and punitive damages, and any other such relief the court deems necessary and proper.

"Triple T fired this employee the same day she informed the company she was pregnant for no legitimate or legal reason," said Katharine W. Kores, district director of the EEOC's Memphis District Office, which has jurisdiction over Arkansas, Tennessee, and portions of Mississippi. "Pregnant women should not have to fear that they will be subjected to this type of conduct by their employers."

According to its website, the company is a Kansas corporation doing business in Arkansas, with a headquarters in Frontenac, Kan. It was founded in 1976 and is a processing facility for leading brands of dog and cat food.

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

EEOC Sues Triple T Foods for Pregnancy Discrimination

Federal Agency Charges Pet Food Company Fired Lab Technician Due to Pregnancy

 

Triple T Foods, an Arkansas pet food processor, violated federal law by firing a female lab technician because of her pregnancy, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced.

According to the EEOC's lawsuit, the technician worked in the quality control section of Triple T's Springdale, Ark., plant where the company processes meat by-products used in pet food. Approximately one month after she was hired, the employee told Triple T's management she was pregnant. Later that same day, the company terminated her employment.
 
Pregnancy discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division, (Civil Action No. 5:13-cv-05198) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The lawsuit asks the court to grant a permanent injunction enjoining the defendant from engaging in any employment practice that discriminates against an employee on the basis of pregnancy. The lawsuit further asks the court to grant appropriate back wages, compensatory and punitive damages, and any other such relief the court deems necessary and proper.

"Triple T fired this employee the same day she informed the company she was pregnant for no legitimate or legal reason," said Katharine W. Kores, district director of the EEOC's Memphis District Office, which has jurisdiction over Arkansas, Tennessee, and portions of Mississippi. "Pregnant women should not have to fear that they will be subjected to this type of conduct by their employers."

According to its website, the company is a Kansas corporation doing business in Arkansas, with a headquarters in Frontenac, Kan. It was founded in 1976 and is a processing facility for leading brands of dog and cat food.

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

EEOC Sues Midway Neurological & Rehabilitation Center for Pregnancy Discrimination and Retaliation

Federal Agency Charged Center Cut Hours of Pregnant Social Worker, Then Fired Her for Complaining

 

In a lawsuit filed today in federal court, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged that Midway Neurological & Rehabilitation Center LLC, based in Bridgeview, Ill., violated federal law by discriminating against a pregnant social worker, first by cutting her hours because of her pregnancy, and then by firing her in retaliation for her filing a charge with EEOC.

 

Prior to filing the lawsuit, the agency conducted an administrative investigation, managed by EEOC District Director John P. Rowe. According to Rowe, Midway Neurological, after learning that one of its social workers was pregnant, allegedly first cut her hours and then, while she was out on maternity leave and after she filed an EEOC charge, fired her from her job.

"Our investigation showed that this company saw this employee as one who could be singled out for unfavorable treatment because she was pregnant," said Rowe. "This clearly violates federal law." 
 
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The EEOC filed suit, EEOC v. Midway Neurological & Rehab Center (Civil Action No. 13 C 6542), in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its statutory conciliation process. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feinerman and Magistrate Judge Michael T. Mason. The agency seeks back pay and compensatory and punitive damages for the former employee and an order barring future discrimination and other relief. 
 
John Hendrickson, the EEOC's regional attorney for its Chicago District Office said, "Long gone are the days when employers could target pregnant women for pay cuts because they were 'going to be out on leave anyway.' That's sex discrimination, and it's prohibited. Further, employers who fire workers in retaliation for filing EEOC charges only compound their culpability - and their troubles -- ending up with an EEOC lawsuit alleging not only sex discrimination but retaliation as well."

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Mississippi Holiday Inn Franchisee Sued by EEOC for Pregnancy Discrimination

Company Fired Employee Due to Pregnancy, Federal Agency Charges

Jiji, Inc., a Holiday Inn franchisee located in Batesville, Miss., violated federal law when it fired an employee because of her pregnancy, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed.

According to the EEOC's suit, Te'Shawn Harmon informed her manager of her pregnancy on her first day of work. That evening, the manager terminated Harmon and replaced her with a non-pregnant employee, the EEOC said.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The EEOC filed suit, Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-00212, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford Division after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The suit seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, reinstatement and injunctive relief.

"Employers cannot penalize women for choosing to have a family," said Katharine W. Kores, district director of the EEOC's Memphis District Office, which has jurisdiction over Arkansas, Tennessee and portions of Mississippi. "This agency will continue to work to eliminate this type of discriminatory conduct."

Jiji, Inc. is a Mississippi corporation based in Batesville that owns, manages, and operates hotel facilities in Mississippi.

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Platinum P.T.S. To Pay $100k to Settle EEOC Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit

Oil Business Company Fired Clerk After Requesting Leave for a Pregnancy-Related Condition, Federal Agency Charged

Platinum P.T.S., Inc., a Laredo-based company which provides oil/gas testing, measuring, surveying and analysis surveys, and oil and gas exploration and development, will pay a former employee $100,000 to settle a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

The EEOC's lawsuit, Civil Action No. 5:12-cv-00139, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Laredo Division, charged that Platinum P.T.S fired a clerk after she requested time off for medical treatment to address a miscarriage. A companion suit filed by the former employee accused Texans Oil & Gas Services, a related company owned and managed by the President of Platinum, P.T.S., of pregnancy discrimination based on her termination.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA). Under the PDA, employers are prohibited from engaging in sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, including making employment decisions based on childbirth or any medical conditions affected by pregnancy. It is a violation of federal law to fire an employee because she became pregnant and then suffered complications. After the EEOC's San Antonio Field Office found reasonable cause to believe that Platinum P.T.S. had violated the PDA, the agency attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

"Employers must be on notice that it can be illegal and costly to treat pregnant employees differently solely because of their pregnancy or pregnancy-related condition," said EEOC Senior Trial Attorney David Rivela. "Employers should not assume that miscarriages will affect employees' ability to work."

Judith G. Taylor, the San Antonio Filed Office's supervisory trial attorney, added, "In recent years, we have seen a significant increase in the number of pregnancy discrimination charges. We are pleased that Platinum will take steps to ensure future compliance with the law."

In fiscal year 2012, the EEOC received 30,356 charges of sex-based discrimination, of which 3,745 alleged pregnancy discrimination. In that year the EEOC recovered $14.3 million in monetary benefits for pregnancy discrimination victims through settlements, plus more monetary benefits obtained through litigation.

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

 

Chick-Fil-A Franchise at Concord Commons Sued by EEOC for Pregnancy Discrimination

Fast-Food Eatery Refused to Hire Pregnant Applicant, Federal Agency Charges

A Chick-fil-A franchise restaurant violated federal law when it refused to hire a female job applicant because she was pregnant, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

According to the EEOC's complaint, John Charping, d/b/a Chick-fil-A at Concord Commons, refused to hire Heather Morrison because she was pregnant. The EEOC said Morrison interviewed for a team member position with the restaurant's owner at the restaurant around Nov. 16, 2012. At the time of the interview Morrison was six months pregnant. During the interview, the owner asked Morrison a series of pregnancy-related questions such as how many months she had been pregnant; when she was expected to deliver; her childcare plans after giving birth; and how much maternity leave she planned to take. Although Morrison felt that the owner's questions were inappropriate, she answered them because she wanted the job. Three days after the interview, the owner called Morrison and informed her that she would not be hired. The owner told Morrison to call back after she had the baby and had childcare in place. The EEOC argues that Chick-fil-A at Concord Commons denied Morrison a job because she was pregnant.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. John Charping d/b/a Chick-fil-A at Concord Commons, Civil Action No.1:13-CV-00535), after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement through the agency's conciliation process. The suit seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for Morrison, as well as injunctive relief. 
 
"Working women who choose to have children cannot be penalized or treated differently from other employees simply because they are pregnant," said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC's Charlotte District Office. "Employers must remember that refusing to hire a woman because she is pregnant violates federal law, and the EEOC will enforce that law."

EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Tina Burnside added, "Pregnant women must be treated in the same manner as other applicants, and employers should not make inquiries related to pregnancy or deny a woman a job based on pregnancy."

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Fifth Circuit Holds Lactation Discrimination is Unlawful Sex Discrimination

Court of Appeals Ruling Overturns District Court's Finding, Permits EEOC's Sex Discrimination Lawsuit Against Houston Funding II LLC to Go Forward

Overturning a federal trial court's decision from the Southern District of Texas denying the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's discrimination lawsuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held unanimously yesterday that firing a woman because she is lactating or expressing milk is unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978). Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to protect working women against discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition.

The appeal arose from a lawsuit filed by the EEOC on behalf of Donnica Venters, who claimed that she was fired after giving birth once she inquired as to whether she would be able to pump breast milk when she returned to her job. The EEOC sued, alleging that the employer, Houston Funding II, LLC, engaged in sex discrimination. The district court dismissed the lawsuit (EEOC v. Houston Funding II LLC, No. 4:11-CV-2442) on a motion for summary judgment. Following that decision, the EEOC appealed to the Fifth Circuit (EEOC v. Houston Funding II LLC, No. 12-20220)

In its decision, the lower court ruled that "lactation is not pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition," and thus decided that "firing someone because of lactation or breast-pumping is not sex discrimination." The district court suggested that "pregnancy-related conditions" ended on the day that a mother gives birth.

"Pregnancy discrimination is something that the EEOC takes seriously and sees far too often," said David Lopez, General Counsel of the EEOC. "We are gratified that the Fifth Circuit gave plain meaning to the words of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and ruled in our favor that discrimination on the basis of lactation is discrimination on the basis of sex."

In examining and overturning the lower court's ruling, the Fifth Circuit addressed the question "whether discharging a female employee because she is lactating or expressing breast milk constitutes sex discrimination in violation of Title VII." The appeals court found that "it does."

The Fifth Circuit noted the biological fact that lactation is a physiological condition distinct to women who have undergone a pregnancy. Accordingly, under Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, firing a woman because she is lactating or expressing milk is unlawful sex discrimination, since men as a matter of biology could not be fired for such a reason. The case was remanded back to the lower court for a trial on the merits.

"Now that the Fifth Circuit has reaffirmed the EEOC's long-standing position about the broad coverage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, we look forward to trying the underlying case," said Claudia Molina-Antanaitis, trial attorney in the EEOC's Houston District Office which brought the initial litigation. "We hope this litigation sends a message to other women that discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth and related conditions is against the law and that the EEOC is here to help."

One of the six national priorities identified by the Commission's Strategic Enforcement Plan is for the Commission to address emerging and developing issues in equal employment law, including issues involving pregnancy-related limitations, among other possible issues.

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Landau Uniforms Settles EEOC Pregnancy Discrimination Suit for $80,000

Health Care Clothing Manufacturer Fired Employee Due to Pregnancy, Federal Agency Charged

Landau Uniforms, Inc., a Mississippi-based company that manufactures and distributes medical scrubs and other health care-related clothing, will pay $80,000 and furnish other relief to settle a pregnancy discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that Landau Uniforms violated federal law by subjecting Tara Smith, who worked for Landau Uniforms at its manufacturing and shipping facility in Olive Branch, Miss., to unequal terms and conditions of employment because of her pregnancy. The EEOC alleged that Landau Uniforms then disciplined and discharged Smith because of her pregnancy and in retaliation for opposing the unequal terms and conditions of employment.

Pregnancy discrimination and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (Civil Action 2:11-cv-00201) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford Division, after first attempting to settle the matter through its conciliation process.

Besides the $80,000 monetary relief, the 12-month consent decree settling the lawsuit prohibits Landau Uniforms from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex or retaliation. The decree requires training on employee rights under Title VII and requires Landau Uniforms to maintain records of discrimination complaints and provide a report on them to the EEOC. The decree also requires Landau Uniforms to post a notice to all employees about the lawsuit that provides the EEOC's contact information.

"Unfortunately, pregnancy discrimination continues to be a real problem in the workplace," said Faye A. Williams, regional attorney for the EEOC's Memphis District Office, which has jurisdiction over Arkansas, Tennessee and portions of Mississippi. "Employers cannot penalize female employees based on discriminatory stereotypes about pregnancy. The EEOC will continue to work to eradicate this type of discriminatory conduct."

Landau Uniforms, Inc. is based in Olive Branch. According to its website, it has more than 1,000 associates and its medical scrubs are distributed to retail stores across the country and internationally.

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Adventures in Learning to Pay $31,000 to Settle EEOC Pregnancy Discrimination Case

Federal Agency Says Day Care Center Refused to Allow Pregnant Teacher to Work

Adventures in Learning Aurora, Inc., an Aurora, Ill.-based childcare center with approximately 100 employees across four locations in Illinois, will pay $31,000 to settle a pregnancy discrimination case brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The EEOC had alleged that Adventures in Learning discriminated against a pregnant employee at one of its locations and forced her to quit when it refused to allow her to work after her fourth month of pregnancy. Adventures in Learning opted to settle the case shortly after it was filed.

U.S. District Court Judge George M. Marovich of the Northern District of Illinois entered a consent decree resolving the lawsuit on Feb. 22. The decree provides $31,000 in monetary relief to the victim and requires Adventures in Learning to report to the EEOC for the next two years on all employee complaints of pregnancy discrimination. The company must also train all its employees on the prevention and eradication of pregnancy discrimination, and also adopt a new policy prohibiting pregnancy discrimination.

"Pregnancy discrimination has been illegal for a long time, so we are never happy to see it," said the EEOC district director in Chicago, John Rowe, who managed the EEOC's administrative investigation of the charge of discrimination underlying the lawsuit. "On the other hand, it's encouraging to see an employer charged with such discrimination put an end to it and work with the EEOC to achieve a just result which works for all."

John Hendrickson, the EEOC's regional attorney in Chicago, said, "Really early resolution of this case -- before any depositions were taken -- created a win-win situation for everyone. This employer avoided investing in litigation expenses which would not have yielded a different result and was able refocus on its business in a hurry. The EEOC secured the necessary law enforcement objectives with minimal expense to the taxpayers - there's nothing not to like about that these days. The charging party received early and certain relief in an appropriate amount. And, finally, the long-term public interest was served by the decree's mandating targeted equitable relief, including a specific injunction against the company and its officers engaging in pregnancy discrimination, along with well-defined training, reporting and policy changes in the workplace."

The EEOC's lawsuit was brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), which prohibits sex discrimination (including pregnancy) in employment. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its statutory conciliation process. The case, EEOC v. Adventures in Learning of Aurora, Inc., Civil Action No. 12 cv -7489, was filed on Sept. 18, 2012 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. EEOC Trial Attorneys June Calhoun and Jeanne Szromba and Supervisory Trial Attorney Diane Smason litigated the case on behalf of the government.

EEOC's Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.

For more information on this and other services, please contact THOMAS HOUSTON at 800.330.9000.  

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.