Informative Article On Pregnancy Discrimination in the Concord Monitor

 

An excellent overview of the effects of pregnancy discrimination on female employees, as well as on their entire families, can be found in a piece by Jeremy Blackman in the Concord Monitor (New Hampshire). 

He uses a recently filed lawsuit to describe the relevant law, national statistics, the effects on employers, and the fact that such discrimination is “not just a women’s issue, it’s a family issue, because so many women are integral parts of the financial structure of a family,” in the words of a plaintiff’s lawyer in NH.

It is recommended reading.

 

Was This Company Really Going To Force A Pregnant, Disabled Employee To Carry Live Explosives?

A Nevada engineering company, which the EEOC accused of requiring a pregnant employee to be certified to carry live ammunition and explosives, has -- surprise! -- just settled this case of pregnancy and disability discrimination for $70,000. 

 

  The employee was a pregnant and disabled technical assistant who was employed, along with her husband, at the Hawthorne Army Depot.  The EEOC alleged that:

 

1.  A manager made derogatory remarks to her and denied her request for an accommodation -- to move her office closer to the restroom because of her severe nausea and vomiting.  

 

2.  The company changed her job description while she was out on pregnancy leave, to require that she be certified to carry live ammunition and explosives, and then fired her.

 

3.  The company demoted her husband, and fired him for complaining of his wife's treatment and participating in the EEOC investigation of his wife's case.

 

The EEOC reiterated in its press release that ADA and pregnancy-related limitations comprise one of the six national priorities identified in its Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP).

 

The EEOC Will Sue You If You Fire A Pregnant Employee Claiming Its Because Of "Potential Harm To The Baby."

The EEOC is serious about pursuing discrimination cases filed under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) – very serious -- especially if you fire a pregnant employee because of outdated myths or stereotypes or couched in the language of safety and health   That is, you cannot claim that disparate treatment of pregnant employees is justified by concern for the unborn child. We have repeatedly issued this warning, and have cited new case filings or settlements to support our concerns.

Take this seriously because the EEOC has made obtaining not just monetary damages but also “targeted, equitable relief” – such as all sorts of injunctions -- one of its top priorities, as noted in its Strategic Enforcement Plan for Fiscal Years 2012-2016. This means that you could be  scrutinized closely by the EEOC and/or the Court for years.  

Last November we did a post about an employer who “could not allow [the pregnant employee] to continue to work as a housekeeper because of the potential harm to the development of her baby.” We also wrote that the EEOC had announced the settlement of a pregnancy discrimination case in Mississippi where a pregnant female employee at a bar was fired without warning and without prior disciplinary action because, as it was told to her, "The baby is taking its toll on you."  And in J's Seafood Restaurant of Panama City, Florida two servers were fired because “their pregnancies caused them to be a liability to the company.”

The EEOC just today announced that it has chalked up another such settlement with the owner of a Michigan Comfort Inn, who has agreed to pay $2,500 in back pay and $25,000 in compensatory and punitive damages after it fired a pregnant employee because, as the EEOC said, “it could not  allow the employee to continue to work as a housekeeper because of the potential harm to the development of her baby.”  

 

Point 1do not presume to know what’s best for a pregnant employee or use as an excuse for firing your purported concern for her health or the health of the fetus. It is against the law.

Point 2 – it is not only against the law and you may be liable for substantial money damages, but as this new Comfort Inn settlement shows, the employer will be subject to a permanent  injunction (remember the EEOC’s Strategic Plan about “targeted, equitable relief?”) which, among other things, restrains the company from discriminating against an employee due to her  pregnancy or requiring a pregnant employee to provide medical documents that  releases her to work; requires that employer to provide sex and pregnancy discrimination training to all employees; requires the drafting of a new employee policy regarding sex and pregnancy discrimination and the posting of a notice regarding the lawsuit for all employees; and requires the company report to the EEOC for four years.  

An EEOC spokesperson said previously that "Employers have a duty to know the law and to follow it. Women have the right to work, including during pregnancy. The EEOC will continue to use appropriate means to protect this right."    They really mean it.

 

You Cannot Fire A Pregnant Employee Because "The Baby Is Taking Its Toll On You"

In November we blogged about the impermissibility of firing a pregnant employee because the employer “could not allow her to continue to work as a housekeeper because of the potential harm to the development of her baby.” We quoted an EEOC attorney who said that "Employers may not bar pregnant employees from work because of outdated myths or stereotypes.”   That is, you cannot claim that disparate treatment of pregnant employees is justified by concern for the unborn child. 

 

The EEOC has just announced the settlement of a pregnancy discrimination case in Mississippi  which alleged that a four months' pregnant female employee at a bar was fired without warning and without prior disciplinary action because, as it was told to her, "The baby is taking its toll on you."  The employee was under no medical or working restrictions when she was fired.

 

This time the EEOC spokesperson said emphatically that "Employers have a duty to know the law and to follow it. Women have the right to work, including during pregnancy. The EEOC will continue to use appropriate means to protect this right."

 

The EEOC is targeting pregnancy discrimination.   Take heed.

 

 

EEOC Targets Extreme Sexual Abuse of "Vulnerable" Employees In Recent Lawsuits

“Harrowing,” “appalling” and “extreme abuse” were words used by EEOC lawyers regarding a series of recently filed cases targeting sexual harassment of farmworkers. It appears that the EEOC is periodically targeting different types of discrimination and different industries, and selecting particularly egregious cases to make a point to employers. Recently, for example, we noted that the EEOC was targeting the health care industry, ADA violators, as well as pregnancy discrimination.


Now the EEOC has announced that it has filed numerous lawsuits within the last few days targeting sexual harassment, particularly of farmworkers, who are subject to an “appalling abuse of power.”


In perhaps the most “harrowing case” (quoting an EEOC attorney), the EEOC sued River Point Farms of Oregon, alleging that a supervisor reinforced the domestic abuse of a female employee by verbally abusing her for years and publicly encouraging the woman's husband to kill her. After her husband tried to kill her when she was pregnant by kicking her in the stomach “so savagely” that she had to go to the hospital, the supervisor blamed her for causing her husband's arrest and then fired her.


The woman was quoted as saying that "My supervisor told me I was less than a man, that my husband should be allowed to beat me, and that I should put up with it because I am a woman."


The EEOC also sued Washington’s Roy Farms, alleging that a male supervisor sexually harassed male laborers for two years by assaulting them with sexual and threatening comments, touching them in a sexual manner and insisting that they watch him urinate. "I have worked in the farm industry for many years, and I had never before faced such extreme abuse," said one EEOC attorney.


Finally, the EEOC sued National Food Corporation, a major egg supplier in Washington, alleging that it allowed a supervisor to physically grab a female worker, who worked alone in an isolated barn where the harasser was the only management person on site, and make sexual demands upon her several times a week for years. "I suffered humiliating and disgusting demands from my boss," said the barn worker.


To underscore its efforts involving sexual harassment of “vulnerable workers,” another EEOC attorney recounted several recent settlements. Seattle’s Allstar Fitness paid a $150,000 settlement on behalf of a janitor repeatedly raped and then fired. Oregon-based Wilcox Farms settled a sexual harassment and physical sexual assault case for $260,000. And ABM Industries, Inc. paid $5.8 million to 21 janitorial workers who were sexually harassed by 14 male coworkers and supervisors, including one who was raped by a supervisor.

 

These may be "appalling" cases chosen by the EEOC to make a point, but it goes without saying that all employers in the United States must have a written "zero tolerance" policy regarding sexual harassment distributed to all employees and managers and enforced by the employer, as well as appropriate periodic sexual harassment training of both employees and managers. 

 

 

 

 

Its Now Clear: The EEOC Is Targeting Pregnancy Discrimination

On May 21st we wrote that the EEOC was serious about enforcing Title VII pregnancy discrimination number as indicated by the rapid rise of such lawsuits -- in fiscal 2011, there was an increase of 23% in the number of EEOC charges alleging pregnancy discrimination.

 

An EEOC local regional director noted then that “Having a new child should be a joyous event, not one that leads to unemployment,” and we warned employers that they would be well advised to listen to the EEOC warnings – and ours too!

 

Christina Wilkie of The Huffington Post has also observed this.  We mentioned last week that the EEOC had launched four new pregnancy discrimination suits, which the HuffPost commented “likely represent early steps in the EEOC's plan to tackle pregnancy discrimination and employer accommodation of pregnant employees over the coming year, a subject it labels ‘an emerging issue.’"


HuffPost quotes the VP and general counsel of the National Women's Law Center as saying that "I'm very heartened to see the EEOC step up on this."

 

We have cautioned employers for a long time about this, but the sorry state of affairs continues. 

 

Employer Must Have Written Policies But They Can't Be Discriminatory

As all employment lawyers, we harangue clients to draft and follow employment policies and procedures manuals. Such manuals can be of great assistance in warding off discrimination claims and in winning them.
 

However, it should be obvious that this is surely not the case if the employment policies and procedures manual memorializes a discriminatory policy. That’s just what one employer did and is now being sued by the EEOC.
 

The EEOC alleges that a Texas company violated Title VII when it fired pregnant employees after their third month of pregnancy -- under a written policy in the employee handbook.  Apparently, a company manager admitted that company procedure required him to fire the women because it would "be irresponsible in respect to her child's safety" to keep them at work, even though one woman’s doctor wrote that she could work until the 36th week of her pregnancy.
 

One EEOC attorney stated that "An employer cannot dictate, out of a desire to protect a pregnant employee or for any other reason, whether a female employee continues to work during her pregnancy." A second noted that "The Supreme Court has made clear that the decision whether a pregnant woman should work rests solely with her. She alone, and not the employer, is responsible for making decisions that affect her safety and that of her child. An employer's policy which forces leave on a pregnant employee is exactly the type of conduct the Supreme Court has found to be unlawful."
 

Employers: don’t presume to know better than the doctor or the law!
 

 

Senator Casey To Sponsor Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

Neither the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”) nor the ADA provide for accommodations for pregnant women in the workplace who can perform some but not all of their duties, since (1) the PDA only protects women who are pregnant but can perform their job duties or who cannot work at all and need leave, and (2) under the ADA pregnancy is not deemed a disability.

 

A bill sponsored by 108 members of the House (all Democrats) and now introduced in the Senate by Robert Casey of Pennsylvania -- the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”), would require “reasonable adjustment” – that is, it would prohibit employers from firing pregnant women or denying them accommodations so that they can continue to work, such as, for example, providing stools for cashiers.

 

Dr. Maureen Perry-Jenkins, a University of Massachusetts researcher, has conducted a study of low-income working families, and has told The National Women’s Law Center  that she found that many women feet that they had no choice but to quit physically demanding jobs where their pregnancies no longer permitted them to stand for long periods of time, lift heavy objects or work very long shifts with no break. “They have no expectations that their employers would accommodate them at work and so they quit in their 6th, 7th or 8th month of pregnancy.”

 

The National Women’s Law Center has stated that “The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a critical step toward fairer treatment for pregnant workers. It would provide clear protections to working women so that they can get accommodations that they need to continue working during their pregnancies.”

 

Sheila Bapat, at RH Reality Check, says that “ The current Congress may not pay any attention to the PWFA, but advocates should continue pushing for it at the federal and state level. The good news: several states already have PWFA-esque protections including California, Connecticut, Louisiana, Hawaii and Texas. These laws require employers to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant employees. California’s law has been used multiple times to help pregnant women keep their jobs.”

 

Fred Clark reports at Patheos that: “The PWFA would help to remove one powerful economic incentive for abortion — a real situation that real people face. Anti-abortion groups therefore ought to support it.” Interestingly, he notes, “if any of them are supporting it, they’re doing so very, very quietly.”
 

 

"I'm Sorry - It Will Never Happen Again" and $2,000 Settles Australian Pregnancy Discrimination Case

The Australian Hospitality Magazine has reported that The Fair Work Ombudsman found that a catering company known as “The Soup Box” discriminated against a female employee because of her pregnancy. The employee, after announcing that she was pregnant, had her work hours slashed to three hours per week, and was therefore forced to resign.  

 

The company agreed to settle the case and entered into an Enforceable Undertaking with the Fair Work Ombudsman in which it admitted that it discriminated against the employee because of her pregnancy. It agreed pay her $2,000, to seek “workplace relations” advice (particularly about discrimination), and, oh yes, to apologize to the employee.  

 

Reports the magazine, “The Soup Box expresses its “sincere regret” for its behaviour and gives a commitment that it will not happen again.”

 

Read our recent blog for a quick comparison between the American Title VII and the Australian Fair Work Act.

 

 

Employer Argues In The "Great Texas Lactation Case" That Title VII Does Not Prohibit "Breast Pumping Discrimination" Even If It Prohibits "Lactation Discrimination"

Seems like the “Great Texas Lactation Case” is the significant case that we predicted some time ago.   Blog of February 9, 2012.


The EEOC is seeking to reverse a Texas judge’s decision which denied the Title VII claim of a woman who alleged that she was fired for seeking to pump breast milk while on the job. He famously (notoriously?) said that "Lactation is not pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition." The EEOC argues that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Title VII protect women from being fired for lactation and breast pumping.


The Texas Pediatric Society and the Texas Medical Association has filed a “friend of the court brief” in support of the EEOC’s appeal, arguing that “since the yielding of milk by mammary glands is a medical condition caused by pregnancy and childbirth, lactation is a ‘related medical condition’ as contemplated by Title VII.”


And now the employer has just filed its appeals brief, in which it argues that even if Title VII prohibits “lactation discrimination,” it does not prohibit “breast pumping discrimination.”
 

Getting interesting. But we are still putting our betting money on a reversal. 


 

"Since The Yielding of Milk By Mammary Glands Is A Medical Condition Caused By Pregnancy And Childbirth, Lactation Is A 'Related Medical Condition' As Contemplated by Title VII" *

We reported last week that the EEOC filed an appeal to the federal court of appeals seeking a reversal of the decision of a Texas judge who denied the Title VII claim of a woman who alleged that she was fired for seeking to pump breast milk while on the job, stating that "Lactation is not pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition."


*We can now report that in a “friend of the court brief” submitted by the Texas Pediatric Society and the Texas Medical Association in support of the EEOC’s appeal, the two medical societies have rebuked the trial judge by contending (as our headline notes) that “since the yielding of milk by mammary glands is a medical condition caused by pregnancy and childbirth, lactation is a ‘related medical condition’ as contemplated by Title VII”


We are more convinced now that a reversal will be the result of the appeal.
 

EEOC Appeals Texas Judge's Decision That "Lactation is Not Pregnancy, Childbirth, or A Related Medical Condition"

In our February 16th blog, we reported that a Texas federal judge recently stated, in denying the Title VII claim of a woman who alleged that she was fired for seeking to pump breast milk while on the job, that "Lactation is not pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition."   We suggested in our February 9th blog, that an appeal and reversal was likely, and that “this decision was headed for the dustbin of history.”  See Judy Greenwald’s well-written article in Business Insurance, 2/10/12.

Just yesterday, the EEOC indeed filed an appeal to the federal court of appeals seeking a reversal of this decision, arguing that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Title VII protect women from being fired for lactation and breast pumping.

The EEOC argued, first, that the lower court’s interpretation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was too restricted and narrow.  Second, the EEOC claimed that, in any event, discrimination based on lactation violates Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination because lactation is a normal bodily function that is unique to women, i.e., that it is discrimination based on a sex-specific trait. 

We are one for one on this case so far -- an appeal was filed.  Let's see what happens and if we were right about a reversal.  I am doubling down on this bet.


 

EEOC Continues to Sue Large Companies

We told you the other day that EEOC Commissioner Lipnic confimed that the EEOC would continue to file 200 to 300 lawsuits this year, targeting alleged systemic discrimination as well as large companies.     

In this regard, the EEOC just filed suit against a Dollar General store in Ohio, for alleged retaliation in the firing of two employees for their participation in a pregnancy discrimination investigation.   Dollar General is purportedly the nation's largest small-box discount retailer.  

 

The EEOC also filed suit against a Texas Wendy’s franchisee for refusing to hire an applicant who is  hearing-impaired, in alleged violation of The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).   The plaintiff claimed that the general manager told him that “there is really no place for someone we cannot communicate with.”

 

Thanks to the Kansas City Business infoZine.  Read the Dollar General article and the Wendy's article.   

 

 

Pregnancy Discrimination and "The War On Women"

The ACLU has just weighed in on pregnancy discrimination as "another battleground in the war on women."

On the subject of pregnancy discrimination, see our numerous recent blog entries.   

 

Employer Hit Hard For Pregnancy Discrimination

In a lawsuit brought by the EEOC, a federal court just awarded a pregnant woman substantial damages after finding that her employer made offensive comments about her pregnancy and then terminated her for taking maternity leave. The termination was particularly offensive – plaintiff learned by certified mail while she was in the hospital recovering from a Caesarean section that she had been fired and that her health insurance had been terminated

The Court awarded damages as follows: 

(1)  back pay plus pre-judgment interest in the sum of $48,340;

(2)  compensatory damages in the sum of $50,000; and

(3)  punitive damages amounting to $50,000. 

The Court also permanently enjoined the employer from engaging in any further pregnancy discrimination.

The EEOC is serious about pregnancy discrimination!   See our blog of February 17, 2012

 

"Stray" Remarks Can Get You Into Trouble

We all know that discrimination can be shown by direct evidence (“You are too old for our workplace”) or indirect evidence (circumstantial evidence by which one can infer that discrimination played a role in the adverse employment action).  

Two federal courts recently dealt with a similar issue – an employee who claims that evidence of discriminatory intent can be seen in one remark from a supervisor.    

In Fried v. LVI Services, a 71 year old employee who had his responsibilities reassigned was told by the president that “you’re 71 years of age … we have to plan for the future,” while in Makowski v. SmithAmundsen LLC, a pregnant employee was told by the head of HR that she was terminated because she was pregnant and took medical leave, and who also told her about the employer’s discriminatory treatment towards other pregnant women.    

 

The trial courts in both cases dismissed the claims. In Fried, the Court determined that this indirect evidence consisted of a “stray” remark – a single, isolated age-related comment.  The EEOC is appealing this ruling to the federal court of appeals in New York.   In Makowski, the appeals court held that there was direct evidence that “pregnancy was the motivating factor” in the employee’s termination, and reinstated the claim.

 

Moral: Don’t make stray comments or ANY comments that can be construed as evidencing “discriminatory animus.”    

 

EEOC Sues Alleging Pregnancy Discrimination -- One Day After its Meeting To Discuss this Subject

We noted as recently as yesterday that “the times they are a changin’” – women make up almost one half of the workforce, the number of pregnancy discrimination charges is rising rapidly, and at the EEOC meeting this week experts have strongly argued that the EEOC should be more proactive in directing employers to accommodate women “who require adjustments to work rules as a result of pregnancy or childbirth.” 

Now, as if to put an exclamation point on this discussion, the EEOC, after attempting to resolve the claim, waited until yesterday – the day after its meeting -- to file suit against James E. Brown & Associates PLLC, alleging that it discriminated by revoking an offer of employment to a woman who it later learned was six months pregnant.

 

An EEOC attorney was quoted as pointedly saying that “Employers must remember that refusing to hire a woman because she is pregnant violates federal law, and the EEOC will enforce that law.”

Good to remember!

Lactation in The Workplace and The EEOC - Changing Times

"Lactation is not pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition," held a Texas federal judge recently in denying the Title VII claim of a woman who alleged that she was fired for seeking to pump breast milk while on the job. We suggested in our February 9, 2012 blog that in our opinion this decision was headed for the dustbin of history.

As if to echo this opinion, the EEOC just conducted a meeting yesterday to follow up on its issuance of a 2009 guidance entitled “Employer Best Practices for Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities.”  At yesterday’s meeting, experts noted that notwithstanding the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the FMLA, the number of pregnancy discrimination charges has spiked in recent years. One panelist argued that the EEOC should provide further guidance as to the rights of pregnant women and women who had given birth, to the end that employers be directed as to their duty to accommodate women “who require adjustments to work rules as a result of pregnancy or childbirth.” 

 

It would appear that it is only a matter of time until this occurs, and employers should anticipate this by including such reasonable accommodations in their practices and policies.       

"Lactation Is Not Pregnancy, Childbirth, Or A Related Medical Condition"

A Texas federal judge, has just held that a woman who claimed that she was fired for seeking to pump breast milk while on the job had no viable claim under Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based upon pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition.   The title of this blog entry is a direct quote from the decision. 

The Court stated curtly that after plaintiff gave birth, “she was no longer pregnant and her pregnancy-related conditions ended."

 

To this blogger, an appeal seems likely, as well as a reversal or overturning of this holding.