Articles Tagged with pregnancy discrimination attorney

Rampant pregnancy discrimination in American has meant that expectant mothers in the workforce are denied pay raises or promotions, fired before they can take their maternity leave and sometimes, in physically demanding jobs, forced to work without accommodation, putting themselves and their babies’ lives at risk.Los Angeles pregnancy discrimination

In its review of thousands of pages of court and other public records involving female workers who alleged they had gone into premature labor, suffered miscarriage or, in one case, had a stillborn baby when their bosses refused their requests for assistance. Those requests often came with physician’s notes prescribing limitations on lifting, pulling and bending. The workers asked for help with things like pushing loaded carts or pulling large boxes or flipping over heavy mattresses. In a wide range of settings – grocery stores, prisons, restaurants, pharmaceutical companies, airports, hospitals and more.

Most are shocked to learn that very often, refusal to accommodate a pregnant woman is totally legal under federal law. Only a handful of states – California being one – have special provisions that offer additional protections to expectant mothers. California law holds that companies with five or more employees is bound by protections afforded to workers in the event of pregnancy, childbirth, pregnancy loss or related physical or mental conditions. These rights include accommodation and time off work, and employers can’t fire or otherwise discrimination someone for pregnancy, childbirth or related condition. Accommodations are outlined in the California Code of Regulations, and may include modification of work duties to be less strenuous, temporary transfer to less hazardous duties, longer and more frequent breaks, private lactation accommodations and more. Continue reading

It’s hard to imagine in 2018 that women would still be facing discrimination at work for something as basic as pregnancy. The last thing a woman who is about to bring apregnancy discrimination child into the world should have to worry about is whether or not she will be able to support that child when they are born. It is the belief of our legal team that even one woman who fears losing employment due to pregnancy is one woman too many.

That’s why it is shocking to hear the details of a lawsuit filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against a nursing center in North Carolina. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, claims that twice in just over a year’s time (between November 2014 and December 2015) the nursing center refused to accommodate pregnancy-related work restrictions for two certified nursing assistants.

Each woman cited a simple lifting restriction as cause for their request for job accommodations or modifications. And each request was allegedly rejected on the grounds that the center could not accommodate them. Further, the center fired both employees, one after being put on unpaid leave, allegedly as a result of their accommodation requests. Continue reading

Pregnancy discrimination has always been, somewhat unavoidably, an issue strictly affecting women, as the only gender able to become pregnant. However, a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit out of San Luis Obispo is challenging that notion. pregnancy discrimination lawyer

SanLuisObispo.com reports plaintiff is a former high school counselor whose contract was not renewed – despite initially very positive evaluations of his work – after his wife gave birth to twins. The former counselor and new father said shortly after word of his wife’s pregnancy became common knowledge, his supervisor began making negative remarks about the news.

He’d been hired in the summer of 2015 for what was to be a one-year contract, with a shot at a permanent position if it went well. A month after landing the job, he learned his wife was pregnant, and two months after that, he told a co-worker. His supervisor allegedly made statements to the effect plaintiff would not be able to afford to care for his family and inquired about his wife’s stay-at-home lifestyle. At an evaluation meeting a couple of months later, he received positive reviews. Continue reading

A business in Hawaii has agreed to settle a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit filed by one of its former employees who alleged she was terminated from the company as a result of becoming pregnant. pregnant

The company agreed to pay $65,000 in a resolution announced by the state’s Civil Rights Commission, which as part of the agreement also required the company to develop and implement a non-discrimination policy, including a policy that would provide training to managers and supervisors. The commission declined to reveal the name of the business or the complainant. However, according to the Hawaii Herald-Tribune, the company discriminated against the woman after refusing to reinstate her back to her position after she was on a pregnancy-related disability leave. The company also allegedly refused her a reasonable accommodation for her pregnancy-related disability and then ultimately fired her.

Plaintiff alleges she was also subject to derogatory comments about her pregnancy and the inconvenience it would cause the firm, and these began immediately after she disclosed her condition to her supervisor. Her manager informed her there were not enough temporary employees available to cover her pregnancy-related leave.  Continue reading

A woman in Tennessee is fighting for workplace pregnancy accommodations for workers who may need temporary modifications, transfers or reassignments based on medical restrictions. pregnant

Plaintiff had been working for a local grocer for two years when, in the fifth month of her first pregnancy, she started to suffer sharp pains in her abdomen. As it turned out, the baby had dropped into her cervix. She was at risk of preterm labor, which could have serious and devastating consequences for her unborn child. Her doctor gave her a note to give to her employer, with instructions that she avoid heavy lifting. For two weeks, her employer acquiesced, allowing her to avoid carrying boxes of chicken or other supplies in the deli area. But then suddenly, after a follow-up doctor’s visit, her manager informed her that allowing such lifting restrictions was against the store policy. The 24-year-old was sent home, reeling, fearful for how she would pay her bills with a baby on the way.

She has now filed a class action pregnancy discrimination lawsuit, seeking a change in the store’s policy, which she says violates the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Both state and federal laws do protect pregnant workers, though sometimes the interpretation gets muddled. The Tennessee Human Rights Act & Disabilities Act prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of familial status, but in the scope of employment, most pregnancy discrimination claims are filed under gender discrimination provisions. At the federal level, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 is an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and prohibits sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. This amendment prohibits discrimination on the basis of one’s sex – which can include pregnancy, childbirth or related conditions. Women who are affected by pregnancy, birth and related medical conditions are to be treated the same for all employment-related purposes – including those who may not be so affected but similar in their inability to work.  Continue reading

A former worker at a Mexican food restaurant chain has been awarded $550,000 – which includes punitive damages – after a federal jury in Washington D.C. found she was in fact discriminated for her pregnancy. pregnantwoman

Although the national chain, Chipotle, and its franchise owner had denied that it had fired the woman for her pregnancy, the jury opined this was in fact the reason for her termination from the job.

The case dates back four years. It was at that time in 2011 when plaintiff became pregnant while working at the fast-food restaurant. It was not long after she informed the manager of her pregnancy that he started acting out. He restricted her access to water. He also began giving her a hard time about bathroom breaks and informed her she needed to limit them. He even went so far as to say that anytime she needed to go to the bathroom, she had to announce it to every employee in the store, and further that he had to approve them so that her post could be covered. Continue reading

In Pico Rivera, a working-class, Latino suburb of Los Angeles, Wal-Mart is the second-largest employer for the region. More than 500 families rely on the big box chain for their income and the company accounts for 10 percent of the city’s tax revenue. There are also a number of workers fighting for better working conditions, including a living wage, regular hours and the absence of pregnancy discrimination. pregnancy4

Here, as a recent UPI article explained, some have paid a hefty price for their activism, including being fired or laid off. They are relying on donations for food and clothing. Still, a number showed up at the shareholder’s meeting this year, petition in hand requesting reinstatement from executives.

Although some are dismissive of Wal-Mart and its practices, we should consider that it is in fact the biggest company and the largest private employer in the world. In the U.S., it employs 1.4 million people and it operates in 27 other countries on five continents. The only other employers that are bigger than Wal-Mart: The U.S. Department of Defense and the Chinese Army. Continue reading

In weighing a case of alleged pregnancy discrimination, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important ruling in favor of pregnant workers. In a 6-3 ruling, the court ruled the former United Parcel Service Worker should get another chance to show her employer was wrong to force her on unpaid leave, rather than give her a lighter duty assignment as her doctor recommended. pregnancy2

That decision reversed earlier findings by lower courts which determined UPS wasn’t in violation of the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act because light-duty work was expressly offered to only other types of workers: Those who lost their commercial vehicle driver’s license, those with a condition covered under the Americans With Disabilities Act and those who suffered a job-related injury.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act, passed in 1978, clarified that gender discrimination included discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth and/or other related medical conditions. The law also instructs companies to treat pregnant workers the same as others who are similar in their ability or inability to work.

The Chicago Public School System recently came under fire after it was alleged a number of teachers were fired on the basis of their pregnancies. A federal discrimination lawsuit has been filed. SONY DSC

The district staunchly denies this assertion, insisting the teachers were let go as a result of performance ratings, and that lay-off determinations were consistent with the necessity of business. The district further asserts the lawsuit has no merit because there is no pattern of discrimination when all employment decisions stemmed from non-discriminatory, legitimate reasons.

However, the U.S. government asserts otherwise, noting that in the course of three years, the district took adverse employment action against eight teachers who were either pregnant or who had just returned to work after pregnancy. The disparate treatment those individuals suffered included poor performance evaluations, where previously their records had been stellar.