pregnancy discrimination lawyer

Pregnancy Discrimination on the Rise in Workplaces

June 20, 2018 | by Nassiri Law

Right now, more mothers are joining the workforce than any time in history. In addition, there is a growing trend of friendlier office policies geared toward families in general and mothers in particular. Why then are there still an alarming amount of cases where pregnant women report enduring discrimination and unfair treatment? The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has collected a gradually increasing number of pregnancy discrimination claims over the years, and officials say the number is approaching a record high.

The New York Times delved into the issue recently and discovered an unsettling pattern of discrimination that still flows beneath the surface, even at large and reputable companies. Big names on the list include Walmart, Whole Foods, AT&T, and 21st Century Fox, all of which, as the article pointed out, have grand statements about being champions of women in their communications.

Women in all kinds of careers have anecdotes to share. Our employment attorneys know labor jobs can often have more blatant discrimination. Examples include refusals to allow pregnant women accommodations they need to complete their work, no leniency for breaks, refusal to adjust demands due to physical limitations, and series of micro-aggressions, like not allowing them to have water on the work floor. Continue Reading ›

Pregnancy Discrimination Still Kicking in 2017

September 6, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

Whether you paint the room in pink or blue (or some gender neutral hue), pregnancy can still earn you a pink slip. It’s illegal, of course. As the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) notes, it is unlawful to treat a female applicant or employee unfavorably due to pregnancy, childbirth or a medical condition related to childbirth or pregnancy.

The Pregnancy Disability Act, passed almost 40 years ago, prohibits discrimination on the basis of pregnancy in any aspect of employment. In situations where a woman is temporarily unable to perform job duties due to pregnancy, childbirth or related condition, the employer is required to treat her in the same way it would treat any other temporarily disabled employee – with alternative assignments, light duty, disability leave or unpaid leave.

Despite all this, employers continue to discriminate against workers on the basis of pregnancy and childbirth. They may not be as blatant about it as they were four decades ago, but it’s still happening. Continue Reading ›

Pregnancy Discrimination Results in $65K Payout

January 25, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

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.

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 ›

Woman Fights for Workplace Pregnancy Accommodations

January 5, 2017 | by Nassiri Law

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

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 ›

EEOC Sues Insurance Broker on Behalf of Pregnant Job Applicant

August 11, 2016 | by Nassiri Law

One of the largest insurance brokerage firms in the world is facing down allegations of pregnancy discrimination.

According to The Orlando Sentinel, this was a situation in which a pregnant applicant was offered an entry-level post, which was almost immediately rescinded once the company learned she was with child. Although the company thanked her for “telling us beforehand,” it was explained in an email that that the firm had “a very urgent need to have somebody in this position long-term.”

The woman had informed the company of her pregnancy by asking about maternity benefits almost immediately after she was hired. Less than a half hour later, she received an email rescinding the offer. Continue Reading ›

Women Are Taking Wal-Mart to Task for Pregnancy Discrimination

July 6, 2016 | by Nassiri Law

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.

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 ›

Pregnancy Discrimination a Growing Problem in U.S.

March 3, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

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.

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.