|
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit alleging retaliation against Keystone Foods LLC, in which the EEOC alleged that Keystone retracted a job offer after it learned that the applicant had previously filed a Charge of Discrimination against it. The EEOC's lawsuit claimed that, during a job fair, Keystone offered jobs to seventeen applicants who previously worked for them. Keystone offered the employee in this lawsuit a job the same day as the job fair, and the applicant accepted the job offer on the spot. After making the offer and it being accepted, however, Keystone learned that this employee had previously complained about pregnancy discrimination at Keystone and filed an EEOC Charge of pregnancy discrimination against the company. Upon realizing this, Keystone immediately retracted the job offer. This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits retaliation for complaints of discrimination and the filing of Charges of Discrimination with the EEOC. See EEOC v. Keystone Foods LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00629-MHT-JTA (M.D. Ala.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently sued a home health care company for terminating an employee because of her pregnancy and a disability. The EEOC's lawsuit claims that Heartfelt Home Healthcare Services, Inc. terminated one of its scheduling coordinators because she was pregnant and because she suffered from hypertension. The lawsuit further alleges that the president and vice president told her that she was a "liability to the company" on numerous occasions, and that they terminated her employment after she was treated at the hospital for early contractions. The termination occurred even though the employee did not have medical restrictions that prevented her from performing her job. This alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Discrimination against an employee because of their sex or because of their pregnancy is illegal. See U.S. EEOC v. Heartfelt Home Healthcare Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-00280-CB (W.D. Pa.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against DLS Engineering Associates in which the EEOC had alleged that DLS discriminated against one of its prospective employees due to her pregnancy. The EEOC's lawsuit claimed that DLS had offered a pregnant prospective employee a position without knowledge that she was pregnant. Once the prospective employee informed the company that she was five months pregnant, however, the company rescinded the offer. In addition, the company explained to her that it could not hire somebody who was pregnant. This alleged conduct is a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which is an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See EEOC v. DLS Engineering Associates, LLC, No. 3:21-cv-1214 (M.D. Fla.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit that it had filed against a company that leases and sells storage containers. The EEOC's lawsuit claimed that the company hired an employee in early April 2018 and gave her a positive 30-day review on May 10, 2018. At the time it hired her, it was not apparent that the employee was pregnant. On May 14, 2018, however, less than one week after the employee disclosed to the company that she was pregnant, the company terminated her employment. One day after this, the company hired a non-pregnant replacement. This alleged conduct is a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which is an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because of their pregnancy. See EEOC v. Cassone Leasing, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-3721 (E.D.N.Y.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has settled a lawsuit that it filed against a security company that allegedly terminated one of its employees due to her pregnancy. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that Allied Universal transferred one of its security guards to a more difficult post after it learned that she was pregnant. The security guard told Allied Universal that this new post was causing her pain. In response, Allied Universal did not move the employee back to her original post but instead requested a doctor’s note. The employee provided Allied Universal with the note, and Allied placed the employee on a leave of absence involuntarily. Allied then demanded another doctor’s note in order to release her to return to work. Again, the security guard provided this note. Despite this, Allied kept the employee on leave for more than a month and then terminated her employment. This alleged conduct is a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act Amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See EEOC v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-02467 (E.D. La.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently settled a lawsuit against a medical transportation company named American Medical Response Ambulance Service, Inc., in which the EEOC had claimed that AMRAS had discriminated against one of its employees because of her pregnancy. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that one of AMRAS’s paramedics requested a reasonable light duty accommodation near the last stages of her pregnancy. The employee submitted a doctor’s note as part of her request for this light duty work. Despite the reasonable request, AMRAS denied her light duty. In comparison, for other employees, AMRAS permitted light duty accommodations when these employees had been injured on the job. Instead, AMRAS insisted that the paramedic could either work without any restrictions or take an unpaid leave. This alleged conduct is a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. When companies provide light duty accommodations to employees who are injured on the job, then it must maintain consistency in that policy with pregnant employees who request the same accommodation. See EEOC v. American Medical Response Ambulance Service, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-258 (E.D. Wash.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity recently filed a lawsuit against both a company, LogistiCare Solutions LLC, and a staffing agency that provided the company with employees, HCM Staffing, for allegedly violating federal pregnancy discrimination laws. The EEOC’s lawsuit claims that HCM placed at least two pregnant employees at LogistiCare to work as customer service representatives, but LogistiCare fired both of them after a one-week training. The lawsuit further alleges that LogistiCare fired the employees because it assumed they could not meet the company’s attendance policy due to their pregnancy. The EEOC also claims that the staffing agency knew that LogistiCare fired these employees because of their pregnancies but it continued staffing LogistiCare and it complied with LogistiCare’s decision to terminate the employees. This alleged conduct by both companies is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of a disability. See EEOC v. LogistiCare Solutions, LLC, No. 2:20-cv-00852 (D. Ariz.).
The EEOC reports that it recently settled a lawsuit alleging that M&T Bank discriminated against an employee because of her pregnancy-related disability. The EEOC’s lawsuit claimed that a branch manager informed a vice president that she would require surgery for her pregnancy related disability. During her approved leave of absence, M&T told the employee that they would fill her position with somebody else if she did not receive a medical clearance to return to work in only ten days. The employee was not cleared to return by her doctor until months later after she had given birth. At this time, M&T required her to apply for a vacant position instead of reassigning her to the position that she had (the reasonable accommodation that she had requested). The employee did re-apply to numerous positions, but she was not hired for any of the positions. The EEOC claimed that M&T had 24 vacant positions in the region where the employee lived. The Court held that M&T was obligated to provide the employee the reasonable accommodation of reassignment to a position for which was qualified without having to apply. The EEOC won partial summary judgment on the reasonable accommodation issue. This alleged conduct is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. See EEOC v. Manufacturers and Traders Trust Co., No. CV ELH-16-3180, 2019 WL 4305365 (D. Md. Sept. 10, 2019).
The EEOC reported that Scottish Pines Rehabilitation and Nursing has agreed to pay $30,000 and other relief to settle a lawsuit that the EEOC brought against it alleging pregnancy discrimination. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that the company provided accommodations to employees who suffered injuries or illnesses but refused to provide the same accommodations to pregnant employees who had work restrictions related to their pregnancy. The lawsuit further claims that one of the company’s employees requested a 50-pound lifting restriction, but the request was denied. The EEOC also alleged that the company refused a 20-pound lifting restriction from a different pregnant employee and that the company terminated her employment after she was unable to return to work without restrictions. The alleged conduct is a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which is an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See EEOC v. Century Care of Laurinburg, Inc., No 1:18-cv-00170 (M.D.N.C.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a lawsuit against a retirement community that the EEOC said discriminated against a potential employee because of her potential to become pregnant in the future. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that a manager working for the retirement community sent a text message to a job applicant asking when she planned to have another baby. The manager also said that the position does not allow “a lot of time off for long periods of time.” After this, the company did not interview that job applicant and instead hired an older employee, which it believed would not become pregnant. The alleged conduct is a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which prohibits pregnancy and sex discrimination by an employer or potential employer. See EEOC v. Glenridge on Palmer Ranch, Inc., No. 8:18-cv-02340 (M.D. Fla.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached a $50,000 pregnancy disability lawsuit settlement with a company that sells dietary supplements. The EEOC’s lawsuit claims that an employee informed the company that she was pregnant. Just a few days later, she was terminated. In addition, the EEOC contends that the company refused to bring back another employee after her maternity leave ended. The alleged conduct is a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which is an Amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See EEOC v. Tarr, Inc. and Zenith, LLC, No. 3:17-cv-01660 (S.D. Cal.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against a nursing and rehabilitation center alleging that the company forced a pregnant employee to resign after refusing to provide her a reasonable accommodation. The EEOC’s lawsuit claims that the company provided light duty and job modification accommodations to Certified Nursing Assistants who had been injured at work. However, when a pregnant employee requested a similar accommodation, the company refused to grant it. The EEOC’s suit alleges that the CNA at issue requested a lifting restriction of twenty pounds, which she was denied, and instead told by the Assistant Director of Nursing and an HR representative that she must either resign or be fired. Such alleged actions are a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. See EEOC v. PruittHealth - Raleigh, LLC, No 5:18-CV-00165 (E.D.N.C.).
Employers Need to Make Same Accommodations To Pregnant Women as They Do for Other Employees3/12/2018
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit alleging that a company provided light duty and job modifications to Certified Nursing Assistants who had been injured at work, but that it did not provide similar accommodations to pregnant CNAs who required accommodations or restrictions due to their pregnancies. The lawsuit further alleges that the company refused to provide a lifting restriction accommodation for one of its pregnant CNAs, and that the company instead placed her on unpaid leave. After the employee’s leave ran out, the company fired her because she could not return without the accommodation due to her pregnancy. Such conduct is a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which is an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and prohibits discrimination against an employee on the basis of the employee’s pregnancy. See EEOC v. Century Care of Laurinburg, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00170 (M.D.N.C.).
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against a restaurant who the EEOC alleges discriminated against an employee because of her pregnancy. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that the employer took adverse actions against a server after she informed the restaurant owner of her pregnancy. After learning of the pregnancy, the restaurant cut the server’s hours, refused to place her back in her position as a server after she gave birth, and then eventually fired her. Such alleged actions are a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. See EEOC v. Maurizio Trattoria Italiana, LLC, No. 3:18-cv-00338-MMA (S.D. Cal.).
Trinity Health, has agreed to pay $95,000 and other relief in order to resolve a suit alleging pregnancy and disability discrimination, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that Trinity did not provide light-duty work to a pregnant nurse who was placed on lifting restrictions due to a health condition related to her pregnancy. The lawsuit further alleges that in addition to not granting the light duty work, the company fired the nurse who had made the requested lifting accommodation. Companies are typically obligated to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled employees and may not discriminate because of an employee’s pregnancy. See EEOC v. Trinity Health, No. 1:17-cv-00200 (D.N.D.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has settled a lawsuit alleging pregnancy discrimination with an apparel company, R. Siskind & Co., in exchange for $50,000 and implementation of other anti-discrimination policies. The EEOC had filed a lawsuit alleging that Siskind fired an employee because of her pregnancy and emergency caesarean section. After the employee attempted to return to work, the employer provided her with pretextual reasons to deny her return to work and informed her that she no longer had a position with the company when she attempted to return. Employers may not discriminate against employees on the basis of an employee’s pregnancy and related medical conditions. Such discrimination would violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. See EEOC v. R. Siskind & Co., No. 17-cv-5175 (S.D.N.Y.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently filed a lawsuit against Friedman Realty Group alleging that the company fired at least three employees due to their respective pregnancies. The lawsuit alleges that one of the company’s employees, Brianna Mazzella, informed the regional property manager around March 2013 that she was pregnant. After informing the manager, he made inappropriate comments to Mazzella about her pregnancy including “when women get pregnant they get stupid” and “I would never have kids, it’s gross.” The Complaint alleges that the regional property manager then placed unrealistic deadlines on Mazzella and unfairly scrutinized her work. The EEOC also alleges that three pregnant employees were terminated because of their pregnancies. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of the employee’s pregnancy. See EEOC v. Friedman Realty Group, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-07659 (D.N.J.).
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently reported that Dash Dream Plant, Inc. has agreed to settle a lawsuit that the EEOC brought against it alleging pregnancy discrimination. The EEOC’s lawsuit claims that the company conducted staff meetings wherein female employees were told not to get pregnant. Female employees were also informed that if they became pregnant, then they should consider themselves fired. The lawsuit further alleges that the company did not rehire or reinstate female employees who tried to return to work after giving birth. These alleged actions are violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. See EEOC v. Dash Dream Plant, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-01395 (E.D. Cal.).
The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that Carolina Creek discriminated against Korrie Reed, after it learned that she had a pregnancy-related complication: gestational diabetes. Reed did not request any reassignment at her job, and she did not indicate that she could not perform her job duties. Carolina Creek’s executive director demoted Reed and claimed that the registrar job was too demanding for Reed to do because of her pregnancy and medical condition. Reed informed this same executive director that she believed the demotion was illegal, Reed was fired and sued by Carolina Creek in two separate lawsuits. The alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discriminated based on pregnancy, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits disability discrimination. Both Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibit retaliation as a result of complaining about or opposing the related discrimination. The company will reportedly pay $70,000 and provide other relief to settle the lawsuit. See EEOC v. Carolina Creek Christian Camp, Inc., No. 4:16-cv-03714 (S.D. Tex. 2016).
Life Time Fitness, Inc. will reportedly pay $86,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by the EEOC alleging pregnancy discrimination. The lawsuit alleged that Life Time told a job applicant, Emily Carpenter, to fill out new hire paperwork so she could be scheduled. Carpenter emailed Life Time her availability and informed the company that she was 35 weeks pregnant. Life Time allegedly then failed to schedule Carpenter and ceased communications with her. A manager eventually told Carpenter that her position was placed on hold and that they had hired two other people. Life Time encouraged Carpenter to apply for a position at a different facility that would open later in the year. The alleged conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. See EEOC v. Life Time Fitness, Inc., No. 8:16-cv-02936 (D. Md.)
|
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed
|
Contact Info
Phone: 440-543-0670 (Phone) 440-543-0721 (fax) Email: [email protected] Address: 8401 Chagrin Road, Suite 8 Chagrin Falls, OH 44023 |
© Voudris Law LLC 2011-2024
*The materials on this website and any information provided to you by phone, email, or in-person are for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed until a fee agreement is executed.