Dive Brief:
- A barber and hairstyling college in Texas agreed to settle claims brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging it rejected an applicant because of her pregnancy, EEOC said Thursday.
- EEOC brought its lawsuit against Dallas Barber & Stylist College, Inc., in 2024, alleging the employer rejected a candidate for a hair braider position in spite of her successful completion of a skills test. EEOC claimed this was because the employer already employed another pregnant employee and that an owner said employing two such employees would not be in the “best interest” of the business.
- According to a consent decree between the parties, the employer agreed to provide back pay with interest, compensatory and punitive damages, and other relief including updates to its policies and workforce training. The company did not admit violations of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Dive Insight:
Pregnancy discrimination has featured heavily in EEOC’s litigation activity under Chair Andrea Lucas. In February, for example, the commission sued operators of Washington, D.C., restaurant chain Proper 21 for allegedly pressuring a pregnant employee to take maternity leave early, firing her while on leave and replacing her with a male employee. Litigation in the case remains ongoing.
Last year, EEOC announced a series of settlements in pregnancy discrimination cases, one of which involved an employer’s alleged refusal to schedule a temporary worker upon learning of her pregnancy, and then firing the worker.
Employers violate Title VII — as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act — when they discriminate against employees on the basis of pregnancy, including in the hiring process, according to EEOC guidance.
“If an employer rejects a qualified applicant because of her pregnancy, the EEOC stands ready to enforce federal law and remedy that unlawful conduct,” Linda Sales-Long, acting district director for EEOC, said in the agency’s press release.
Congress further bolstered protections for pregnant workers in 2022 with passage of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which requires employers to provide workplace accommodations to such workers or those with pregnancy- or childbirth-related health conditions.
EEOC, tasked with implementing the PWFA, finalized a rule in 2024 during the Biden administration. The rule proved politically controversial due to its inclusion of abortion under its definition of the medical conditions for which employers are required to provide accommodation.
Multiple court decisions have since enjoined EEOC from enforcement of the rule’s abortion-related protections. Lucas opposed the rule at time of its adoption and took specific issue with the agency’s interpretation of the list of medical conditions covered by the PWFA.
However, EEOC continues to enforce the PWFA’s provisions. In February, an Oklahoma medical clinic agreed to settle with the agency in a lawsuit alleging it failed to accommodate an employee who had a high-risk pregnancy. The agency claimed in its complaint that the employer’s HR staff had not been aware of the PWFA.