Dive Brief:
- The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission used the conciliation process to recover more than $97,000 to resolve two charges of pregnancy-related discrimination at work, the agency announced Wednesday. One case involved a pregnant worker at Nevada-based technology hardware company Vital Systems; the other involved a pregnant worker at San Francisco’s Condor Club, a topless bar.
- In both cases, EEOC alleged that the employer violated both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
- These case studies provide a few valuable takeaways for HR: Pregnant workers don’t necessarily need to be reassigned based on their condition, and documentation of work assignment conversations is crucial.
Dive Insight:
In the Vital Systems case, EEOC alleged the charging party was forced into an “unwanted and unnecessary” new work assignment involving X-ray radiation. When the expecting worker gave her employer a doctor’s note confirming that she should not be exposed to radiation, Vital Systems fired her.
EEOC highlighted a possible remedy for the situation prior to its escalation: The employer could have “[provided] a reasonable accommodation such as returning the employee to her original role — thus eliminating the need for an accommodation.”
Along with agreeing to update its reasonable accommodation policy and protocol, Vital Systems agreed to pay $57,000 in back pay and damages to the ex-employee.
Meanwhile, in the Condor Club case, the charging party told her employer that she was pregnant, but also that she was open to working in other roles. She also followed up with a doctor’s note saying that she had no restrictions on her work activities. Condor Club then allegedly stopped scheduling the worker for shifts and refused to consider any accommodations, including reassignment.
Similarly, Condor Club agreed to review its reasonable accommodation policies, in addition to paying out $40,000 in damages to the ex-worker.
EEOC also noted that Condor Club allegedly “failed to consistently retain personnel records, including any records of communications concerning the interactive process and requests for pregnancy accommodation.” Condor Club agreed to create a recordkeeping protocol for tracking accommodation requests — along with offering “extensive training” to workers, managers and HR personnel at the club, and updating EEOC on its compliance every six months, for three years.
HR Dive reached out to both employers for comment, but neither responded back by the time of publication.
While each case’s circumstances were different, both instances involved employers ignoring a doctor’s note — something that became crucial in the lawsuits.
“No one should have to choose between their job and the health of their pregnancy or be penalized for proactively managing their employment and pregnancy,” Christopher Green, director of EEOC’s San Francisco district, said on Wednesday. “Forcing ultimatums on a pregnant employee is unacceptable. Ignoring pregnant workers who want to contribute is unacceptable.”
Green also added that employers should “leave the work of identifying pregnancy-related risks and limitations to qualified medical professionals,” and that the employers’ role is to help workers find accommodations.
In this vein, the U.S. Department of Labor also has an online know-your-rights resource geared toward pregnant workers, which covers the full spectrum of pregnancy, through birth, bonding time and return to work.