Dive Brief:
- Proper Ventures and WSRZ Proper, operators of Proper 21 restaurants in Washington, D.C., allegedly pressured a pregnant floor manager to take maternity leave earlier than she intended, fired her while she was on leave and hired a male to replace her, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission asserted in a May 27 lawsuit.
- Per the complaint in EEOC v. Proper Ventures, LLC, shortly after the floor manager disclosed her pregnancy and due date, she received a call from one of the two owners of Proper Ventures and WSRZ. When she told him she planned to work until her due date, he allegedly said he wasn’t comfortable with her working the restaurant floor while several months pregnant, the complaint said.
- He and his partner repeatedly pushed the floor manager to take leave earlier than she planned, EEOC alleged. Bowing to the pressure, she went on maternity leave six weeks before she was due, despite wanting and being able to work longer, according to the complaint. Shortly before she was scheduled to return, she allegedly asked for two more weeks off, explaining that her baby was born later than expected.
Dive Insight:
EEOC alleged that Proper 21 fired the floor manager the same day she asked for additional maternity leave and hired a male replacement a few weeks later. The agency sued Proper Ventures and WSRZ for firing the floor manager because of her sex and pregnancy in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
“Under federal law, employers may not discriminate on the basis of sex, including pregnancy and childbirth,” EEOC Philadelphia District Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence stated in a media release, stressing that, “Firing an employee because she’d recently given birth is unconscionable.”
Proper 21 did not respond to a request for a comment.
The PDA broadly protects workers from discrimination based on their potential pregnancy, current pregnancy or past pregnancy, according to an EEOC guidance. For example, an employer may not fire a woman because of her pregnancy during or at the end of her maternity leave, the guidance states.
Also under the PDA, employers can’t remove a pregnant worker from her job or place her on leave because they believe working would pose a risk to her or her pregnancy, another guidance explains.
While the lawsuit against Proper 21 focuses on Title VII and the PDA, other federal laws may come into play when a worker requests or takes pregnancy-related leave, EEOC cautions on its pregnancy discrimination home page.
For instance, Deloitte Consulting faces a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging it violated the Family and Medical Leave Act by penalizing exempt employees in its performance assessment and compensation practices for taking protected pregnancy-related, parental or family leave.
These practices also allegedly violated the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act by rendering ineffective an employee’s PWFA right to reasonable accommodation, such as leave, and penalizing them for making use of this right, the lawsuit said.
Earlier this year, operators of an Oklahoma medical clinic agreed to pay $90,000 to settle an EEOC lawsuit alleging the clinic violated the PWFA and the Americans with Disabilities Act by forcing a medical assistant with a high-risk pregnancy to take unpaid leave and firing her when she said she couldn’t return to work without an accommodation.