Tag: pregnancy discrimination

U.S. SUPREME COURT REVIVES PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT IN UPS DRIVER CASE

The U.S. Supreme Court recently vacated the lower court’s decision that ruled in favor of United States Parcel Service in a pregnancy discrimination case. The plaintiff in this case, Peggy Young, sued UPS alleging that it discriminated against her under the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”). Young was a driver for UPS. After she became pregnant, she informed the Company that she would not be able to lift packages of a certain weight, upon the direction of her physician. UPS, however, told her that she would not be able to work with a lifting restriction and as a result, she was placed on unpaid leave and lost her medical coverage. Young later filed suit under the PDA and argued that UPS refused to accommodate her pregnancy-related lifting restriction.

Young argued that by not giving her the same accommodations that the Company gave to others who requested light duty, such as those who were disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act, drivers who lost their driving certifications or those who were injured on the job, UPS violated the PDA by failing to treat pregnant women “the same…as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.” In opposition, UPS argued that since not all employees were guaranteed accommodations under its policy, it was not discriminating specifically against pregnant women.

The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately rejected both lines of argument, but stated that Young may be able to prove that the denial of an accommodation constituted disparate treatment under the McDonnell Douglas framework. The Court held that, “Young created a genuine dispute as to whether UPS provided more favorable treatment to at least some employees whose situation cannot reasonably be distinguished from hers” and sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

The case is Peggy Young v. UPS, Inc., No. 12-1226.

This Firm will continue to monitor the developments in this case.

EEOC SUES WELLSNESS SPA FOR PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION

The U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, an agency that enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, sued CFS Health Management, Inc., d/b/a Shefa Wellness Center, for pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The EEOC filed suit alleging that the Company’s employee, April Raines, was unlawfully terminated after informing her boss that she was pregnant. The lawsuit alleges that Raines was a newly-hired, licensed skin care therapist who was fired just 2 days after announcing her pregnancy. When Raines asked why she was terminated, she was told that she deceived the Company by not disclosing her pregnancy during the interview. The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief for Raines.

EEOC APPEALS DISMISSAL OF PREGNANCY BIAS CASE AGAINST BLOOMBERG TO SECOND CIRCUIT

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission originally brought a class action suit on behalf of dozens of women against Bloomberg L.P., a company employing more than 15,000 people, alleging pregnancy discrimination.  The EEOC claimed that Bloomberg discriminated against women by demoting or reducing the pay of female employees after they announced their pregnancies and after they took maternity leave.

  This bias allegedly lead to demotions, exclusions from management meetings, reduced pay and responsibilities and stereotyping.  The New York court dismissed the class action suit, and the suit was converted into individual claims of discrimination, most of which were later dismissed.

Earlier this month, the EEOC appealed the court’s decision dismissing the remaining plaintiff’s claim for back pay.  In the notice of appeal filed in New York federal court, the EEOC stated that it was challenging all judgments dismissing its case against Bloomberg as well as various orders stemming from 2010.

This firm will continue to monitor the developments in this case.

TRANE U.S., INC. AGREED TO PAY $55,000 TO NEW JERSEY WOMAN TO SETTLE DISCRIMINATION CASE

Charnelle Gilliard of Ewing, New Jersey began working for Trane, a subsidiary of Ingersoll Rand, in July 2010 as an assembler.  In May 2012, upon the advice of her prenatal physician, Gilliard stopped working.  She was approved for temporary disability benefits due to her pregnancy, and was expected to return to work on July 24.   After the paperwork was submitted, a third-party benefits administrator contacted Gilliard’s prenatal physician seeking further information regarding Gilliard’s disability leave.  The physician told the administrator that although Gilliard’s pregnancy was normal, he advised her to stop working in May because of how far along she was in her pregnancy.  Trane refused to accept Gilliard’s request for medical leave during her final weeks of normal pregnancy and terminated her employment retroactive to her last day of work in May.

Last month, Acting Attorney General John J. Hoffman and the Division on Civil Rights announced that the company agreed to pay Gilliard $55,000 to resolve allegations that it discriminated against her by terminating her employment after she took doctor-prescribed medical leave to accommodate the final weeks of her pregnancy.  Trane also must pay $15,000 to the Division of Civil Rights.  As part of the settlement, Ingersoll Rand has also agreed to revise its anti-discrimination policy.

New Jersey is one of several states that are expanding the employment protections and enforcement of those laws concerning pregnant employees.