Miami Employment Lawyer Blog

The Miami office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reported last week that it settled a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit that it filed against Hilton Grand Vacations Company, LLC, an Orlando-based resort company. In that case, an employee who worked as a recruiter was persuaded to resign her job when she became pregnant. According to the complaint that was filed in court, the company had promised to re-hire her after delivering her child. However, Hilton failed to hire her and actually passed her over for several positions when she applied. The consent decree entered by the court requires Hilton to pay $25,000 in monetary damages and also requires the company to conduct training regarding pregnancy discrimination.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, treating women who have complications with their pregnancy different than other employees with a medical condition is pregnancy discrimination. The law provides that pregnant women and women who come back from maternity leave after giving birth, must be given the same rights as any other employee who incurred a similar medical condition.

Continue reading "Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit Settled by Hilton" »

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA) provides that it is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of pregnancy. Despite the passage of this law more than 30 years ago, pregnancy discrimination is still a very real and common occurrence in the work place. In fact, many employers still think that pregnant women should not be working "for their own protection." Such comments not only show ignorance, but they demonstrate illegal discrimination. For example, just last week, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against Dreamz ATL, a large nightclub in Atlanta, Georgia, for terminating the employment of a waitress after learning that she was pregnant. The complaint alleges that the manger of the nightclub had taken the waitress off the work schedule when he found out that she was pregnant. When the waitress complained, he wrote her a text message stating "You are prego. You shouldn't be working."

An employer discriminates when it treats an employee or applicant for employment adversely because of pregnancy, childbirth or a medical condition related to pregnancy and childbirth. Under the provisions of the PDA, employers need not give pregnant women preferential treatment, but they must comply with the dictates of the law, which provides that "women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work." This means that pregnant women must be allowed to continue performing their work and must be treated like any other employee that may be affected by a similar medical condition.

Continue reading "Even Well-Intentioned Comments and Conduct May Constitute Pregnancy Discrimination" »

We recently settled a pregnancy discrimination claim that we filed on behalf of an employee that worked for a Miami-based financial institution. In that case, the employee performed her work well for several months, but as soon as she told her supervisor that she was pregnant, the company began treating her differently than other employees and her requests for time off to see her doctor were met with much less tolerance. She was ultimately fired, at which point we filed a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). While we cannot give any more details, the case is typical of a pregnancy discrimination case.

A similar claim that was brought against the Kohler Company by the EEOC in Atlanta, Georgia was settled approximately two weeks for $175,000.00 and the company's commitment to conduct equal opportunity training. While the company denied liability, in that case the EEOC alleged that a showroom executive who had an excellent performance record was placed on probation after she informed management about her pregnancy and was ultimately fired prior to her delivery.

Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is a form of sex discrimination. To prevail on a pregnancy claim, the employee must show that she was treated differently because of her pregnancy or a pregnancy-related condition. The PDA provides that an employer must treat a pregnant employee the same as they would treat any other similarly affected employee. The comparator employees would be employees that suffer any other temporary medical condition, such as having to undergo minor surgery.

However, while the PDA requires the employer to ignore the employee's pregnancy, the employer is not required to ignore absences from work unless the employer overlooks comparable absences of nonpregnant employees. Therefore, one of the most difficult challenges that arise with pregnancy claims is the belief that pregnant employees are entitled to take time off of work to go to medical appointments. This is not true. In this respect, the courts have held that excessive absences from work, even if caused by the pregnancy, could result in the justified termination of the pregnant employee's employment. Moreover, the PDA does not require employers to offer maternity leave or to take other steps to make it easier for pregnant women to work. As one court noted, "employers can treat pregnant women as badly as they treat similarly affected but nonpregnant employees." Troupe v. May Dept. Stores Co., 20 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 1994). The important point is that the treatment must be the same. Therefore, a pregnant employee must be careful to schedule medical appointments during non-work hours and to limit absences from work, otherwise, her pregnancy claim could be in jeopardy.

Continue reading "Pregnancy Discrimination in the Workplace Occurs Frequently, But Excessive Absences Due to the Pregnancy Could Justify Discharge of the Employee" »