ARTICLE
26 September 2014

EEOC's Changed Conception Of Pregnancy Spawns New Litigation — And Important Reminders For Employers

FL
Foley & Lardner

Contributor

Foley & Lardner LLP looks beyond the law to focus on the constantly evolving demands facing our clients and their industries. With over 1,100 lawyers in 24 offices across the United States, Mexico, Europe and Asia, Foley approaches client service by first understanding our clients’ priorities, objectives and challenges. We work hard to understand our clients’ issues and forge long-term relationships with them to help achieve successful outcomes and solve their legal issues through practical business advice and cutting-edge legal insight. Our clients view us as trusted business advisors because we understand that great legal service is only valuable if it is relevant, practical and beneficial to their businesses.
Earlier this year, we noted that that the EEOC issued somewhat controversial enforcement guidance regarding pregnancy discrimination.
United States Employment and HR

Earlier this year, we noted that that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") issued somewhat controversial enforcement guidance regarding pregnancy discrimination. It has now become evident that this enforcement guidance was a precursor of what was to come, as the EEOC has just filed two new lawsuits alleging pregnancy discrimination. According to its press releases, one suit alleges an employer terminated a farm worker shortly after she disclosed she was pregnant, citing fears for her safety and liability even though the employee's doctor had cleared her to perform the job without medical restrictions. The other suit alleges an employer terminated two employees after learning they were pregnant; the EEOC noted that the owner allegedly made "negative comments" about the pregnancies. This new litigation reiterates the EEOC's increased focus on pregnancy discrimination claims; it has filed several other pregnancy discrimination lawsuits in the last few months, and the EEOC has filed over 45 lawsuits involving pregnancy discrimination since 2011.

While past cases and the regulations have focused primarily on accommodating pregnant employees, these more recent cases filed by the EEOC focus primarily on stereotypes related to pregnancy and assumptions or comments made by employers about pregnant employees. This uptick in EEOC activity and potential change in strategic focus should serve as a reminder to employers. If an employee discloses a pregnancy but makes no request for accommodation, there should be no change in duties – and no consequences. Logically of course, at some point a discussion regarding the logistics of turning over an employee's job duties during her pregnancy leave has to take place. But if the employee does not need an accommodation, and particularly if her physician has cleared her to perform her job duties, there generally should be no change in position, duties, or treatment of the employee. However, as we noted in response to the EEOC's earlier enforcement guidance, if an employer offers accommodations or light duty to other employees even though they do not have a disability, the EEOC's position (which is currently being challenged in a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court) is that the employer also must offer that light duty or accommodation to pregnant employee – irrespective of any medical limitations she does or does not have.

These recent cases also serve as a reminder regarding pregnancy-related hostile work environment claims. The EEOC has shown it takes issue with perceived negative comments made to a pregnant employee regarding her pregnancy. Managers and supervisors should be thus be trained and reminded to refrain from making such comments. It is easy to imagine an offhand but animus-free comment venting about the workload that will exist when a pregnant employee takes leave or suggesting that an employee will be less engaged in the job once she has a child, but employers should educate employees regarding avoiding these types of comments.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More