- with readers working within the Utilities industries
- within Finance and Banking topic(s)
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently filed a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit in a North Carolina federal court against Smithfield Fresh Meats Corp. In its suit, the EEOC alleges that Smithfield violated the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it refused to accommodate a pregnant worker's medical restrictions and terminated her employment.
Former employee Ruslana Rodriguez began working for Smithfield in 2023. Shortly thereafter, she became pregnant and then suffered a workplace accident that caused her to develop a subchorionic hematoma. In response, her doctor placed her on several work restrictions, which include the following:
- No lifting over 10 pounds;
- Avoiding excessive bending or twisting;
- Allowing a 15-minute break every two hours; and
- Providing unrestricted access to restroom facilities.
A later restriction prevented Rodriguez from lifting altogether. However, according to Rodriguez, Smithfield representatives advised her that they would provide no accommodations for her pregnancy-related limitations. Smithfield then placed Rodriguez on unpaid leave, and two weeks later, terminated her employment.
The EEOC claims that Smithfield could have placed Rodriguez in vacant positions for which she was qualified, and in which her restrictions could be accommodated without undue hardship. By failing to do so, the EEOC contends that Smithfield violated the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers with restrictions stemming from pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless providing the accommodations would constitute an undue hardship. The PWFA also prevents employers from placing an employee on leave if another reasonable accommodation is available.
The EEOC further alleges that Smithfield's actions violate
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits
employment discrimination based on sex, including pregnancy
discrimination. Since Smithfield terminated Rodriguez due to her
pregnancy restrictions, the EEOC argues, it committed unlawful sex
discrimination.
In its request for relief, the EEOC is seeking compensatory and
punitive damages. The agency is also requesting injunctive relief
to preclude Smithfield from taking similar actions in the future,
including required policy revisions, management training, and
oversight of accommodation requests.
The PWFA has become a common ground for EEOC litigation since it became law in 2023. As a result, employers should expect enhanced scrutiny of their handling of requests for reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers, especially in industries that have physical demands on workers. As a result, employers should take certain steps to avoid violating the law. Recommended actions include the following:
- Review accommodation policies to ensure that they specifically address pregnancy-related restrictions;
- Evaluate reassignment to vacant positions as a reasonable accommodation when possible; and
- Avoid forcing an employee to take leave, as doing so when accommodations exist violates the PWFA.
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.
