Articles Posted in Pregnancy discrimination

A federal court in Connecticut has determined that a jury could reasonably find that Yale New Haven Health Services Corporation (“Yale”) discriminated against a female employee because she needed to pump breast milk at work. The court found that discrimination against an employee for pumping breast milk violates both federal and state laws that protect employees from pregnancy discrimination.

Because Yale argued that the court should dismiss the female employee’s lawsuit through summary judgment, the court’s decision described the facts in the light most favorable to the female employee. According to the court, the managers at Yale at first had no problem with the female employee pumping breast milk in her shared office or in her supervisor’s office. When she got a new supervisor, however, Yale instituted a new policy that required the female employee to pump breast milk in a designated lactation room. When the female employee inquired about this new policy, she was told that someone had complained about her pumping breast milk in an office.

The female employee complied with the new policy at first but trekking down to the lactation room to pump breast milk interfered with her ability to do her job. The female employee served as a Clinical Bed Manager and her job required her to communicate with other Yale employees regarding admissions, discharges, and transfers of patients. She could not communicate with other employees while she was in and walking to and from the lactation room.

This month, Connecticut enacted new protections for pregnant workers that address some of the more common abusive employment practices that women face when they are pregnant. The new protections include the following:

• Employers must provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers to enable them to work unless the accommodation would be an undue hardship;
• Employers cannot refuse to hire a pregnant worker because she needs a reasonable accommodation due to her pregnancy;

The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana recently reversed a trial court’s decision to dismiss a pregnancy discrimination case before trial.  The case involved the law firm Carabin & Shaw’s decision to terminate an employee named Cynthia Heinsohn days after she went out on maternity leave.  The trial court thought no reasonable jury could find that Carabin & Shaw had terminated Heinsohn because of her pregnancy.  The Fifth Circuit found that the trial court had improperly denied Heinsohn her right to a trial.

The trial court, according to the Fifth Circuit, improperly threw out Heinsohn’s case before trial based on an assessment of witness credibility.  The primary purpose of trials is to assess witness credibility.  A judge cannot deny a worker her day in court just because he believes, based on the written record, that the employer’s supposed reason for terminating the worker was non-discriminatory.  When a case comes down to witness credibility, particularly in a case where a jury trial is available, the winner should be decided based on a full assessment of each witness’ credibility by observing him or her testify.

The facts of Ms. Heinsohn’s case are, unfortunately, all too familiar.  Ms. Heinsohn went out on maternity leave and Carabin & Shaw found that some deadlines had been missed which it blamed on Ms. Heinsohn.  Without even asking Ms. Heinsohn about the missed deadlines, it fired her while she was on maternity leave.  According to the Fifth Circuit, there was evidence that Ms. Heinsohn was not responsible for the missed deadlines and a jury could infer that Carabin & Shaw actually terminated her because of her pregnancy.  This type of situation—where an employer fires an employee while she is out on leave—is all too familiar.  When employees go on leave, they often draw the ire of their employers who have to take steps to get the employees’ work done while they are out.

Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) have co-sponsored a bill called the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The bill would require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant employees so that they could continue to work during their pregnancies. Employers have to provide similar accommodations to employees with disabilities and this law would utilize that same accommodation process for pregnant employees.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act could require, for instance, an employer to permit a pregnant worker to carry a water bottle with her so that she can drink the amount of water that her doctor recommends. Similarly, it could require an employer to let a pregnant worker who would normally stand to do her job, such as a cashier, to sit on a stool instead.

Senators Shaheen and Ayotte recognize that the Supreme Court issued a ruling earlier this year in a case where a pregnant UPS worker required an accommodation but the Senators believe that the Court’s decision left too many unanswered questions. They believe that this law will make it clear for both employers and workers that pregnant workers are entitled to reasonable accommodations.

Last month in California, a federal jury found that AutoZone discriminated against Rosario Juarez, a former employee, because she was pregnant.  The jury awarded Juarez $872,000 for the damages she suffered plus $185 million in punitive damages.

Juarez claimed that AutoZone demoted her from her management position in 2006 after she informed the company that she was pregnant.  Juarez told her district manager that she was pregnant and, according to her, he said “congratulations…I guess” and then said “I feel sorry for you.”  AutoZone claimed that it demoted her because she misplaced $400 in cash.  But the loss prevention officer who investigated the missing money said that he did not think Juarez was to blame for the missing money.

Pregnancy discrimination is unlawful under Maine and federal law.  In Maine, if a jury returned a verdict of $185 million in punitive damages, damage caps in the Maine Human Rights Act would require the court to reduce the award to, at most, $500,000.  While this may seem like a lot of money, to a company like AutoZone–which reportedly pulled in $9.5 billion in revenue between August 2013 and August 2014–$500,000 does not have much of an effect.