In recent years, women have become more vigilant about reporting alleged discrimination.1 In 1992, 3,385 people filed complaints of pregnancy discrimination with the EEOC. By 2007, that number jumped to 5,587.2
Last year, the EEOC filed suit against Bloomberg, LP, the financial news service, in a class action that now includes 72 current and former employees who became pregnant while working at the company. The suit was originally started when three women brought allegations of pregnancy discrimination to the attention of the EEOC. The EEOC investigated the claims and found that women in the company “lost momentum” after becoming pregnant and were subsequently “transferred, displaced, and/or demoted.”
Following this investigation, the EEOC filed suit, alleging that Bloomberg engaged in a pattern of reducing women’s pay after they announced their pregnancies or returned from maternity leave. Additionally, some women claimed that they were replaced by junior male counterparts, purposely excluded from management meetings, and subjected to stereotypes concerning their ability to perform their jobs because of family responsibilities. These included receiving comments such as “You are not committed” and “You do not want to be here” after returning from maternity leave.
Discovery in the case is ongoing and is expected to last through June 2009. Approximately 150 to 200 depositions will be taken in the case, including that of founder Michael Bloomberg who, while not a named party in the case, retains controlling shares of the company.
The following other recent cases involve allegations of discrimination in violation of the PDA:
Doe v. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 358 (Pa. 2008).Jane Doe was hired as a graphic artist for C.A.R.S. in the summer of 1999. In May 2000, Doe learned that she was pregnant and informed her employer, Fred Kohl. A few months later, after a series of tests revealed severe abnormalities with the fetus, Doe’s physician recommended that the pregnancy be terminated. Doe and her husband agreed.
According to Doe’s husband, he called the company every day during the testing and diagnosis process and received approval from Kohl for Doe’s absence. The day before the abortion, Doe’s husband called Kohl and informed him that the pregnancy was scheduled to be terminated the following day and requested that Doe be granted a week’s vacation following the abortion. Doe’s husband testified that Kohl granted this request.
Following the abortion, a funeral was planned and held for Doe’s baby. That same day, Kohl packed up Doe’s office and informed her that she had been terminated from the office.
There was evidence presented that C.A.R.S. had a policy that required employees to call in and gain approval for absences every day that the absence was required. However, evidence also showed that male employees with disabilities were not routinely held to this standard. Testimony was also presented showing that Kohl had made disapproving statements regarding Doe’s decision to obtain an abortion.
Doe brought suit in federal court, and summary judgment was granted to C.A.R.S. Doe appealed to the 3rd Circuit, which reversed the judgment. While the court noted that this was not a typical claim under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, they found for Doe, holding that the plain language of the PDA “together with the legislative history and EEOC guidelines, support a conclusion that an employee may not discriminate against a woman employee because she has exercised her right to have an abortion.”
Hulteen v. AT&T Corp., 498 F.3d 1001 (Cal. 2007)(en banc) For over a hundred years, AT&T offered employee benefits based on a “Net Credit Service” (NCS), which was calculated from an employee’s hire date and then adjusted forward for any time that an employee was not working and thus not earning credit.
Before 1977, employees who took pregnancy leave were granted a maximum of 30 days of leave before their NCS date was adjusted forward for any additional time used. During this same period, employees on regular temporary disability leave had no such limits on the number of days they could use before credit was removed.
The women who filed suit against AT&T were employees who took pregnancy leave before the 1977 Pregnancy Discrimination Amendment to Title VII. Collectively, they argued that the pensions they received after retiring were smaller because of AT&T’s failure to provide them with full credit for pregnancy leave taken before the effective date of the PDA, in violation of Title VII. The 9th Circuit Court held that, although the initial act of discrimination — disallowing pregnancy leave to be treated in a manner similar to other temporary disabilities — occurred before the passage of the PDA, the act of calculating the plaintiffs’ retirement benefits according to the adjusted NCS date was discriminatory because it deprived them of benefits received by those not affected by pregnancy.
AT&T filed a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, which was ultimately granted.
Oral arguments were heard on this issue in December 2008.
Lehman v. Kohl’s Department Store Teresa Lehman was an employee for Kohl’s Department Store for approximately 10 years as an assistant manager. Despite her supervisors’ assurances that she was among the top candidates for a promotion, she was repeatedly passed over. Five store manager positions were given to less-experienced and less-qualified men within a two-month period, as well as to women with no children or to women who assured their bosses they would have no more children.
On occasion, one of Lehman’s supervisors allegedly asked her, “You’re not going to get pregnant again, are you?” “Did you get your tubes tied?” and “Are you breastfeeding?” Lehman alleged that Kohl’s failure to promote her was punishment for her becoming pregnant. The jury agreed and awarded her $2.1 million.
Return to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act homepage
1 "Pregnancy Discrimination Charges EEOC & FEPAs Combined: FY 1992 - FY 1996," The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 31 January 2007, http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/pregnanc-a.html.
2 "Pregnancy Discrimination Charges EEOC & FEPAs Combined: FY 1997 - FY 2007," The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 26 February 2008, http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/pregnanc.html.
