Dive Brief:
- Supermarket chain Publix allegedly fired a pregnant employee because she needed accommodations for pregnancy-related medical conditions and planned to take leave for her upcoming childbirth, according to a Dec. 31 lawsuit.
- Per the complaint in Wyatt v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., the employee worked as an inventory control analyst at a store in Polk County, Florida. During her pregnancy in 2023, she experienced severe morning sickness and pregnancy-related hypertension, the lawsuit alleged. Early on, she was called back to the store from teleworking and eventually required to report to work at 5 a.m., when her morning sickness was at its worst, the complaint said.
- After the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act took effect in June 2023, Publix granted the employee’s request to work from home, with breaks as needed, according to the lawsuit. Shortly before her due date, Publix fired her, purportedly for completing work without being logged in, although it allegedly never told her this was a problem and didn’t discipline similarly situated workers who weren’t pregnant, the complaint stated.
Dive Insight:
The employee sued Publix for violating the PWFA, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Florida Civil Rights Act.
In particular, the employee alleged that Publix fired her because she requested and used a reasonable accommodation for her pregnancy-related limitations, medical conditions and disability. She also alleged she was terminated because she planned to take FMLA leave for the baby’s birth and care.
A representative for Publix told HR Dive it would be inappropriate for the company to comment on pending litigation.
The lawsuit reminds employers that preventing pregnancy discrimination often involves issues that go beyond ensuring pregnant employees are provided with reasonable accommodation.
However, the PWFA and the ADA place the accommodation requirement at front and center.
Specifically, under the PWFA, absent under hardship, employers must provide a reasonable accommodation to a qualified employee or applicant’s known limitation related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, according to a general guidance from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
This includes episodic limitations like migraines or morning sickness, the guidance notes.
Recent EEOC lawsuits offer examples. For instance, in one case, the EEOC sued an employer for allegedly denying a pregnant employee’s request to transfer to a role that didn’t require her to lie on her stomach. In another case, an employer allegedly refused to let an employee sit, take breaks or work part time as her doctor required for the final trimester of her high-risk pregnancy.
In a third case, an employer agreed to pay $100,000 to settle EEOC allegations it violated the PWFA by not accommodating and firing an employee who asked for leave to recuperate from and grieve her stillborn baby.
The ADA comes into play because although pregnancy itself is not a disability, a pregnant employee may have a related condition that qualifies as a disability under the ADA and requires an accommodation, an EEOC overview of pregnancy discrimination explains.
Additionally, relevant to pregnant workers, the FMLA entitles eligible employees to take unpaid, job-protected leave for the birth of a child, to care for the newborn within one year of birth, or for a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the essential functions of her job, a U.S. Department of Labor guidance points out.
As it does for other protected classes, Title VII, through the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, prohibits employers from treating women affected by pregnancy less favorably than other employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work, an EEOC enforcement guidance states.
Title VII also prohibits harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions.
In the Wyatt lawsuit, the employee alleged her immediate supervisor at Publix didn’t oppose her accommodations, but that his boss was dismissive of her symptoms and suggested she should be able to manage them without special treatment.
Even after she was allowed to work remotely prior to her termination, the supervisor’s boss allegedly continued to make inappropriate comments, repeatedly asked her to work in-person and became hostile when she tried to rebuff or ignore that pressure, according to the complaint.
