Dive Brief:
- St. Clair Restaurant Management allegedly failed to accommodate and fired a 17-year-old worker at a Zaxby’s restaurant in Lynn Haven, Florida, because she was pregnant and asked for a “modest” accommodation, according to a July 7 lawsuit (Moody v. St. Clair Restaurant Management d/b/a Zaxby’s).
- Per the complaint, the restaurant hired the teen to work as a cashier at the front counter. After she started, the manager told her he needed her to work in the kitchen, which was hot and dangerous, the lawsuit alleged. The teen, in the late stages of her pregnancy, reminded him she was pregnant and expressed discomfort about doing so, but complied.
- As the shift went by, the teen felt faint, according to the complaint. During a break, she asked for her cashier job back to accommodate her pregnancy. The manager allegedly refused. He later ordered her to work the drive-thru counter, but then abruptly told her to go home, stating that, “This is not going to work,” the lawsuit said. She sued, alleging gender and pregnancy discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Dive Insight:
St. Clair Restaurant Management declined to comment on the lawsuit.
Title VII has expressly prohibited pregnancy discrimination since 1978, when Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and amended Title VII to clarify that pregnancy discrimination is a form of gender discrimination.
The PDA prohibits a wide scope of actions, including refusing to hire or firing someone because of their pregnancy. Employers can usually avoid such actions by not making decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about a pregnant individual’s ability or commitment to the job, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission explains in a guidance.
For example, in a recent lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that the owner of an Austin, Texas, bar violated the PDA by firing a pregnant bartender because it “was genuinely scared something bad would happen to her” if there was a bar fight.
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act clarifies a related issue: How far do employers have to go to accommodate a pregnant employee?
The answer is that under the PWFA, which took effect last year, reasonable accommodations will likely be required in most cases.
In particular, the PWFA broadly requires an employer, absent undue hardship, to reasonably accommodate a qualified employee’s known limitation “related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions,” an EEOC guidance states.
This may involve providing an employee with an additional chair or stool, or break time or time to access medication, so she can rest or deal with nausea, an attorney previously told HR Dive. It’s also possible an employee could request an exception from certain strenuous or hazardous activities, the attorney noted.
To explore possible accommodations, the EEOC suggests an interactive process similar to what’s recommended for complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to an agency tip sheet for employees.
The teen in the Zaxby’s case alleged that after she felt faint from working in the kitchen and asked the manager if she could go back to her cashier job to accommodate her pregnancy, an employee working at the front counter offered to switch places.
According to the lawsuit, instead of engaging “in a good-faith discussion about her need for accommodation,” the manager allegedly told the teen to “stay in the back” and brushed off her concern that she might pass out from the kitchen heat.
The teen also alleged he violated Title VII and the PDA by creating a hostile work environment because of her gender and pregnancy and fired her in retaliation for asking for an accommodation.
