In August, the EEOC won summary judgment against Bob Evans on behalf of a pregnant server employed in a West Mifflin, PA restaurant. At approximately 7 months into the server’s pregnancy, the restaurant’s manager unilaterally decided to cut a her hours, removing her from all scheduled shifts and only allowing her to work on an on-call basis. The manager argued he needed reliability in staffing and did not believe the pregnant server could provide this during her third trimester.
The EEOC brought a lawsuit on behalf of the pregnant server, and successfully argued the manager’s actions violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The trial court found Bob Evans acted with discriminatory motives when it unilaterally removed the server from her shifts solely due to her pregnancy and without any information or indication that she was unable to perform her job duties. A copy of the court’s decision is available here: http://www.employmentandlaborinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/328/2017/08/Blog.9.1.17.EEOC-v.-Bob-Evans.pdf
Additionally, the EEOC has recently filed two other cases pursuing causes of action related to pregnancy — a case against Estee Lauder for disparities between the company’s maternity and paternity leave; the other against a hospice facility in Wisconsin that refused to provide a pregnant employee with a requested accommodation. Both of those cases are in the very early litigation stage.