Senate Aging Committee Pledges to Fight Age Discrimination in Employment

At a hearing on Wednesday, leaders of the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging vowed to “fix” a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision that makes it very difficult for older workers to fight age discrimination in federal court.

Committee Chairperson Susan Collins, R-ME, and Ranking Leader Bob Casey, D-PA,  also acknowledged the upcoming 50th anniversary of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on December 15, 1967.

Collins and Casey addressed the Supreme Court’s catastrophic 2009 decision, in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, which raised the burden of proof in ADEA cases far above that of race or sex discrimination cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Since Gross, older workers have been required prove that age discrimination was not just a motivating factor but the decisive factor in an adverse employment action. The Gross decision legalized a broad swath of  discrimination that is illegal under Title VII and sent a signal to employers that age discrimination will be tolerated.

 “For the life of me,” said Collins, “I don’t understand why there is a higher burden for proving that age discrimination was the reason for the adverse employment action … compared to gender, religion, race.”

The legislators expressed strong support for a bill they are sponsoring, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act (POWADA), which would essentially restore the status quo with respect to the plaintiff’s evidentiary burden prior to the Gross decision. The bill  has been introduced several times since 2009 but has never made it out of committee to a vote. Sen. Casey, who worked on age discrimination cases as an attorney, said it was always hard for workers to fight back against insidious age discrimination but that it is even harder today “because the Supreme Court weakened the ADEA and we’ve got to fix that.”

A witness at the hearing, Laurie McCann, a senior attorney for the AARP, urged the Committee to hold a series of hearings to learn what changes are needed to update and strengthen the ADEA to adequately protect older workers. “The AARP believes that it is well past time to update and strengthen the ADEA so that it can respond to the challenges facing today’s older workers in today’s workplace,” she said.

As I demonstrated in my 2013 book, Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace, the ADEA was far weaker than Title VII when it was adopted 50 years ago and it has since been eviscerated by the U.S. Supreme Court.  In the book, I proposed repealing the ADEA and making age a protected class under Title VII, as was originally proposed when the passage of Title VII was being debated by Congress.

According to McCann, three in ten near-retiree-age (55-64) households have no retirement savings at all and the median retirement savings of all near-retiree households was only $14,500 in 2013. McCann said financial need is by far the most important reason that workers aged 45-74 work. She blamed age discrimination on persistent negative stereotypes and discriminatory employer recruitment practices, including advertising for “digital natives,” specifying a maximum number of years of experience or limiting recruitment to entry-level positions on college campuses.

Financial need is by far the most important reason that workers aged 45-74 work – AARP.

The committee also issued a report on Wednesday examining the nation’s aging workforce, “America’s Aging Workforce: Opportunities and Challenges.”  The report states the number of Americans over age 55 in the labor force is projected to increase from 35.7 million in 2016 to 42.1 million in 2026, and, by 2026, aging workers will make up nearly one quarter of the labor force.  The business case for hiring, retaining, and supporting older workers is strong, according to the report, but challenges exist – including age discrimination, inadequate training opportunities, working while managing health conditions and disabilities, balancing caregiving responsibilities with work, and preparing financially for retirement.

Collins said U.S. employers are going to need older workers in the years ahead and can’t afford to “discard skills and experience that older workers bring to workplace.”

Another witness, Lisa Motta, 54, from Pittsburgh, Pa., testified about re-entering the workforce in her 50s  after having lost her sight. A former teacher, she now works as a recruiting administrator at PNC Bank. “As America’s workforce grows older, more and more workers will face challenges like these and will need additional supports and accommodations,” Motta said. “They will also need laws in place that ensure that when they walk into an interview they do not face any form of discrimination. When we make it easier for these workers to succeed, everyone benefits.”

Prior to Wednesday’s hearing, the Senate aging committee was criticized for failing to act in the face of the epidemic of age discrimination in the workplace that occurred during and since the Great Recession.

Absent from Wednesday’s hearing was a representative from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which has ignored a major spike in age discrimination complaints dsince 2008 and rampant age discrimination in the federal government, and has issued administrative decisions that reflect a higher standard in age discrimination cases than in race or sex discrimination case.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce No “Friend of the Court”

Nice to see someone calling out the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which frequently inserts itself into national litigation as a “friend of the court.”

In reality, the Chamber is almost always an advocate for a dues paying corporate member and espouses a position that is anti-employee and anti-consumer. In 2014, I argued the Chamber was a federal court lobbyist.

According to Reuters, the firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein has opposed  the Chamber’s request to file an amicus or “friend of the court” brief in a case involving a challenge by Direct TV to the certification of a class action by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.  Lieff’s brief argues the Chamber, the Chamber’s lawyers, DirectTV and Direct TV’s lawyers are bound so closely together that even under a liberal reading of the definition of an amicus curiae, the Chamber cannot legitimately be regarded as a friend of the court.

“The Chamber is not merely a friend of the party, but essentially the party itself.” – Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein

Continue reading “U.S. Chamber of Commerce No “Friend of the Court””

Support for American Workers is Hard to Find

Who is standing up for the rights of American workers?

GOP President Donald Trump and the GOP-led U.S. Congress seem to be determined to eliminate worker rights rather than to expand them. Trump has reversed a bevy of pro-labor measures that former Democratic President Barack Obama enacted on his own without Congressional backing. Meanwhile, workers continue to seethe about mostly Democratic trade policies that sent American jobs to other countries.

Labor unions are barely hanging on, despite the fact that unions pioneered many of the employment benefits that workers take for granted today. In 2016, the union rate for private sector workers was 6.4 percent – down from 20.1 percent in 1983.  Organized labor is currently battling a potentially crippling effort by Trump and the GOP to prevent unions from requiring nonmembers to pay representation fees.

It may be an understatement to say that advocacy of worker rights  does not appear to be high on the agendas of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and US. Department of Labor.

Under the Democratic administration of President Barack Obama,  the EEOC shifted its focus away from filing lawsuits and prosecuting employers who engaged in illegal discrimination. Instead, the EEOC is focused on providing free dispute resolution services to these very same employers. Mediation is often a lousy deal for discrimination victims, who walk away with a pittance to compensate for the loss of a decent job, but it’s always a great deal for employers, who avoid potentially catastrophic fees and damages stemming from a lawsuit.  Also, mediation is completely secret so other potential litigants are kept in the dark.  Meanwhile, the EEOC has for years ignored one of the most pressing civil rights issues of our day – blatant and epidemic age discrimination in hiring that is particularly devastating to older women, who suffer twice the poverty rate of men in their old age.  The EEOC received more than 20,000 age discrimination complaints in 2016; it  filed only TWO lawsuits with “age discrimination claims.” Continue reading “Support for American Workers is Hard to Find”

EEOC Official Blasts Age Discrim. in High Tech Industry

 Cathy Ventrell-Monsees, senior counsel for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC),  singled out the problem of virulent age discrimination in the high tech industry during a talk Tuesday before the National Press Foundation.

“Some of our offices have made it a priority in  looking at age discrimination in the tech industry,” she told journalists during a question and answer period.

Age discrimination in Silicon Valley has been  open and flagrant for years, and has been the subject of  numerous articles in both this blog and national publications.  A class action age discrimination lawsuit was filed against Google, Inc. on April 22 by software engineer Robert Heath who was interviewed but not hired for a position there in 2011 when he was 60-years-of-age. The lawsuit alleges Google has demonstrated a pattern and practice of violating the Age Discrimination in Employment and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.EEOC.TechsYoungWorkforce

Vontrell-Monsees  observed that 70% of IT staff surveyed by Information Week said they’ve witnesses or experienced age discrimination. In addition, she said, 42% of age 50+ workers in the high tech industry consider age to be a liability in their career – more than double the rate of other industries.  She also pointed to job advertisements in the tech industry for “digital natives,” “recent” or “new” graduates or “Class of 2007 or 2008 preferred”. She said that “there’s no question age discrimination is a challenge for older workers.”

Vontrell-Monsees’ address is significant because the EEOC has ignored an unprecedented increase in age discrimination claims that began with the Great Recession. In my book, Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace, I show that the number of age discrimination claims jumped from 19,103 in 2007 to an all-time high of 24,582 in 2008. Meanwhile, the number of lawsuits filed by the EEOC with age discrimination claims declined from a modern-day high of 50 in 2006 to a low of seven lawsuits in 2013. This despite the fact that age discrimination catapults older workers into long-term unemployment, forced retirement, and poverty or near poverty in their old age. Having acknowledged the problem, one can only hope the EEOC will now do something about it.

Here are some of other points made by Ventrell-Monsees in her address:

  • Unemployment for people aged 50 and older more than doubled to 7.6%from 2007 to 2011.
  • Older workers remain unemployed for the longest periods – 36 weeks in 2011 compared to 26 weeks for younger job seekers.
  • More than one-third of all unemployed older workers in 2011 had been unemployed for more than a year.
  • The percentage of age discrimination cases filed by women jumped from 32 percent in 2007 to 45 percent in 2013. She added that proving age discrimination in court is difficult.

Age Issue Overlooked in U.S. Supreme Court Debate

The U.S. Supreme Court on January 13 will hear arguments in an important case in which industry groups are seeking to force the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to engage in time-consuming and fruitless  “conciliation” efforts with recalcitrant employers prior to filing a lawsuit against the employer.

One federal appeals court has characterized the so-called “failure to conciliate” defense  – which permits employers to argue that the EEOC didn’t try hard enough to settle a case before filing a lawsuit – a cynical tactic that employers pursue to waste EEOC resources and delay a finding of  liability for employment discrimination.

Interminable delays arguably have the most severe impact  in age discrimination cases because older workers have less time remaining in the workplace (and elsewhere) to achieve justice under the law. I wrote an article this week about two plaintiffs in an age discrimination case who actually died while their cases languished in a Kansas federal court for almost a decade.  Yet, the issue of the devastating impact of delay in age discrimination cases has not been raised in the Mach Mining case.

The U.S. Congress requires the EEOC to conduct conciliation proceedings as a precondition to suing an employer for employment discrimination. In some cases, federal judges have issued one ruling that unilaterally dismisses dozens of substantive claims brought by victims of  egregious discrimination because they deemed the EEOC’s conciliation efforts to be inadequate.

In early 2008, the EEOC received a complaint from a woman  alleging that Mach Mining had denied her employment as a coal miner because of her sex. The EEOC chose to prosecute the case, thereby depriving the woman of the right to file a federal lawsuit on her own behalf. The EEOC presented Mach Mining with a verbal conciliation demand in an effort to resolve the dispute, which Mach Mining rejected. The EEOC then filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Mach Mining  had never hired a woman for a mining position and did not even have a women‘s changing room.  For more details about the issue and the case, see Mach Mining v. EEOC.

For six years, Mach Mining has successfully shifted the focus of the case from its alleged systemic hiring discrimination against women to whether the EEOC engaged in sufficient conciliation efforts prior to filing suit. And that’s the problem with the “failure to conciliate” defense.  At best, it delays justice while the parties squabble over what should be a simple procedural matter.  Did the EEOC make an offer of conciliation?  Did the employer accept or reject the offer?

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently the focus of furious lobbying efforts led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to obtain the Court’s stamp of approval for judicial oversight over the EEOC’s conciliation efforts.  In addition to the Chamber, an amicus brief was filed by the Society for Human Resource Management, the world’s largest human resources membership organization, and  the so-called Equal Employment Advisory Council, a nationwide association of employers that includes over 250 major U.S. corporations; the American Insurance Association; and, the Retail Litigation Center, Inc.

On the other side, an amicus brief supporting he EEOC’s position was filed by the states of Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois and Washington; the  “women’s rights organizations” Equal Rights Advocates of San Francisco and Legal Momentum of New York; and the Impact Fund, a nonprofit foundation based in Berkeley California that focuses on public impact litigation involving civil rights, environmental justice and poverty law. Signing on to the Impact Fund’s amicus brief were the AARP,  the National Employment Lawyers Association; Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus;  Disability Rights California;  and, Public Counsel.

The brief filed by the Impact Fund was general in nature and did not address how the so-called “failure to conciliate” defense affects specific groups like older workers.  Ideally, the AARP, which touts itself as the nation’s premiere advocacy group for Americans over the age of 50, would have followed the example of the women’s groups by filing an independent amicus brief addressing the particularly severe impact of  needless delay in age discrimination cases.

In my recent book, Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace, I argue that age discrimination  in employment is epidemic in the United States because the Age Discrimination in Employment Act  of 1967 was weak to begin with and has been eviscerated by the U.S. Supreme Court.   Older workers literally are treated like second class citizens under the laws of the United States.  Meanwhile, the EEOC has virtually ignored a record increase in age discrimination complaints brought during and since the Great Recession.

Is the EEOC Finally Noticing Age Discrimination?

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission  filed its second lawsuit this month alleging age discrimination, indicating a possible uptick in EEOC efforts in this long-neglected area.

The lawsuit touches upon the widespread problem of discriminatory hiring practices in the legal profession, which vies with higher education as the most egregious in terms age discrimination.

In my new book, Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace, I note the EEOC has essentially ignored a record increase in age discrimination complaints filed with the agency during and since the Great Recession.  For example, the EEOC received more than 21,000 age discrimination complaints in 2013 but filed only seven lawsuits with age discrimination claims that year.  Meanwhile, older workers are mired in the ranks of the chronically unemployed and under-employed until they are forced into a penurious early “retirement.”

The EEOC charges that Strategic Legal Resources, Inc., a  staffing firm that does business as Strategic Legal Solutions, rescinded an offer of hire made to attorney Claudia Zacks after she complied with a company request to provide her date of birth. Zacks was 70 years of age at the time.

The Executive Director of the company’s Real Estates Services Division in New York City emailed Zacks in August 2012 and offered her a position to work on a document review project that was to begin the next day in Novi, Michigan. After Zacks accepted, the company asked Zacks to provide additional information, including her date of birth.

The lawsuit alleges that a Recruitment Coordinator for the company called Zacks and insisted that Zacks “could not possibly arrive at the job site in time on the next day.”  Zacks finally expressed concern the company was rescinding its job offer because of her age. The Recruitment Coordinator “responded that not only would Zacks not work on this assignment but she would be placed on the ‘do not use’ list and she need not apply for future job opportunities” with the company.

The EEOC charges that Strategic Legal Solutions also denied Zack future employment. In Spring 2013, Zack answered an anonymous Craigslist posting for individuals interested in working on a document review project. Zacks was hired by a different Strategic Legal Solutions office  to work on a document review project in Novi, Michigan. After three days on the project, she was summarily terminated.

The lawsuit asks the court to order Strategic Legal Solutions to pay Zachs appropriate back wages, liquidated damages and interest.

Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, it is illegal  “for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or other­wise to discriminate against, any individual because of such individual’s age, or to classify or refer for employment any individual on the basis of such individual’s age.”  However, a glance at internet employment sites will show that this provision is widely ignored by employers, employment agencies and even the federal government, all of whom seek applicants who are  “recent” college graduates.

Settlement is Mother’s Day Gift to Working Mothers

On the heels of Mother’s Day,  a Texas woman has won an important victory for all nursing mothers in the workplace.

Donnicia Vetters  accepted an out of court settlement of $15,000  on the eve of a trial in her lawsuit alleging pregnancy discrimination by her former employer, Houston Funding II, LLC, a Houston, TX,  debt collection agency.  After giving birth in 2012, Vetters inquired whether  she would be able to pump breast milk when she returned to her job.  Her boss allegedly responded by telling her that her position had been “filled.”

If that wasn’t outrageous enough,  U.S.  District Judge Lynn N. Hughes of Houston summarily  dismissed Vetters’ lawsuit against Houston Funding on the grounds that “lactation is not pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.” He said that “firing someone because of lactation or breast-pumping is not sex discrimination.” Judge Hughes, who is male, suggested that “pregnancy-related conditions” end on the day that a mother gives birth.

Fortunately, Judge Hughes’ opinion was unanimously reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which held that firing a woman because she is expressing milk is unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978).  Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to protect working women against discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition.

Ms. Vetters was represented in the case by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

In  EEOC v. Houston Funding II, LLC, the Fifth Circuit noted the biological fact that lactation is a physiological condition distinct to women who have undergone a pregnancy.  Accordingly, the court said, firing a woman because she is expressing milk is unlawful sex discrimination, since men as a matter of biology could not be fired for such a reason. The case was remanded back to the lower court for a trial on the merits.

Instead of showing some decency, acknowledging fault and apologizing to Ms. Vetters, an attorney for Houston Funding was quoted as blaming the EEOC for forcing it to pay up.

The monetary settlement won’t put Ms. Vetters’ baby through college, and won’t compensate for the loss of a job in a difficult economy, but it is a great victory for all working mothers to know that they can’t be fired simply because they choose to nurture their infants with breast milk.

Employment Discrimination Lawsuits Down

Are hostile  judges and institutional barriers that limit access to justice for the poor and middle class suppressing the number of  employment discrimination lawsuits filed in our nation’s courts?

According to the 2014 issue of the Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report, class action employment discrimination filings declined by about 14 percent in 2013. There were a total of 12,311 lawsuits in 2013, compared to 14,260 in 2012.

A survey by the American Bar Foundation in 2012 found that 75 percent of complainants feel the federal court’s handling of their discrimination lawsuit is profoundly unfair. Complainants said that either the whole legal system or specific aspects of it are biased against victims. They complained  about institutional barriers, such as the difficulty in securing a competent attorney.  See Berrey, Ellen C., et al., Situated Justice: A Contextual Analysis of Fairness and Inequality in Employment Discrimination Litigation,” 46 Law & Society Review 1,  pp. 1-36)(2012).

The class action litigation report, produced by the corporate law firm, Seyfarth Shaw, states the ten largest employment discrimination class action cases in 2013 resulted in a total of $234.1 million in damages.  If one particularly large settlement of $160 million  was factored out, the 2013 total would be the second lowest since 2006. The   $160 million  settlement came in the case of McReynolds, et al. v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Case No. 05-CV-6583 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 6, 2013), a class action lawsuit brought  by African American employees alleging unfair pay and promotions.

The biggest settlements in 2013 involved nationwide classes and included six gender, two race, and one disability related discrimination class action.

The total amount of damages in employment discrimination cases for each year are as follows:

  • 2012 – $48.6 million;
  • 2011 – $123.2 million;
  •  2010 – $346.4 million;
  • 2009 – $86.2 million;
  •  2008 – $118.36 million;
  •  2007 – $282.1 million; and
  •  2006 – $91 million.

The report states there may be a significant jump in employment discrimination cases in 2014 because the number of complaints filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2011 and 2012 were the highest in the 48-year history of the Commission.  These complaints are now ripe for litigation.


EEOC to Examine National Origin Discrimination

EEOCAn aspect of discrimination law that is gaining increasing attention is, not surprisingly, national origin discrimination.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)will meet on Nov. 13 in Washington, DC, to examine issues and hear testimony related to the problem of national origin discrimination.

The backdrop of the EEOC’s meeting is impending immigration reform and the rise in the percentage of foreign-born workers in the U.S. workforce.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported in May that there are 25 million foreign-born persons in the U.S. labor force, making up 16.1 percent of the total workforce. Hispanics accounted for 48.3 percent of the foreign-born labor force in 2012 and Asians accounted for 23.7 percent. The BLS reports that  the proportion of the foreign-born labor force made up of 25 – 54 year olds (75.6 percent) is now higher than for the native-born labor force (63.4 percent).

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964  and EEOC rules “national origin” discrimination includes the denial of equal employment opportunity because of an individual’s place of origin, their ancestor’s place of origin,  or because of the physical, cultural or linguistic characteristics of a national origin group.

Counsel for employers, in written testimony submitted to the EEOC, describe the enormous challenges faced by employers in tackling discrimination issues involving foreign-born workers.

Douglas J. Farmer, of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, writes that  many foreign-born workers have little or no understanding of basic legal prohibitions on discrimination or harassment, have never seen an anti-harassment policy, and have never participated in anti-harassment training.  In one workplace, he states, an employer was confronted with a workforce in which workers spoke 60 different languages and dialects.

“Several of our employer clients have expressed concern that employer cost and lack of technical expertise present significant obstacles to the translation and effective implementation of policies and training programs,” Farmer writes.

He urged the EEOC to make anti-discrimination and harassment policies and educational programs available in multiple languages  to help employers convey these concepts to foreign-born employees in a cost-effective manner.

Rebecca  Smith, Deputy Director of the National Employment Law Project (NELP), urges the EEOC to address  “second-generation discrimination” practices that involve cultural attributes (language, accent) as well as stereotypes associated with a particular national origin or ethnic group. She said this form of discrimination can be seen in discriminatory recruitment practices and occupational segregation by ethnicity or national origin   For example, a restaurant may employ an Hispanic worker as a dishwasher but not as a server because of his or her accent.

Smith also said some unscrupulous American employers are using labor recruiters from the source country that are notorious for discrimination to handle the hiring of foreign-born workers, while arguing that they are not responsible for labor violations committed by their recruiters. In this way, Smith writes, the employer can shift labor costs and liabilities to the smaller entity, which is often an undercapitalized firm that cannot satisfy potential judgments against it

Smith also writes that harassment and threats of deportation are “almost standard operating procedure” in some guestworker-dominated work sites

NELP estimates that eight million undocumented workers form 5.2 percent of the U.S. labor force.

Perhaps it is a sign of the times but no union representative is slated to testify before the EEOC at the hearing.

Pregnancy Discrimination Act: 35 Years Later

No Accommodation Requirement

Thirty five years ago this week, President Jimmy Carter signed into law the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA).

The PDA,  an amendment of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, has proven to be a weak tool to combat  a major societal problem;  It  requires employers to treat pregnant women like others in the workplace but  it does not require employers to make even minimal accommEEOCodation for pregnancy-related conditions  (such as difficulties standing for long period, lifting restrictions, insufficient bathroom breaks, etc.).

Efforts last year to address the PDA’s shortcomings died in the U.S. Congress but the U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) in its 2013-2016 strategic plan  identified combating pregnancy discrimination as a top priority. The EEOC, which is responsible for enforcing the PDA, characterizes the problem as an “emerging and developing” issue. Specifically, the EEOC said it would address the problem of “accommodating pregnancy-related limitations” under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act and the PDA.

The EEOC and Fair Employment Practice Agencies around the country reported 5,797 complaints of pregnancy discrimination in 2011.

True to its word, the EEOC has filed a spate of lawsuits this year to combat pregnancy discrimination. Most, if not all,  of these lawsuits involve individual defendants and somewhat minor settlements but the EEOC’s effort raises awareness of the problem and, hopefully, puts employers on notice that they are being watched.

 Lawsuits Filed

Here is a sampling of the lawsuits filed this year by the EEOC involving the PDA:

  •  EEOC v. Reed Pierce’s Sportsman’ Grille:  A woman who was four months pregnant with her first child was fired because, her supervisor allegedly said, “The baby is taking its toll on you.”  The EEOC  filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.  After the defendant lost two motions to dismiss the case, it settled for $20,000.
  • EEOC v. Ramin, Inc.:   Ramin Inc., the owner of a Comfort Inn & Suites, allegedly fired a  housekeeper after she reported her pregnancy because of supposed concerns about potential harm that her job could cause the baby.  The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The defendant agreed to pay $2,500 in back pay and $25,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.
  • EEOC v. Engineering Documentation Systems, Inc.:  A management official allegedly made derogatory remarks about a pregnant worker and  refused her request to move her office closer to the restroom to accommodate her nausea.  While she was out on leave, the company changed her job description and then terminated her.  The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The defendant agreed to pay $70,000 to settle the case.
  • EEOC v. James E. Brown & Associates, PLLC:  A  Washington based law firm offered Zorayda J. Moreira-Smith a position as an associate attorney in January 2011.  The firm allegedly rescinded its job offer  the same day after when Moreira-Smith told them she was six months pregnant and asked the firm about its maternity leave policies.  The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The defendant agreed to pay an $18,000 settlement,  to implement a non-discrimination policy and  to provide training to the firm’s personnel.
  • EEOC v. Platinum P.T.S. Inc. D/B/A/ Platinum Production Testing Services:  A clerk  requested time off for medical treatment relating to her miscarriage.  After she missed five days of work,  the defendant fired her.  The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The defendant agreed to pay $100,000 to settle the pregnancy discrimination suit.

U.S. Sen. Robert Casey, Jr., of Pennsylvania proposed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) in 2012 to guarantee pregnant women the right to reasonable accommodation when the short-term physical effects of pregnancy conflict with the demands of a particular job, as long as the accommodation does not impose an undue hardship on the employer. The bill died in committee.