New Pregnancy Accommodation Requirements Coming to Illinois in January 2015

On August 26, 2014, Governor Pat Quinn of Illinois signed the so-called “Pregnancy Fairness bill” into law, creating broad new protections for pregnant workers in Illinois. The legislation, which comes on the heels of the EEOC’s recent federal pregnancy discrimination guidance, amends the Illinois Human Rights Act and creates substantial new rules for employers interacting with pregnant employees and job applicants. Notably, small employers are not exempt from the Illinois law — all employers operating in Illinois will be subject to the new rules. More ›

EEOC Issues new Guidance on Pregnancy, Outlines Broader Accommodation Requirements for Pregnant Employees

On July 14, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued new guidance on pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. The document, titled Enforcement Guidance: Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues, is the first official update of the Commission’s position on pregnancy since 1983. The Guidance document is comprised of four parts: Part I, discussing equal treatment of pregnant and non-pregnant employees under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA); Part II, addressing treatment of pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions as disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (ADAAA); Part III, reviewing other federal and state laws impacting pregnant workers; and Part IV, setting forth the EEOC’s best practices for employers. While not rising to the level of new law or regulations, the EEOC’s Guidance will be looked to by the Commission’s own investigators and, most likely, by federal courts. As such, the Guidance is a significant new tool for employers as they seek to avoid claims of discrimination involving gender and pregnancy. More ›

Seventh Circuit: Employer’s Shifting Explanations for Termination Suggest Pregnancy Discrimination

Employers take heed: in a decision issued earlier this week, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that an employer’s varying explanations for terminating a pregnant employee indicated possible discrimination, even though the multiple explanations given were only slightly different. The case serves as a reminder that, when terminating an employee, absolute consistency is critical. By providing multiple reasons for a disciplinary decision — even multiple reasons that are almost the same — an employer would needlessly expose itself to discrimination claims. More ›

Pregnancy Discrimination not Prohibited by Florida Civil Rights Act

A Florida Court of Appeal recently determined that pregnancy discrimination is not prohibited by the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA).  More ›

Employee must show “Intolerable” Working Conditions to Establish Constructive Discharge

A pregnant employee used nearly all of her annual paid time off during the first three months of the year, leading the employer to advise her that she could have no more absences. When the employee ignored the warning and began a medical leave on the very next workday, the employer told her that the absence “[wasn’t] going to work.” The employee took this as a termination and chose not to return to work. Instead, she sued the employer for constructive discharge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, alleging that the employer had made attendance demands that were impossible for a pregnant woman and did so with the intention of making her quit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that while the employee’s work conditions were “unpleasant and unprofessional,” they were not “intolerable,” as required to establish constructive discharge. Further, the employee had failed to establish that the employer intended to make her quit or should have foreseen that she would quit because of its demands. Employers should remember that an employee alleging constructive discharge will have to prove both that work conditions were “intolerable” and that the employer specifically intended to force the employee to quit or should have reasonably foreseen that the employee would quit.

Trierweiler v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case No. 10-1343 (8th Cir. Apr. 8, 2011)