Pregnancy Discrimination
It is unlawful to discriminate against or harass employees because of pregnancy or perceived pregnancy. It is also unlawful to retaliate against an employee because of pregnancy, perceived pregnancy or because she exercised her right to take a pregnancy disability leave. In 2013, the discrimination protection was expanded to include “perceived pregnancy,” defined as being regarded or treated by an employer as being pregnant or having a related medical condition.
Employer Loses Pregnancy Discrimination Case
In Sasco Electric v. California Fair Employment and Housing Commission, an employer assumed that a pregnant employee working on a yacht would not be able to perform her job. The employer did not review a medical certification stating that the employee could safely perform her job and did not discuss any proposed future accommodation with the employee. Instead, the employer chose to lay off the pregnant employee. After the layoff, the employer replaced the experienced female employee with two males with no experience.
The employer was ordered by a court to pay back pay, emotional distress damages and an administrative fine amounting to more than $110,000. The court upheld an award of back pay up to the date of the birth of the employee’s child, as well as $85,000 for emotional distress and a $25,000 fine. The court said the fine was appropriate because the company contrived a reduction in force to justify laying off the pregnant employee and thus demonstrated willful, intentional and purposeful discrimination.
In Sasco Electric v. California Fair Employment and Housing Commission, an employer assumed that a pregnant employee working on a yacht would not be able to perform her job. The employer did not review a medical certification stating that the employee could safely perform her job and did not discuss any proposed future accommodation with the employee. Instead, the employer chose to lay off the pregnant employee. After the layoff, the employer replaced the experienced female employee with two males with no experience.
The employer was ordered by a court to pay back pay, emotional distress damages and an administrative fine amounting to more than $110,000. The court upheld an award of back pay up to the date of the birth of the employee’s child, as well as $85,000 for emotional distress and a $25,000 fine. The court said the fine was appropriate because the company contrived a reduction in force to justify laying off the pregnant employee and thus demonstrated willful, intentional and purposeful discrimination.