Lessons From EEOC Case Of Fla. Worker Fired After Stillbirth
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has always championed pregnant workers' rights, increasingly so since the passing of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act just over a year ago. In the EEOC's last fiscal year, which ended in September, the EEOC filed five lawsuits under the PWFA, showing its commitment to defending workers' pregnancy rights.
One of the EEOC's lawsuits has gotten the attention of the legal community. On Sept. 30, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against Lago Mar Properties Inc., doing business as Lago Mar Resort & Beach Club, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.[1]
The EEOC alleged that the complainant, Wilda Jean Louis, a former line cook at Lago Mar, told her immediate supervisor within two days of her stillbirth, which occurred on July 2, 2023, and in her fifth month of pregnancy, that she was admitted to the hospital.
She then, on July 5, 2023, provided Lago Mar with a doctor's note, which stated that she would need about six weeks to recover. However, the day after making the accommodation request, Lago Mar fired her.
Thereafter, Louis filed an EEOC charge due to an unlawful termination.
The EEOC initially attempted to reach a prelitigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process, but it failed, so it filed a lawsuit on Louis' behalf.
The EEOC's complaint alleged that Lago Mar's conduct violated the PWFA and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibit workplace discrimination against pregnant and disabled employees.
The EEOC's motivation is clear: Employers should not discriminate, including on the basis of pregnancy. As EEOC Miami Regional Attorney Kristen Foslid stated in a press release dated Oct. 11:
Employers need to be aware of their obligations under the PWFA and ADA to avoid discrimination against their employees. We commend Lago Mar for implementing progressive measures in the workplace to prevent discrimination against pregnant and disabled employees and ensure that their policies and procedures align with those legal obligations.[2]
The parties ended up reaching a settlement: Lago Mar agreed to pay Louis $92,080 in compensatory damages and $7,920 in back pay, which the court approved.
The settlement terms also included injunctive relief. Going forward, Lago Mar agreed:
Not to "terminate or harass any employee on the basis of their pregnancy and/or disability";
To "provide reasonable accommodations to applicants' and employees' known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition"; and
To not "retaliate against any person for requesting a reasonable accommodation under the PWFA or ADA."
EEOC Miami District Director Evangeline Hawthorne went on to say that "This litigation highlights the need to provide equal opportunities and accommodations for pregnant and disabled employees, as well as the necessity of training managers on how to properly handle PWFA or ADA related matters in the workplace."
Lessons Learned
First, while we are not privy to what transpired during the EEOC's conciliation process, employers must be cognizant that if the EEOC is unable to reach a resolution during conciliation, it could file a lawsuit against the employer. Naturally, litigating the dispute is much more costly than reaching a resolution in conciliation.
Again, while we do not know what the EEOC proposed to resolve Louis' charge versus what it ended up obtaining through the court settlement, Lago Mar ended up with adverse publicity because the settlement would not have been made public if the parties agreed to a deal during conciliation.
Second, Lago Mar is now under a microscope. The injunctive relief broadly requires Lago Mar to be a "model citizen" with respect to handling pregnant and disabled employees, including any reasonable accommodation requests.
In other words, the injunctive relief extends well beyond simply resolving Louis' case and serves to monitor the employer's conduct with respect to other persons going forward.
This means that if a job applicant or an existing employee has a disability or is pregnant, a failure to properly address their rights, including granting reasonable accommodation, could result in a violation of the injunction, which will undoubtedly bring Lago Mar back in court to answer for its conduct.
Third, management must be adequately trained on how to respond to PWFA or ADA accommodation requests, including properly engaging in the interactive process. All employers should conduct regular management training, including for Title VII, the ADA and PWFA.
There are nuances for each of these laws, and while there may be some overlap, each has unique coverage and requirements that can easily be violated if managers do not learn about these laws, how to respond to accommodation requests, what medical documentation can be requested, etc.
As is outlined in this case, pregnancy itself is not a disability, but a pregnant employee may have a pregnancy-related condition that qualifies as a disability under the ADA, including for such conditions as pelvic inflammation causing severe pain and difficulty walking, pregnancy-related anemia, gestational diabetes, and preeclampsia, according to the guidance.
Further, the EEOC alleged that Louis was substantially impaired in the major life activities of
cooking, driving, concentrating, thinking, sitting, standing, caring for herself and providing childcare "due to the mental and physical trauma from losing her pregnancy at five months, and she suffered from depression." So, the overlap between the ADA and PWFA is evident here.
Fourth, the timing of an adverse action after an accommodation request matters. Undoubtedly, one of the facts that the EEOC looked at was the temporal proximity between Louis' request for accommodation and her termination — a mere one day in between.
Did Lago Mar adequately consider Louis' accommodation request? Did it act in good faith with respect to the interactive process it was required to go through with Louis in looking at a reasonable accommodation solution?
Here, the answer is that the EEOC thought that taking a day to terminate instead of continuing the interactive process was not in compliance with the employer's legal obligations. And, in fact, the EEOC's complaint alleged that Lago Mar "did not engage Louis in any interactive process concerning her request for leave as an accommodation prior to terminating her employment."
Finally, we now know that the EEOC believes that stillbirth is protected under the PWFA — which is consistent with the PWFA's protection for conditions "related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions," unless the accommodation will cause the employer undue hardship.
“Lessons From EEOC Case Of Fla. Worker Fired After Stillbirth,” Law360 (November 22, 2024) (subscription required).
Gordon M. Berger is a partner at Pierson Ferdinand LLP.
[1] EEOC v. Lago Mar Properties, Inc., Case No. 24-cv-61812.
