Lago Mar, a Florida resort, agreed to pay $100,000 in damages to a former employee who was terminated after requesting leave following a stillbirth, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The termination violated the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Lago Mar will appoint an EEO coordinator, revise employment policies, provide training, and report discrimination complaints to the EEOC.
The EEOC emphasized the importance of employers understanding their obligations under the PWFA and ADA to prevent discrimination. https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/lago-mar-resort-beach-club-pay-100000-eeoc-pregnant-workers-fairness-act-suit (Oct. 11, 2024).
Commentary
According to the press release from the EEOC:
Lago Mar terminated an employee shortly after requesting leave to recover and grieve following a stillbirth during the fifth month of her pregnancy. The alleged conduct violated the Pregnant Worker's Fairness Act (PWFA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibit workplace discrimination against pregnant and disabled employees.
The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Lago Mar Properties, Inc., Case No. 24-cv-61812) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.
The PWFA was enacted in 2023. The law aims to protect pregnant workers and ensure they receive reasonable accommodations in the workplace.
Specifically, employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations to employees and applicants with known limitations "related to, affected by, or arising out of" pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the accommodation will cause the employer an "undue hardship." "Undue hardship" under the PWFA has a different definition than the term does under the ADA. Undue hardship under the PWFA means "significant difficulty or expense", a much lower burden.
As to the PWFA and requests for accommodation, employers cannot:
- Deny employment opportunities based on the need for reasonable accommodations
- Require employees to accept accommodations that are not necessary
- Force employees to take leave if another reasonable accommodation can be provided.
Two points about the above matter.
The EEOC filed in federal court under the PWFA and ADA. Many believe the PWFA and ADA are redundant in multiple areas, but the fact is that, under the ADA, pregnant employees have to show a disability related to pregnancy in order to be accommodated because pregnancy alone is not a disability under the ADA.
This worker would likely not have been entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the ADA because having a pregnancy result in stillbirth would not have been considered a disability, unless there were medical complications meeting the definition of disability.
As for this matter, it is worth noting that the employee was no longer pregnant when she asked for an accommodation. The PWFA entitles her, according to the EEOC, to an accommodation of leave to recover from childbirth.
Employers should seek counsel before denying any request for a reasonable accommodation from a pregnant employee, and take note of designated requests that should be granted immediately and without need for an ADA-like analysis of "reasonableness" or documentation from a medical provider:
- The opportunity to carry or keep water nearby and drink
- Additional restroom breaks
- The ability to sit when their job principally requires standing or vice versa
- Breaks to eat or drink while they're pregnant.
The takeaway is that pregnant workers now have two federal laws that can be invoked to protect them from discrimination.
