The EEOC sued Cosmos, a restaurant in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi operated by Smoke BBQ LLC, and alleged the employer unlawfully fired a server because she was pregnant, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which together prohibit discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

The EEOC alleged that after the server informed management of her pregnancy, the restaurant terminated her employment instead of allowing her to continue working. The employer then replaced her with a non-pregnant employee, conduct the EEOC contends reflects intentional pregnancy discrimination.

The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages for the former employee, as well as injunctive relief requiring Cosmos to implement policies, training, and other measures to prevent future pregnancy discrimination and ensure compliance with federal law.

Source: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-cosmos-pregnancy-discrimination

Commentary

According to the source:

"…in November 2023, the server told her colleagues about her pregnancy shortly after she started working at the restaurant. The next day, after Cosmos managers heard about her pregnancy, she was fired.

In other words, the EEOC is also implying that she would never been hired if she had disclosed she was pregnant. So, although the EEOC brings a claim for wrongful termination, it could have easily been for failure to hire based on illegal pregnancy discrimination had the server disclosed her pregnancy during her interview.

Applicants are not required to disclose a pregnancy during the interview process and should not be asked about their child-bearing or parental status. Under Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, employment decisions based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions are prohibited.

Any requirement or expectation that an applicant reveal pregnancy status invites claims that hiring decisions were influenced by that information and can serve as powerful evidence of discriminatory motive if the applicant is rejected.

From a loss prevention perspective, employers can reduce litigation risk by structuring interviews and applications to focus strictly on qualifications and essential job functions, avoiding questions that could elicit pregnancy-related information and training hiring managers to disregard what may appear to be visible pregnancy signs or assumptions about future attendance, restrictions, or leave needs when making selections.