The EEOC sued QSR Pita USA Inc., the operator of a Pita Pit restaurant in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits sex discrimination, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which bars discrimination based on disability. The EEOC alleged the company fired an employee after she requested accommodations related to her pregnancy.

The employee had informed the company about her pregnancy and asked to continue working from home during her first trimester due to pregnancy-related nausea, a request that followed a period during which she had previously worked from home without issue.

Instead of providing accommodations, management reportedly dismissed her concerns and referred to her pregnancy as a distraction before terminating her employment.

Through the lawsuit, the EEOC is seeking monetary damages for the affected employee and injunctive relief to prevent such conduct in the future.

Source: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-qsr-pita-usa-inc-pregnancy-and-disability-discrimination

Commentary

In the above matter, the employer had previously granted an accommodation. When an employee has previously been accommodated with the ability to work from home and then requests the same accommodation again during a subsequent pregnancy period, a refusal by the employer to grant that accommodation can create significant litigation risk.

Consistency in providing accommodations is critical because it reflects how seriously an employer takes their obligations under laws such as the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).

Employers should provide reasonable accommodations to employees with known pregnancy-related limitations, unless doing so would cause an undue hardship. If an employer granted the accommodation before without issue, denying it later without a valid reason can be perceived as discriminatory treatment, implying that the employer is creating arbitrary standards or obstacles that disproportionately impact pregnant employees.

Such inconsistency can suggest a lack of good faith in engaging in the interactive process that is legally required to assess and provide accommodations based on individual needs and evolving medical conditions.

Additionally, failing to provide accommodations when previously done sets a precedent that the accommodation is workable and does not impose undue hardship, making it more difficult for the employer to justify a denial in subsequent requests.

This inconsistency often leads to litigation. In essence, providing accommodation once but not another time not only exposes employers to legal risk but also undermines the principles of fairness and respect that are foundational to a healthy workplace environment.

Additional Sources: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/helping-patients-deal-pregnancy-and-childbirth-related-limitations-and-restrictions