EEOC Recovers Over $97,000 in Two Pregnancy Discrimination Charges

SAN FRANCISCO — The San Francisco District of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) successfully conciliated two discrimination charges on behalf of pregnant women, the federal agency announced today.

In one case, the agency found that a pregnant worker at Vital Systems, a Reno-based company specializing in electronic equipment, was forced to ignore her doctor’s orders or face termination. Separately, another EEOC investigation showed that management at Condor Club refused to allow an employee to work her shifts at the San Francisco nightclub and bar after she disclosed her pregnancy.

In both cases, the EEOC found that the employers violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) by their treatment of the pregnant workers.

In the charge against Vital Systems, the employee alleged she was denied a reasonable accommodation and discharged because of her pregnancy. The EEOC’s investigation found that, upon learning of her pregnancy, the company attempted to impose an unwanted and unnecessary accommodation on her, reassigning her to a role operating machinery which used X-ray radiation.

The day after her reassignment in August 2024, she provided a doctor’s note specifying that she should not be exposed to any form of radiation. Instead of weighing the expert medical advice of her doctor and providing a reasonable accommodation such as returning the employee to her original role — thus eliminating the need for an accommodation — Vital Systems fired her on the spot, according to the EEOC’s investigation.

“All I did was tell them I was pregnant,” said the former Vital Systems employee who filed the charge. “I wanted to keep working; I didn’t need anything to change. I certainly didn’t expect to be fired for wanting to protect my baby from unnecessary risk.”

Under the terms of the conciliation agreement settling the charges, Vital Systems agreed to provide more than $57,000 in back pay and compensatory damages to the former employee and provide strong injunctive relief to include updating their reasonable accommodation policies and procedures. The company also agreed to create a recordkeeping mechanism to track accommodation requests; provide extensive training to employees, managers, and HR personnel; and provide periodic reporting to EEOC on its compliance with the agreement for four years.

In the second charge against Condor Club, the employee disclosed to the general manager in November 2023 that she was pregnant, expressed her openness to work other roles, and followed up with a note from her doctor saying she currently had no restrictions on her work activities. Despite her communications, the EEOC’s investigation showed that the employer failed to schedule her for any shifts, effectively discharging her, and refused to consider any accommodation including reassignment. The agency also found that the employer failed to consistently retain personnel records, including any records of communications concerning the interactive process and requests for pregnancy accommodation.

“I communicated honestly with my employer about being pregnant, about my willingness to work in any job available, and got clearance from my doctor to work without restrictions,” said the former Condor Club employee. “But no one responded to me, and I was basically shut down and shut off from my job.”

Under the terms of the conciliation agreement resolving this matter, Condor Club agreed to provide $40,000 in compensatory damages to the former employee. Additionally, the club agreed to enact measures aimed at preventing future discrimination by conducting a review of their reasonable accommodation policies and procedures; creating a recordkeeping mechanism to track accommodation requests; implementing extensive training to employees, managers, and HR personnel; and providing compliance reporting every six months to EEOC for three years.

“No one should have to choose between their job and the health of their pregnancy or be penalized for proactively managing their employment and pregnancy,” said Christopher Green, director of the EEOC’s San Francisco District. “Forcing ultimatums on a pregnant employee is unacceptable. Ignoring pregnant workers who want to contribute is unacceptable. Employers should leave the work of identifying pregnancy-related risks and limitations to qualified medical professionals and they would be well-served to remember that their role is to engage with employees to find which accommodations would be most appropriate and effective.”

For more information on pregnancy discrimination in the workplace, including reasonable accommodations for pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions, visit https://www.eeoc.gov/pregnancy-discrimination. Resources on the PWFA can be found at: https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-pregnant-workers-fairness-act.

The EEOC’s San Francisco District Office has jurisdiction over Northern California, Northern Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Idaho, and Montana.

The EEOC is the sole federal agency authorized to investigate and litigate against businesses and other private sector employers for violations of federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. For public sector employers, the EEOC shares jurisdiction with the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. The EEOC also is responsible for coordinating the federal government’s employment antidiscrimination effort. More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov.