Introduction
A former employee of Target Corporation is suing the company for violating her rights under the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. The woman alleges that she was fired while pregnant, which is illegal under federal law. Here’s what you need to know about the case.
Background
The former employee worked at a Target store in Pennsylvania and was informed that her position was being eliminated shortly after informing her supervisor that she was pregnant. The employee claims that she was performing her job duties satisfactorily and had no prior disciplinary issues. She alleges that she was terminated solely because of her pregnancy.
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) was passed by Congress in 1978 to prohibit employers from discriminating against pregnant employees. The law requires employers to treat pregnant employees in the same manner as other employees who have similar job requirements or limitations. The law also prohibits retaliation against employees who assert their rights under the PDA.
The Lawsuit
The former employee is suing Target for violating her rights under the PDA. She alleges that she was fired solely because of her pregnancy, which is illegal under federal law. Target sought summary judgment in the case, but the court denied the request, allowing the case to move forward to trial.
Expected Outcome
The case is expected to be decided at the trial level in 2013. If the former employee prevails, she may be awarded damages for the harm caused by Target’s discrimination and be reinstated in her former position. The case serves as a warning to employers that discrimination against pregnant employees is illegal and may result in legal action.
Preventing Pregnancy Discrimination in the Workplace
Employers can take steps to prevent pregnancy discrimination in the workplace by ensuring that their policies and practices are in compliance with federal law. Managers and supervisors should be trained on how to recognize and prevent pregnancy discrimination, and employees should be educated on their rights under the PDA. It is also important for employers to have a complaint process in place to address and investigate any allegations of discrimination.
Conclusion
The lawsuit against Target serves as a reminder of the importance of complying with federal law regarding pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. Employers must treat pregnant employees the same as any other employee and may not discriminate against them on the basis of their pregnancy. Failure to do so can result in legal action and harm to both the employer’s reputation and bottom line.
Claiming that the company violated her rights according to the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, a former employee is suing Target Corporation. Last week, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania announced that they would not grant summary judgment to Target. This ruling allows the case to go forward, and it is expected to be decided at the trial level sometime in 2013.
According to Christina Spigarelli’s attorneys, Spigarelli was employed by Target for approximately two years before she became pregnant and found out. At the time when she notified her employer that she had become pregnant, she had not faced any disciplinary action within the company for over 10 months. Prior to that, she had been disciplined at one time for apprehending a shoplifting suspect in a way that violated the company’s protocols for asset protection and loss prevention.
However, her announcement of her pregnancy seemed to change how her supervisor treated her. She was given repeated warnings suddenly for violating parts of her job’s protocol—parts which she had not been accused of violating even once in the time before she announced her pregnancy. After the third of these violations was recorded within a two week period, Spigarelli says that her supervisor informed her that her employment had been terminated.
The violations being recorded weren’t just suspicious because of their timing. According to Spigarelli, her supervisor actually spoke with her about her pregnancy, and did so in an alarming way. The supervisor told her that “pregnancy hormones” made women into poor decision makers, and talked about experiences with other pregnant women that made her feel this way. These comments had the effect of making Spigarelli feel belittled for her pregnancy and delegitimized her authority in her department according to the complaint.
The supervisor told Spigarelli that pregnant women “get emotional and their hormones get all affected,” and that Spigarelli “was being too emotional and getting caught up into things.” The district court judge ruled that these comments, in combination with the suspicious timing of the new conduct warnings, made summary judgment impossible in the case.
When being accused of discrimination under Title VII or the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, it is not enough in courts for companies to simply give someone enough written warnings until they are forced to leave. If the courts determine that the relationship between a woman’s pregnancy and her termination were causal, then the company will be held liable for that discrimination even if they were able to indicate some other reason for the termination.
Employers are also not allowed, according to standards set by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to “constructively terminate” an employee by creating a workplace environment that would make a reasonable person quit. The fact that the EEOC is now pursuing these cases for pregnancy discrimination in the workplace means that employers should be especially careful to make sure that pregnant women are being treated in accordance with the law.
Source: uscourts.gov, eeoc.gov
