Employee Told She Was Fired Because Of Her Pregnancy EEOC Lawsuit Claims
On May 4, 2020, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a press release announcing that it has filed a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit against LogisticCare Solutions, LLC (LogisticCare) and Human Capital Management, Inc., d/b/a HCM Staffing (HCM Staffing). On May 1, 2020, the EEOC filed the pregnancy discrimination lawsuit, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. LogisticCare Solutions, LLC and Human Capital Management, Inc., d/b/a HCM Staffing, Case No. 2:20-cv-00852, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona after initially seeking to resolve the case without the necessity of litigation through its lawfully mandated conciliation process.
The EEOC has brought the pregnancy discrimination lawsuit pursuant to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA) on behalf of a former employee of LogisticCare and HCM Staffing, Tiffany Lewis (Lewis). The PDA prohibits employers from discriminating against women on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Under the PDA, employers are also forbidden from making employment decisions based on stereotypes about pregnancy. For example, employers are prohibited from terminating pregnant employees based on stereotypes about a pregnant employee’s commitment to the job, physical ability to do the work, or work attendance.
The EEOC claims that LogisticCare and HCM Staffing violated the PDA by firing Lewis because of her pregnancy. In this article, our Sumter County, Florida employment discrimination lawyers explain the EEOC’s allegations of discriminatory discharge against LogisticCare and HCM Staffing.
EEOC Claims Discriminatory Discharge
HCM Staffing is a staffing agency which hires employees to place with client companies. HCM Staffing interviews the individuals and determines which client they should be placed with. An individual HCM Staffing places with a client company, such as LogisticCare, is an employee of HCM Staffing and a temporary employee of the client company. LogisticCare is a non-emergency transportation brokerage company that operates 24-hour call centers and a client of HCM Staffing.
In June 2013, HCM Staffing hired Lewis. HCM Staffing then placed Lewis with LogisticCare as a customer service representative at LogisticCare’s call center in Phoenix, Arizona. On September 1, 2013, Lewis began working for LogisticCare. When her employment commenced, Lewis was approximately seven months pregnant. From September 11, 2013 through September 16, 2013, Lewis attended a LogisticCare training class.
Fired Because Of Pregnancy
On September 16, 2013, Lewis received a phone call from a recruiter from HCM Staffing who was responsible for handling the LogisticCare account. The recruiter told Lewis that her assignment with LogisticCare was ending due to LogisticCare’s low call volume. Seeking clarification regarding the reason for her termination, Lewis spoke with another customer service representative at LogisticCare. The customer service representative told Lewis that she had heard another LogisticCare employee reading aloud from the computer of the LogisticCare employee, a man named Gauvin, who ran the training classes for Lewis. The customer service representative told Lewis that the employee read aloud that LogisticCare fired Lewis because of her pregnancy.
After LogisticCare fired Lewis, an employee of HCM Staffing, a woman named Marcilones, met with Gauvin regarding the reason for Lewis’ termination. Gauvin told Marcilones that Lewis was released because she would not be able to comply with LogisticCare’s attendance policy because she was pregnant. Gauvin further stated that he had direct orders from the LogisticCare call center manager, a man named Hanley, to release Lewis because she was pregnant. After receiving this information, Marcilones then met with Hanley. During the meeting, Hanley told Marcilones that he had direct orders from LogisticCare’s human resources department to terminate Lewis because she was pregnant and there was nothing Marcilones could do about it.
Vindicating Rights Of Pregnant Employees
The EEOC is the administrative agency of the United States responsible for interpreting and enforcing federal employment laws prohibiting discrimination in the workplace, including discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. In enforcing the federal anti-discrimination laws, the EEOC is also granted the authority by federal law to file lawsuits on behalf of pregnancy discrimination victims. In a press release issued by the EEOC on May 4, 2020 regarding the case, a regional attorney for the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office, Mary Jo O’Neill, explained that “employers should not make employment decisions based on assumptions about what pregnant employees can and cannot do.” “Pregnancy discrimination remains a significant barrier for women in the workplace,” Ms. O’Neill added, “and the EEOC will always be dedicated to fighting it.”
Consult With Wildwood Discrimination Lawyers
Based in Ocala, Florida and representing employees throughout Central Florida, our Sumter County, Florida employment discrimination attorneys have been fighting for employee rights for more than two decades. If you have experienced discrimination in the workplace or have questions about your protection against discrimination under the federal anti-discrimination laws, please, please contact our office for a free consultation with our Wildwood, Florida employment discrimination lawyers. Our labor law attorneys take employment discrimination cases on a contingency fee basis. This means that there are no attorney’s fees incurred unless there is a recovery and our attorney’s fees come solely from the monetary award that you recover.
