Employment actions directed at a pregnant employee need to be documented as never before, as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has increased its surveillance of the way companies manage women who either are pregnant, say they intend to become pregnant, or have been pregnant.
The agency issued new guidance on the subject in July. This month, a Kenosha, Wisconsin, Merry Maids franchise owner got a taste of the enforcement effort the EEOC is pursuing.
V&B, a 20-employee company, according to the EEOC, fired a top-performing employee because of some "pregnancy issues [that] were alleged to be minor and did not prevent her from working," the agency said in a release.
Recommended For You
The employee had all the traits of someone you don't want to fire without a mile-long paper trail. She was a military veteran. She'd received eight straight years of outstanding performance reviews prior to her pregnancy. She was a team leader and "and had an unblemished work record," the EEOC said in its suit.
But apparently Merry Maids management saw no such red flags. She was fired because her pregnancy health issues interfered with her work. She brought in the EEOC.
The agency sued the company under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Attempts to reach a settlement failed, the case went to court, and the plaintiff prevailed.
The court slapped the little company with a $40,000 fine and mandated other sanctions related to the firing.
The situation corresponds almost to a T to one of the examples of what not to do with a pregnant employee cited by the EEOC in its pregnancy guidance. The example uses a fictitious employee, Teresa, working for a clueless boss.
"Shortly after Teresa informed her supervisor of her pregnancy, he met with her to discuss alleged performance problems. Teresa had consistently received outstanding performance reviews during her eight years of employment with the company. However, the supervisor now for the first time accused Teresa of having a bad attitude and providing poor service to clients. Two weeks after Teresa began her pregnancy-related medical leave, her employer discharged her for poor performance," the EEOC says in the guidance example.
"The employer produced no evidence of customer complaints or any other documentation of poor performance. The evidence of outstanding performance reviews preceding notice to the employer of Teresa's pregnancy, the lack of documentation of subsequent poor performance, and the timing of the discharge support a finding of unlawful pregnancy discrimination."
"Sometimes employers overreact and base employment decisions on an employee's pregnancy," EEOC Chicago Regional Attorney John C. Hendrickson said. "Federal law assures pregnant women that they have the same right as other people to earn a living. The ADA requires employers to engage in discussions with employees they believe to be disabled before taking any action which would affect their employment rights."
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Dan Cook
Dan Cook is a journalist and communications consultant based in Portland, OR. During his journalism career he has been a reporter and editor for a variety of media companies, including American Lawyer Media, BusinessWeek, Newhouse Newspapers, Knight-Ridder, Time Inc., and Reuters. He specializes in health care and insurance related coverage for BenefitsPRO.
