In one case, ERA helped tradeswoman Jeanine Dubois, who works as an electrician for the City & County of San Francisco, receive compensation and other relief for her claims of sex discrimination in pay and promotions. At ERA, we know that tradeswomen are historically discriminated against at work in male-dominated industries.

ERA attorneys also have successfully negotiated a string of settlements on behalf of pregnant women who were denied modest accommodations at work or fired when they requested them. One woman, who worked as a machine operator at a mailing and marketing services company and spoke only Spanish, was retaliated against and fired after taking her pregnancy leave. As part of the settlement, that company will improve its leave notices and translate them into other languages. A second woman, an East African immigrant who works in health care, was fired after requesting pregnancy leave. In addition to the monetary settlement, the company agreed to seal her dismissal records and she was able to get a job with a different employer.

“ERA takes a truly holistic approach to advocating for the rights of women and girls,” said ERA Legal Director Jennifer Reisch.  “Coupled with our work on broader impact litigation, like Dukes v. Wal-Mart, and our legislative advocacy on issues such as equal pay and fair treatment of working families, we believe that the direct service element of our work is an essential part of our overall strategy to ensure gender justice,” Reisch added.  “It is also extremely effective in bringing about necessary and timely changes in schools and workplaces.”

ERA will continue to negotiate and litigate on behalf of women workers who face barriers to equal employment opportunity and fair pay. For more information on our advocacy on behalf of women workers, click here. You can also support the rights of women and working families by joining our national and California campaigns to strengthen protections for caregivers and pregnant women at work here.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. As we near the 35th anniversary of the PDA, district courts are still missing the point.

The case, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Houston Funding II, Limited; Houston Funding Corporation, involved Donnicia Venters, a female account representative who was terminated after informing her supervisor that she would need to use a breast pump when she returned to work after giving birth. He told her that her position had been filled and she received a termination letter shortly thereafter, stating “job abandonment” as the cause for termination.

The district court dismissed the case, granting summary judgment in favor of Houston. It held that lactation is not a pregnancy-related condition and thus, “firing someone because of lactation or breast-pumping is not sex discrimination.” The Fifth Circuit disagreed and reversed, stating that lactation is a pregnancy-related medical condition under the PDA and that Houston’s actions were a cognizable sex discrimination claim under Title VII. Thus, it said, the dismissal of the claim was inappropriate.

That cases such as this are still arising in America is distressing, but let us celebrate this movement towards true justice.

For information about California’s pregnancy accommodation law, which requires employers to provide accommodation to pregnant employees or employees who have recently given birth, click here.

Support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which would require employers to provide employees with reasonable accommodations for conditions related to pregnancy and childbirth.

This post was written by ERA law clerk Brandy DeOrnellas.

But it’s hard to celebrate the holiday fully knowing what we do about discrimination against pregnant women and caretakers in the workplace. This year’s Mother’s Day marks one year since ERA released its groundbreaking report on pregnancy discrimination: Expecting a Baby, Not a Layoff.

Three-quarters of working women will be pregnant at some point during their careers. ERA regularly hears from women who are discriminated against because of their pregnancy.

It came as a surprise to Hannah, a day laborer at a large manufacturing plant in Ohio, when her employer denied her a temporary ‘light duty’ assignment after she became pregnant. Hannah had noticed that many male workers had been given such assignments in the past, but her manager told her that she only provided light duty assignments for those employees injured on the job, and that if she brought a doctor’s note requesting accommodation she would be forced to go on medical leave.  She was also told that she was not eligible for job-protected leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

This was wrong. Her employer could have found a temporary light duty assignment for Hannah, as it did for many employees who were injured on the job or to those who had “disabilities” under the Americans with Disabilities Act. But Hannah was left with the decision of continuing to work in an un-accommodated position, thus jeopardizing the health of her pregnancy, or losing her job and the financial stability and health care benefits that came with it.   Hannah lost her job during her second trimester.  Single and without financial support, she had to depend on the government to keep food on the table.

Stories like Hannah’s are all too common among many pregnant women across the country.  Take Angie, a train conductor in Mississippi who was forced on unpaid leave due to a minor lifting restriction that could have easily been accommodated by her employer, who readily provided such accommodation to (mostly male) employees injured on the job. Or Peggy, a pregnant postal worker in Maryland who was similarly denied the temporary light duty potion that the employer readily provided to those injured on the job.

Although the text of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act declares that employers must treat pregnant employees at least as well as they treat other employees “similar in their ability or inability to work,” courts have found employers may do otherwise.  Although the Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to provide reasonable accommodation to qualified employees with a disability, courts have found that such protections only extend to pregnant women with certain conditions.

America needs the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act to ensure that our pregnant workers are not denied the simple and temporary workplace accommodations that would keep our women and families healthy and financially independent, and that would keep our new generations secure.  That is why Senators Bob Casey and Jeanne Shaheen and Representative Jerry Nadler will reintroduce the bill on May 14, 2013, with support from a wide array of health organizations, women’s organizations, and disability rights organizations.

Would you like to share your story about a workplace pregnancy accommodation, or denial of a request for such an accommodation?  Contact Mia Munro at mmunro@equalrights.org or post a comment on this page.  And check out our PWFA action page for more information on you can help pass this important bill into law.

Discrimination against pregnant women is a very real economic problem. Read ERA’s report ”Expecting a Baby, Not a Lay-off: Why Federal Law Should Require the Reasonable Accommodation of Pregnant Workers” and ERA’s accounting of  the effects of pregnancy discrimination on real women.

Other stakeholders from across the country have also come out in support of the PWFA. You can read a letter from the president-elect of The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or one from Hawai’i Civil Rights Commission. Or you can check out this letter to Congress, signed by dozens of organizations advocating for the passage of the bill. The PWFA is already supported by over 100 members of Congress. In the below video, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) discusses why.

A sample letter of support you can send to your member of Congress can be downloaded here. You can find contact information for your local congresswoman or congressman here and here.

Prior to the April 29, 1979 implementation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), employees of AT&T and its subsidiaries who suffered from temporarily disabling conditions were given “service credit” for their disability-related absences from work while pregnant women were not. Instead, pregnant women were forced to take “personal leaves” for their disability-related absences for which they were not given service credit. As a result of such lost credit, thousands of female AT&T workers have been excluded from lucrative early retirement opportunities or given lower pension benefits while co-workers who were absent from work for the same amount of time due to other medical disabilities experienced no such losses. After April, 1979, when the PDA became law, such practices were outlawed. AT&T changed its policies for new employees, but continues to deduct pregnancy-related leave time taken before 1979 when calculating pension and retirement benefits.

AT&T’s benefit calculation policies at issue in the lawsuit violate Title VII legal guidelines issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In 1998, the EEOC concluded that AT&T’s policies did not comply with the law. In the 1991 case Pallas v. Pacific Bell, 940 F.2d 1324 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1050 (1992), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Pacific Bell—a former AT&T subsidiary company—had violated Title VII and ERISA by using similar pension calculation policies to deny early retirement offers to female employees who had taken pregnancy leaves before April, 1979. The Pallas case was resolved in 1998 with a multi-million dollar settlement that included pension adjustments for thousands of women affected by the policies. Despite these rulings, however, AT&T has continued to exclude pregnancy-related disability leave taken prior to April, 1979 in calculating pension benefits for its female employees.

Each of the individual plaintiffs experienced losses as a result of AT&T’s actions. Plaintiff Noreen Hulteen began working for an AT&T subsidiary company in 1965. In 1968, her employer forced her to take personal leave for her pregnancy and disabilities that occurred while she was on leave. Due to this policy, Hulteen was denied eight months of service credit toward her pension and related benefits. Since retiring in 1994, Hulteen’s pension checks have been reduced by the amount of the lost leave time due to her pregnancy. Likewise, plaintiffs Eleanora Collet, Arma Horton, and Betty Snyder each were denied service credit for pregnancy-related disability leaves taken prior to 1979, which has decreased their pension benefits.

The individual plaintiffs are represented by Equal Rights Advocates and cooperating counsel Judith E. Kurtz, and the law firms of Van Bourg, Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, and Erickson, Beasley, Hewitt & Wilson. The CWA, which represents non-management employees at AT&T, is represented by attorney Mary K. O’Melveny.

All of the counsel for plaintiffs and the CWA were involved in the Pallas case against Pacific Bell. In addition, the CWA has been a party to several lawsuits against former AT&T subsidiaries seeking relief for victims of discriminatory benefit calculation policies outlawed by the PDA. Describing the current lawsuit, CWA attorney O’Melveny said: “It is time that AT&T finally took responsibility for its ongoing discrimination against women who were pregnant in the 1960s and 1970s.”

The plaintiffs’ claims include damages and injunctive relief based on Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq., and ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Sec.1001 et seq.