Dive Brief:
- Smithfield Fresh Meats allegedly refused to accommodate a pregnant employee, forced her to take unpaid leave and fired her on the basis of her pregnancy, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charged in an Aug. 19 lawsuit.
- Per the complaint in EEOC v. Smithfield Fresh Meats Corp., the employee worked as a general laborer at a North Carolina facility. Following a workplace accident, she experienced substantial pregnancy-related bleeding and was diagnosed with a subchorionic hematoma, according to the record.
- The employee submitted doctor’s notes requesting two weeks of light duty, lifting limited to not more than 10 pounds, no excessive bending or twisting and 15-minute breaks every two hours. In response, Smithfield told her it didn’t provide pregnancy-related accommodations, EEOC alleged.
Dive Insight:
After the hematoma was confirmed, the employee submitted a third doctor’s note requesting that she be relieved of all lifting due to pregnancy-related bleeding and allowed to use the restroom as needed.
In response, Smithfield allegedly told her it didn’t have an accommodation for her and required her to take unpaid leave, the complaint said.
Smithfield fired the employee two weeks later, according to the EEOC. Despite its alleged assertion of not being able to accommodate her, it had vacant positions available that she was qualified to perform, met her restrictions and which she could have been assigned to, the lawsuit alleged.
EEOC sued Smithfield for violating the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act by allegedly failing to accommodate the employee. It also alleged that Smithfield violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against her because of her pregnancy. A representative for Smithfield told HR Dive in an email that as a matter of policy, the company doesn’t comment on pending legal matters.
The PWFA, which took effect in June 2023, requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for an employee’s or an applicant’s known pregnancy-related physical or mental limitations, according to EEOC guidance.
The statute borrows from the Americans with Disabilities Act in a few ways, including that it excuses employers from providing reasonable accommodations that impose an undue hardship (i.e., substantial difficulty or expense), the guidance explains.
Importantly, under the PWFA, employees may not be forced to take leave if the employer can provide another reasonable accommodation to keep them working, EEOC says. Light duty, relief from lifting requirements, additional or longer bathroom breaks and temporary reassignment — accommodations raised in the Smithfield case — are considered reasonable.
Also, even if an employee can’t perform an essential function — lifting, for example — due to pregnancy-related restrictions, the employer may have to temporarily suspend the essential function to accommodate the employee’s limitation, according to EEOC.
Reassignment is considered an accommodation of last resort, EEOC explains in a guidance on the ADA. The guidance outlines how to determine if reassignment is appropriate.
For instance, the employee doesn’t have to be the best qualified person for the reassigned job but does have to satisfy its requisite skills, education and/or experience.
Additionally, the reassigned position must be vacant, meaning it’s available when the employee asks for a reasonable accommodation or the employer knows it will become available within a reasonable amount of time.
