A recent settlement involving a California-based staffing agency serves as a stark reminder for employers across the nation that the financial and operational risks associated with pregnancy discrimination allegations are both significant and escalating. Eastridge Workforce Solutions agreed to a $185,000 payment to resolve a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which alleged a pattern of discriminatory practices that reportedly began several years ago, around 2019. The lawsuit was catalyzed by a specific incident where a worker, placed at a client company, was jointly terminated by both the agency and the client shortly after she disclosed her pregnancy. This case is not merely a financial transaction; it is accompanied by a comprehensive three-year consent decree that imposes stringent corrective actions, signaling a new level of scrutiny and consequence for employers who fail to comply with federal protections for pregnant employees. The resolution highlights the persistent focus of federal agencies on this area of employment law and underscores the critical need for businesses to re-evaluate their policies and practices.
The Legal Landscape of Pregnancy Protection
Understanding the Pregnancy Discrimination Act
For decades, the primary legal shield against pregnancy-based discrimination has been the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This foundational law explicitly prohibits sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, effectively mandating that employers treat pregnant workers the same as other employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work. The EEOC has long utilized the PDA as its main enforcement tool, building a substantial body of case law that defines the boundaries of acceptable employer conduct. The agency’s consistent pursuit of PDA violations has established a clear precedent that adverse employment actions—such as termination, demotion, or failure to hire—motivated by an employee’s pregnancy are illegal. The Eastridge case is a classic example of this long-standing enforcement priority, demonstrating that even after years of the PDA being in effect, compliance remains a significant challenge for some businesses. This sustained focus shows that the EEOC views the principles of the PDA as a non-negotiable aspect of workplace equality.
The Impact of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
A more recent and transformative development in this legal arena is the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which has significantly expanded the obligations of employers beyond the non-discrimination mandate of the PDA. Unlike the PDA, which focuses on equal treatment, the PWFA introduces a new affirmative duty for employers to provide reasonable accommodations for a worker’s known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless doing so would cause an undue hardship. This mirrors the accommodation requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) but is specifically tailored to the context of pregnancy. An EEOC official recently emphasized the gravity of these new protections, urging all employers to conduct a thorough and prompt review of their accommodation policies to ensure full compliance. This proactive legal framework shifts the burden onto employers to engage in an interactive process with pregnant employees to find workable solutions, such as modified duties, flexible hours, or additional leave, rather than simply avoiding discriminatory actions.
Enforcement Trends and Proactive Compliance
EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Focus
The consistent stream of pregnancy discrimination lawsuits from the EEOC, including recent actions against major corporations like U.S. Steel for allegedly refusing to accommodate a pregnant worker, is not accidental. According to some legal analyses, these cases represent a strategic enforcement priority for the agency. They are sometimes viewed as “low-hanging fruit”—cases with clear legal standards and often compelling facts that allow the commission to secure victories and send a strong message to the business community. This strategy may have been particularly useful during periods when the agency was operating without a full quorum, as it allowed for continued, high-impact enforcement activity without needing to tackle more legally complex or novel issues. The pattern of litigation demonstrates that the EEOC is not wavering in its commitment, regardless of administrative changes. This consistent pressure means that employers cannot afford to become complacent, as the agency is actively seeking out and prosecuting violations under both the long-standing PDA and the newer, more demanding PWFA.
Beyond Monetary Penalties
The consequences of a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit now extend far beyond the headline-grabbing monetary settlement. The consent decree in the Eastridge Workforce Solutions case illustrates the multifaceted and long-term nature of modern enforcement actions. The three-year decree mandates a series of corrective measures designed to fundamentally change the company’s internal culture and processes. These include expunging the personnel files of the affected former employees to remove any trace of the discriminatory action, providing them with neutral job references to aid their future employment prospects, and even considering them for reinstatement if suitable positions become available. Furthermore, the company is required to implement comprehensive training programs for all staff on pregnancy discrimination laws and to conduct a rigorous review of its anti-discrimination policies, updating them as necessary to align with current legal standards. These non-monetary remedies impose significant administrative burdens and ongoing oversight, ensuring that the settlement has a lasting impact on company operations and serves as a powerful deterrent against future misconduct.
A Call for Proactive Workplace Reform
The legal and regulatory environment surrounding employee pregnancy rights clearly evolved, moving from a foundation of anti-discrimination to a proactive mandate for accommodation and support. The enforcement actions against companies like Eastridge and U.S. Steel demonstrated that federal agencies were not merely reacting to complaints but were strategically pursuing a vision of workplace fairness. This required businesses to shift their own internal paradigms. It was no longer sufficient for companies to simply have a non-discrimination clause in their handbooks; they needed to actively build a culture of compliance. This involved training managers to recognize and respond appropriately to accommodation requests, updating human resources protocols to align with the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, and fostering an environment where employees felt secure disclosing a pregnancy without fear of reprisal. The resolutions of these cases underscored a critical lesson: proactive, thoughtful compliance was the only effective strategy to mitigate the significant legal, financial, and reputational risks of a discrimination lawsuit.