Discrimination at work is not just a legal issue; it’s a human one that affects morale, productivity, and the overall health of an organization. From racial slurs to unequal pay, discrimination can manifest in various harmful ways. Understanding how to recognize and address it is crucial for creating a safe and inclusive working environment. This article will guide you through the signs of workplace discrimination, recent real-life examples, and actionable steps for addressing these critical issues.
Signs of Discrimination in the Workplace
Discrimination can be subtle or overt. Signs may include exclusion from meetings or projects, lack of promotion despite qualifications, unfair performance reviews, or derogatory comments about race, gender, age, or disability. Recognizing these signs is the first step toward creating a fair workplace.
Recent Examples of Workplace Discrimination
Race Discrimination
In a troubling case recently reported, a Insurance Auto Auctions, Inc. yard attendant in Fremont, California, was subjected to racial slurs, including the “n-word,” up to 15 times a day. This verbal harassment happened openly in front of the general manager, who failed to act, leaving the Black employee feeling he had no choice but to resign. This example starkly highlights how unchecked discrimination can permeate an organization. (Case No. 4:24-cv-06848)
“Let me be clear: there is no workplace, regardless of locale, where the use of racial slurs is acceptable,” said EEOC San Francisco District Director Nancy Sienko. “Once an employer lets that standard slip, not only are you giving permission for an unprofessional, unproductive and hateful work environment, you are violating the law.”
Disability Discrimination
A company driver at Mail Hauler Trucking, LLC. in South Dakota was dismissed due to his physical impairment despite successfully performing his job duties. His unusual gait—a result of his condition—led to his unjust termination, demonstrating a blatant disregard for the legal protections afforded to individuals with disabilities. (Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-01020-ECS)
“The ADA prohibits employers from terminating employees because of their disability or discriminating against employees because of misperceptions that they cannot perform the job because of a disability,” said Gregory Gochanour, regional attorney of the EEOC’s Chicago office.
Sexual Harassment
At a Long Island car dealership, Garden City Jeep Chrysler Dodge, LLC and VIP Auto Group of Long Island, Inc., female employees endured inappropriate touching and sexual comments from an inventory manager. Despite complaints to management and HR, the harassment continued unchecked, forcing some employees to quit. This case underscores the critical need for effective interventions and accountability at every level of management. (Case No. 2:24-cv-06878)
“Whether a restaurant, car dealership or other business, no employer should ignore sexual harassment, let alone condone or encourage it,” said Kimberly Cruz, regional attorney for the EEOC’s New York District Office.
Pregnancy Discrimination
At Castle Hills Master Association Inc., and parent companies Bright Realty LLC, Bright Industries LLC, and Bright Executive Services LLC, a pregnant employee diagnosed with placenta previa, a high-risk condition, was terminated while hospitalized despite notifying her employer of her need for medical leave. The Castle Hills Master Association and property management companies involved refused to accommodate her, highlighting a distressing gap in understanding pregnancy-related employment rights. (Civil Action No. 4:24-cv-00871)
Pay Discrimination
AccentCare in Pennsylvania was sued for paying female Licensed Practical Nurses less than their male counterparts for equal work despite the women’s superior qualifications. After a female LPN complained, she was fired, showcasing retaliatory practices that exacerbate gender-based pay disparities. (Case No. 3:24-cv-01646-RDM)
“Employers cannot pay female employees less than their male colleagues because of sex,” said Debra Lawrence, the EEOC’s Regional Attorney in Philadelphia. “Retaliating against an employee who raises these concerns and seeks to correct the disparity further exacerbates the legal violation.”
Legal Rights and Responsibilities in Addressing Discrimination
Employees have the right to a workplace free of discrimination. The law provides several avenues to address discrimination, including filing complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and hiring. Employers are legally required to investigate allegations and take corrective action when necessary.
Steps to Take if You Witness or Experience Discrimination
Document the Incident:
Record dates, times, locations, and details of the discriminatory behavior.
Report the Incident:
Use your company’s reporting mechanism or approach your HR department directly.
Seek Support:
Contact a trusted colleague, mentor, or employee resource group for guidance and support.
Consider Legal Action:
If internal resolution is inadequate, consider contacting an experienced workplace discrimination lawyer for further assistance.
The Role of HR and Management in Preventing and Addressing Discrimination
HR and management play a pivotal role in fostering an inclusive environment. They must act swiftly on complaints, ensure policies are enforced, and model respectful behavior. Regular training sessions and open dialogues can also help reinforce the company’s commitment to a productive and inclusive workplace.
Employers seeking to ensure compliance with discrimination laws can benefit significantly from consulting experienced employment discrimination lawyers. These legal professionals offer valuable guidance on navigating complex regulations, thereby assisting in the proactive prevention of discriminatory practices in the workplace. By working closely with a lawyer, employers can gain insights into potential vulnerabilities within their current policies and procedures and receive tailored advice to foster a legally compliant and respectful work environment. This proactive approach not only aids in legal compliance but also strengthens the organization’s commitment to equality and fairness.
Creating an Inclusive Workplace Culture
An inclusive culture celebrates diversity and fosters a sense of belonging. Encourage conversations about diversity, recognize cultural differences, and celebrate various backgrounds. Understandably, employers might hesitate to engage in difficult conversations about diversity, inclusion, and compliance, fearing it could open Pandora’s box of unforeseen challenges. However, addressing these topics head-on is crucial for fostering a workplace where all employees feel valued and heard. Avoiding these conversations can perpetuate systemic issues and hinder the organization’s growth and morale. By embracing these discussions, leaders can uncover valuable insights into the employees’ perspectives, identify areas for improvement, and initiate meaningful change. It’s essential to approach these dialogues with an open mind, active listening skills, and a commitment to genuine, positive transformation. While challenging, these conversations ultimately nurture a more cohesive, productive, and respectful workplace culture. Leadership should exemplify these values, ensuring they trickle down throughout the organization.
The Ongoing Effort to Eliminate Discrimination
Eliminating discrimination requires persistent effort and commitment from everyone within an organization. By recognizing the signs, understanding your rights, and taking actionable steps, you can contribute to a healthier, more inclusive workplace. Start today by reviewing your organization’s policies and fostering open discussions about diversity and inclusion. Together, we can create a work environment where everyone is respected and valued.
In a nation that upholds equality as a core value, the fight against pregnancy discrimination remains a significant challenge. Recent high-profile cases, notably involving Frontier Airlines, highlight the ongoing struggles faced by pregnant and breastfeeding women in the workplace.
Frontier Airlines became embroiled in two substantial lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and local partners in Denver on behalf of eight pilots and flight attendants. The plaintiffs claimed that the airline penalized pregnancy-related absences and denied crucial accommodations for pregnant and breastfeeding employees, including prohibiting breast pumping while on duty. These discriminatory practices inflicted considerable harm on these women, affecting both their professional lives and personal well-being. Many were forced to take unpaid leave during their pregnancies and had their requests for breast pumping accommodations denied upon returning to work.
Fortunately, U.S. laws offer some protections against such discrimination. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits employers from discriminating based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Additionally, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows eligible employees to take unpaid, job-protected leave for specific family and medical reasons, including pregnancy and childbirth.
Nonetheless, the struggle persists. The lawsuits against Frontier Airlines culminated in a settlement in the Freyer case, resulting in significant policy changes aimed at better accommodating pregnant and nursing employees. However, these developments underscore the need for further improvements and highlight the urgent necessity for progress on both corporate and legislative fronts.
As we pursue greater equality in the workplace, we must remember individuals like Erica Hayes, who made an unimaginable sacrifice while trying to maintain her income during pregnancy. Erica experienced a miscarriage after imploring her supervisors for lighter lifting duties while working at a Verizon warehouse.
In another instance, Dallas Barber and Stylist College, Inc., a barber shop and school in Dallas, found themselves the defendants in a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit when a pregnant applicant applied for a hair braider position and performed a skills test successfully. Despite her qualifications, the owner informed her that they already had a pregnant employee and did not wish to hire another.
These experiences serve as a poignant reminder of the real and devastating consequences of pregnancy discrimination. They are not isolated incidents but rather reflect systemic issues that demand our attention and action. Together, we can work to eradicate pregnancy discrimination, foster workplaces that respect and support all employees, and build a fairer society for future generations.
Pregnancy discrimination laws provide robust protection for employees, defending them against termination due to pregnancy-related complications. This legal safety net was highlighted in the recent case with Bakotic Pathology Associates, LLC (Bako), which was involved in a lawsuit over allegations of pregnancy discrimination and retaliation. The lawsuit, presented by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), asserted that Bako unfairly treated an employee suffering from pregnancy-related ailments.
Bako terminated the employee during her authorized medical leave and while she was availing short-term disability benefits, following her reports of pregnancy discrimination. This alleged behavior contravenes Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that explicitly forbids sex-based discrimination and retaliation for participation in protected activities.
As a result of the lawsuit, Bako agreed to a settlement involving a $50,000 payment and the implementation of remedies. Additionally, Bako is now obligated to provide its employees with specialized training on Title VII, share internal complaint procedures and Title VII policies with the workforce, and report any pregnancy discrimination complaints to the EEOC.
Specific situations that would constitute pregnancy discrimination and/or retaliation include:
An employer refusing to accommodate reasonable requests made for pregnancy-related conditions, especially when such accommodations are provided for other employees with different medical conditions.
Openly demoting, reducing the hours, or offering lower pay to an employee upon learning of her pregnancy, under the guise of unrelated performance issues.
Dismissal of a pregnant employee using the pretext of organizational restructuring, when in reality, the position remains open or is quickly filled by someone not pregnant.
Subjecting a pregnant employee to frequent, unwarranted disciplinary actions following the announcement of her pregnancy, suggesting a motive grounded in discrimination rather than actual performance issues.
Failing to reinstate an employee to her original or equivalent position after returning from maternity leave, which is guaranteed under certain conditions by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
Retaliating against an employee for filing a complaint regarding pregnancy discrimination or for participating in an investigation about such allegations, often seen through sudden negative performance reviews or exclusion from meetings and company events.
For more information on pregnancy discrimination, visit the www.HelmerFriedman.com website or reach out through 1-310-396-7714 or info@HelmerFriedman.com. Ensure your rights are protected.
Employee Loses Pregnancy Discrimination Claim Because She Failed To Carry Her Burden Of Proving That She Had A Condition Related To Pregnancy; Could Perform The Essential Functions Of The Job; And Was Denied A Reasonable Accommodation – The Moral Of This Case Is To Never, Ever Use Kaiser As Your Physician
Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres, 89 Cal.App.5th 365 (2023)
Gabriela Lopez was employed by La Casa De Las Madres, a non-profit organization that provides services to women and children who are victims of domestic violence. In April, Lopez notified La Casa that she was pregnant and that her expected due date was in September. She was placed on modified work duty a few months before her due date, and several weeks before her due date, she was placed off work due to conditions or symptoms relating to her pregnancy.
After giving birth, Lopez experienced complications and her doctor (Kaiser) informed La Casa that Lopez had a “moderate-severe” disability that affected her ability to perform her job by limiting her from engaging in activities that are “stress producing or require sustained attention,” and those that “require the making of important or significant decisions.” Kaiser stated that this disability necessitated two modifications to Lopez’s work duties: (1) time off to allow Lopez to continue mental health treatment, both groups and individual therapy; and (2) flexible/shortened workdays if the patient finds the nature of the work or stress of the work overwhelming and triggering of severe anxiety/depressive symptoms. On a section of the form inquiring how long these limitations would be necessary, Kaiser stated, “It is unknown,” and when asked to provide a phone number for follow-up questions, Kaiser stated, “NA, patient had to sign Kaiser release of information and completing this form was the only authorized action.”
La Casa made a determination that it could not accommodate the limitations that Campion proposed. It could provide time off for therapy but could not function indefinitely without a shelter manager. Nor could that job be performed without making significant decisions and facing stressful situations at unpredictable times.
La Casa notified Lopez that it was unable to accommodate the limitations proposed by Kaiser. Instead, La Casa offered to extend Lopez’s leave for a short time longer and, upon her return to work, to assign her to a “Data Entry Specialist position,” which had flexible hours and did not involve stressful tasks. The position paid an hourly wage, which was less pay than Lopez received as a shelter manager, but Lopez was offered higher pay than others who had filled the position. This data-entry position was offered as a “temporary accommodation,” with the expectation that Lopez would return to her shelter management role.
Lopez advised La Casa she was not interested in the data-entry position and that she was able to return to her role as a shelter manager. Lopez submitted another health care provider form, signed by Kaiser. This partially completed form contained the following statement: “Advised by patient to just complete modification section for employer.” In answer to a question about proposed modifications, Kaiser stated, “Modifications recommended include time off to continue individual therapy sessions and group therapy.” Kaiser reported that it was “unknown” how long modifications would be necessary.
La Casa advised Lopez that the form was incomplete and asked Lopez to submit a complete, updated form. Lopez submitted another form from Kaiser, which stated that it had not seen Lopez in a month because Lopez’s insurance had lapsed. Therefore, Kaiser was unable to assess the severity of Lopez’s disability, whether Lopez was able to perform job duties or the duration of any job limitations. After Lopez submitted this form, she did not respond to further repeated inquiries from La Casa.
A week or so later, La Casa sent a letter to Lopez stating that La Casa considered Lopez to have “elected to discontinue her employment.” That same day, Lopez went to La Casa’s administrative office to talk to the Executive Director without an appointment, but the ED was not there. La Casa introduced evidence that Lopez was angry, threw her keys on an employee’s desk, and stormed away, at which point La Casa considered her to be a former employee. Lopez testified that she left her keys with the employee because she thought she had been terminated, but she acknowledged that La Casa never asked her to turn in her keys. Regardless, the evidence showed that Lopez never stated that she resigned or submitted a written resignation, and no one at La Casa told Lopez she was terminated.
Lopez sued for a pregnancy discrimination claim under section 12945, subdivision (a)(3)(A). Following the bench trial, the trial court found that Lopez failed to establish three elements essential to this claim: that she (1) “had a condition related to pregnancy”; (2) “could perform the essential functions of her job”; and (3) “was denied a reasonable accommodation,” as requested on the advice of a health-care provider.
There was evidence that after Lopez had her baby and exhausted her pregnancy-disability leave, she sought an extension of her leave, but the basis for that extension was not established at trial. No medical professional testified, no medical records were offered into evidence, and Lopez “repeatedly objected” to evidence regarding the “medical condition” that formed the basis of her claim.
Regarding the first finding, there was evidence that after Lopez had her baby and exhausted her pregnancy-disability leave, she sought an extension of her leave, but the basis for that extension was not established at trial. No medical professional testified, no medical records were offered into evidence, and Lopez “repeatedly objected” to evidence regarding the “medical condition” that formed the basis of her claim. The forms Kaiser signed did not contain a diagnosis and, although they assert a mental-health-related disability, do not so much mention pregnancy. La Case put on evidence that it was unaware of the reason Lopez sought to extend her leave. Lopez testified that after her daughter was born, she felt sad and depressed, attended therapy, and was given medication, which, the court found, suggested that Lopez may have had post-partum depression, but Lopez was impeached with evidence that she was depressed and experiencing stress before her pregnancy leave began. For all of these reasons, the court concluded that Lopez failed to establish that the condition for which she sought accommodation was pregnancy related.
Even assuming that La Casa “inferred” Lopez was suffering from pregnancy-related depression, Lopez failed to establish that “she could perform the essential functions of her job with a reasonable accommodation,” the court found. The court based this finding on evidence that Kaiser had “advised against activities that produced stress and that required making important decisions” and that the shelter-manager job “was inherently stressful and required quick decisions that sometimes meant the difference between life and death.” In reaching this conclusion, the court found that Lopez’s testimony that she did not find the duties of the shelter manager to be stressful was not credible.
Finally, the court found that Lopez failed to prove that she was denied a reasonable accommodation. The court found that La Casa would have allowed Lopez time off to attend therapy and that a “flexible or shortened workday” if Lopez found her work stressful was not a reasonable accommodation. The court based this ruling on evidence that La Casa had discussed options that would have enabled them to accommodate this second suggestion of Kaiser’s, including hiring a “shadow’ shelter manager” to step in if Lopez had to leave work due to stress or anxiety. La Casa had concluded this solution was “unworkable” for multiple reasons, including the cost of paying two people to do the same job and the confusion for staff of having two managers. La Casa was also concerned that effective communication would be critical for a shadow manager to succeed, and Lopez had a documented history of poor communication with her immediate supervisor, Ms. Bergson. During the period Lopez was on leave, Bergson had assumed many of Lopez’s duties with assistance from others, but that accommodation could not be sustained indefinitely, the court found.
The court also based its ruling on evidence that La Casa offered Lopez the temporary assignment of a data-entry position, which the court found was a reasonable accommodation, and that Lopez told La Casa she would rather quit than take that position. The court also found no evidence of a discriminatory motive by La Casa, but rather that “La Casa expected Ms. Lopez to return to her job as a shelter manager and made numerous efforts to effect that result.”
Lopez appealed, arguing that the trial court committed an error of law by placing the burden on Lopez to prove that (1) she had a condition related to pregnancy and (2) she could otherwise perform the essential functions of the shelter-manager position. According to Lopez, these two elements do not apply to a claim for pregnancy discrimination that is premised on a violation of section 12945(a)(3)(A). The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments holding: “we find no support for Lopez’s construction of section 12945(a)(3)(A) in the statutory language, FEHC regulations or pertinent case law, and accordingly we reject her contention that the test the trial court used to evaluate her pregnancy discrimination claim requires us to reverse the judgment.”
Burger King Franchise to Pay $60,000 to Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Suit
Employer Allowed Abuse of Pregnant Employee and Fired Her After She Complained, Federal Agency Charged
ASHEVILLE, N.C. – North Georgia Foods, Inc., a Georgia-based company operating several Burger King restaurants, including one in Murphy, North Carolina, has agreed to pay $60,000 and provide other relief to settle a sex harassment, retaliation, and pregnancy discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
According to the EEOC’s complaint, from at least August 2018 through approximately July 2019, a team member at North Georgia Foods’ Murphy, North Carolina location was sexually harassed by a male assistant manager. The harassment included vulgar sexual comments, threatening behavior, and unwelcome sexual touching. The team member complained multiple times and asked not to work alone with the male assistant manager. North Georgia Foods did not take action to stop the harassment but instead removed the team member from the schedule completely in June 2019. The company refused to communicate with the team member and later refused to reinstate her employment. The EEOC also alleged the team member was discriminated against because of her pregnancy.
This alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which protects employees from sex-based harassment in the workplace. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. North Georgia Foods, Inc, d/b/a Burger King, Case No. 1:22-cv-00049) in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement via its voluntary conciliation process.
The outcome of this case demonstrates that employers who ignore complaints of sex-based harassment in the workplace or retaliate against employees for asserting their rights under Title VII will be held accountable.
The suit was resolved by a two-year consent decree that prohibits North Georgia Foods from discriminating and retaliating against employees in violation of Title VII. North Georgia Foods must also prominently post a telephone number for an off-site reporting official, revise its written anti-discrimination policies, and train employees on the process for reporting complaints of discrimination and the requirements of Title VII, including its anti-retaliation provisions.
“The outcome of this case demonstrates that employers who ignore complaints of sex-based harassment in the workplace or retaliate against employees for asserting their rights under Title VII will be held accountable,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Melinda C. Dugas.
The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. The EEOC’s Charlotte District is charged with enforcing federal employment discrimination laws in North Carolina, Virginia, and South Carolina.
MEMPHIS — If you are a Verizon customer on the East Coast, odds are good that your cellphone or tablet arrived by way of a beige, windowless warehouse near Tennessee’s border with Mississippi.
Inside, hundreds of workers, many of them women, lift and drag boxes weighing up to 45 pounds, filled with iPhones and other gadgets. There is no air-conditioning on the floor of the warehouse, which is owned and operated by a contractor. Temperatures there can rise past 100 degrees. Workers often faint, according to interviews with 20 current and former employees.
One evening in January 2014, after eight hours of lifting, Erica Hayes ran to the bathroom. Blood drenched her jeans.
She was 23 and in the second trimester of her first pregnancy. She had spent much of the week hoisting the warehouse’s largest boxes from one conveyor belt to the next. Ever since she learned she was pregnant, she had been begging her supervisor to let her work with lighter boxes, she said in an interview. She said her boss repeatedly said no.
She fainted on her way out of the bathroom that day. The baby growing inside of her, the one she had secretly hoped was a girl, was gone.
“It was the worst thing I have ever experienced in my life,” Ms. Hayes said.
Three other women in the warehouse also had miscarriages in 2014, when it was owned by a contractor called New Breed Logistics. Later that year, a larger company, XPO Logistics, bought New Breed and the warehouse. The problems continued. Another woman miscarried there this summer. Then, in August, Ceeadria Walker did, too.
The women had all asked for light duty. Three said they brought in doctors’ notes recommending less taxing workloads and shorter shifts. They said supervisors disregarded the letters.
Pregnancy discrimination is widespread in corporate America. Some employers deny expecting mothers promotions or pay raises; others fire them before they can take maternity leave. But for women who work in physically demanding jobs, pregnancy discrimination often can come with even higher stakes.
The New York Times reviewed thousands of pages of court and other public records involving workers who said they had suffered miscarriages, gone into premature labor or, in one case, had a stillborn baby after their employers rejected their pleas for assistance — a break from flipping heavy mattresses, lugging large boxes and pushing loaded carts.
They worked at a hospital, a post office, an airport, a grocery store, a prison, a fire department, a restaurant, a pharmaceutical company and several hotels.
But refusing to accommodate pregnant women is often completely legal. Under federal law, companies don’t necessarily have to adjust pregnant women’s jobs, even when lighter work is available and their doctors send letters urging a reprieve.
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act is the only federal law aimed at protecting expecting mothers at work. It is four paragraphs long and 40 years old. It says that a company has to accommodate pregnant workers’ requests only if it is already doing so for other employees who are “similar in their ability or inability to work.”
That means that companies that do not give anyone a break have no obligation to do so for pregnant women. Employees say that is how the warehouse’s current owner, XPO Logistics, operates.
For example, last October, a 58-year-old woman died of cardiac arrest on the warehouse floor after complaining to colleagues that she felt sick, according to a police report and current and former XPO employees. In Facebook posts at the time and in recent interviews, employees said supervisors told them to keep working as the woman lay dead.
If companies “treat their nonpregnant employees terribly, they have every right to treat their pregnant employees terribly as well,” said Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, who has pushed for stronger federal protections for expecting mothers.
In every congressional session since 2012, a group of lawmakers has introduced a bill that would do for pregnant women what the Americans With Disabilities Act does for disabled people: require employers to accommodate those whose health depends on it. The legislation has never had a hearing.
“We are deeply troubled by these allegations,” said a Verizon spokesman, Rich Young. “We have no tolerance — zero tolerance — for this sort of alleged behavior.” He said the company opened an internal investigation in response to The Times’s inquiry. “None of these allegations are consistent with our values or the expectations and demands of contractors that work directly for us or have any affiliation with us.”
Erin Kurtz, an XPO spokeswoman, said: “We’re surprised by the allegations of conduct that either predate XPO’s acquisition of the Memphis facility or weren’t reported to management after we acquired it in 2014.” She said the allegations “are unsubstantiated, filled with inaccuracies and do not reflect the way in which our Memphis facility operates.” The company also disputed that the warehouse was windowless, noting that there were a number of interior windows.
Ms. Kurtz said XPO prioritized the safety of its workers, had “no tolerance for any type of discriminatory behavior” and has enhanced pay and benefits for employees in recent years.
Those improvements didn’t help Ceeadria Walker when she got pregnant. The 19-year-old said she gave her XPO supervisor a doctor’s letter from OB/GYN Centers of Memphis saying she should not lift more than 15 pounds. She said she asked to be assigned to an area with lighter items. Ms. Walker said her supervisor regularly sent her to a conveyor belt line where she had to lift more than she was supposed to. She miscarried the day after spending her shift handling those heavier boxes.
A pregnant Ceeadria Walker continued lifting heavy boxes at XPO after being denied a reprieve. The day after a grueling shift in August, she miscarried.
“We’re saddened that Ms. Walker had a miscarriage over the summer,” Ms. Kurtz said. “We’re investigating these newly raised claims.”
The Risks of Lifting
For most women, it is safe to work while pregnant.
But there is “a slight to modest increased risk of miscarriage” for women who do extensive lifting in their jobs, according to guidelines published this year by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The recommendations are intended to inform doctors about best practices.
Two decades of medical research have established a link between physically demanding work and fetal death, though there is debate about how strong the connection is. Part of the difficulty in measuring the relationship, researchers say, is that it’s impossible to design a study that isolates the impact of heavy lifting versus other risk factors, like pre-existing conditions.
In a peer-reviewed study from 2013, researchers in Denmark found that the risk of fetal death increased as women lifted heavier objects more frequently. The researchers theorized that lifting and bending could reduce blood flow to the uterus.
Another possibility, doctors said, is that extreme physical exertion diverts blood from a woman’s womb to her muscles.
The potential dangers are greatest for women whose pregnancies are already classified as high risk, which is why doctors often advise that they be given easier tasks.
“When employers ignore these medical recommendations, they are potentially jeopardizing patients’ health,” said Rebecca Jackson, the chief of obstetrics and gynecology at San Francisco General Hospital. “It’s especially bothersome to me that this is occurring for women in strenuous jobs, given that they are at the most risk of injuring themselves or the pregnancy.”
Warehouses are among the fastest growing workplaces in the country, employing more than a million Americans. Retailers, competing against the likes of Amazon, demand high speed at low costs.
On Memphis’s east side, these are often the highest-paying jobs available for people without college degrees. Drawn by the proximity to rail lines and highways, some of the country’s largest companies have set up distribution centers here. One dispatches Nike shoes. Another handles Disney toys. And a short drive from Graceland, Verizon has its hub.
XPO runs all of those warehouses. The Verizon facility, which XPO took over when it bought New Breed Logistics in 2014, is the only one where The Times interviewed workers about pregnancy discrimination. Shifts there can last 12 hours. Workers get 30 minutes for lunch and as many as three other 15-minute breaks.
XPO’s 2017 employee handbook warns that taking unapproved breaks, arriving to work late or leaving early can result in “immediate termination,” unless the reasons for the departures are “legally protected.” The Pregnancy Discrimination Act does not guarantee women such protections.
A Job on the Line
It was the fall of 2013, and Erica Hayes was convinced that she was having a girl. She daydreamed about the clothes she would buy and made a list of favorite names. Her friend was pregnant with a boy, and they talked about raising their children together.
At first, Ms. Hayes was processing individual shipments to Verizon customers — one phone, one charger, onto the next. Then, a crush of holiday orders hit the warehouse in December. She said that her boss began dispatching her to the area of the warehouse that handled bulk shipments, often destined for Verizon stores, where the warehouse was struggling to keep up. She often spent up to 12 hours a day lifting huge boxes, some with 20 iPads and 20 accessories.
She said she could have handled paperwork or stayed in the section of the warehouse devoted to small shipments. But she said her supervisor kept ordering her to work with the largest boxes. Ms. Hayes’s mother said that her daughter talked to her about the rejected requests at the time.
Ms. Hayes said she began to bleed regularly at work. She sometimes left early to go to the hospital. Each time, she said, her supervisor wrote her up. As the demerits accumulated, she stopped leaving. Instead, she bled through four maxi pads a day.
“My job was on the line,” she said. At the end of a long shift in January 2014, she felt blood gushing into her jeans.
A co-worker fetched her a black peacoat to wrap around her waist to cover the spreading stain. Another grabbed plastic bags to line the leather driver’s seat of her 2003 Hyundai. Ms. Hayes fainted before she could get to the car. An ambulance took her to the hospital.
A couple of weeks later, she said, her supervisor handed her a $300 invoice for the cost of the ambulance ride. (Ms. Hayes, who still works at the warehouse and is hoping for a promotion, said she never paid the bill.)
That spring, two more women had miscarriages at the warehouse. Both said that their supervisors rejected their requests to pack lighter boxes.
One of the women, who still works at the warehouse, declined to be identified for fear of losing her job.
The other was Tasha Murrell. She already had two boys and was praying for a girl. She planned to name the baby Dallas, after the Cowboys, her favorite football team. Ms. Murrell said that she told her boss she was pregnant and asked to leave work early one day that spring because the lifting had become painful.
While employed at the Verizon warehouse in 2014, Tasha Murrell, pregnant at the time, told a supervisor she was in pain and asked to leave early; the manager said no. Ms. Murrell miscarried the next day.
Ms. Murrell’s husband keeps the ultrasound from the pregnancy she lost in his wallet. It has become deeply creased from being in his wallet.
Her supervisor told her to get an abortion, according to a discrimination complaint she filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in April 2018. Ms. Murrell woke up the next morning to find her mattress stained with blood. Her husband drove her to the emergency room, where doctors told her she had miscarried. Ms. Murrell left the job last year and is now an organizer with the Teamsters, which is trying to organize a union at the warehouse.
Ms. Hayes and Ms. Murrell had the same supervisor: Amela Bukvic. Through her lawyer, Ms. Bukvic denied telling anyone to get an abortion. “I would never make such a horrible statement to anyone, especially an employee under my supervision,” she said.
Ms. Bukvic said that she made sure that the pregnant women whom she managed had workloads that were not excessive. She said she never denied help to the pregnant employees. “If they had any work restrictions, I always took all steps to make sure their work duties never exceeded those restrictions,” she said.
A few months later, in September 2014, it happened to another woman.
Chasisty Bee, 33, was four months pregnant. Hoping for a girl, she bought a newborn’s blanket from Burlington Coat Factory.
Ms. Bee had miscarried in 2008 while working at the Verizon warehouse. This time, she said, she brought in a doctor’s note recommending that she work shorter shifts, be given a chair and light duty. Supervisors rejected her requests. One afternoon, after almost 14 hours on her feet, she started feeling dizzy and crumpled to the warehouse floor. Her physician told her that she had miscarried.
After Ms. Bee got pregnant again in 2015, she found a new job. “I couldn’t bear to lose another child,” she said. The next February, she gave birth to a healthy girl.
Ms. Kurtz, the XPO spokeswoman, said: “The false and misleading allegations directed at our Memphis facility are fueled by the Teamsters and are part of their ongoing, but unsuccessful, attempts at organizing.”
Stalled Momentum
A bipartisan group of lawmakers has proposed upgrading the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The bill would compel companies to accommodate pregnant women — for example, by offering extra breaks or the option of light duty — as long as it does not impose an “undue hardship” on their business. That is the same language used in the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Women “shouldn’t have to choose between keeping a doctor appointment or their job,” said Senator Dean Heller, Republican of Nevada, one of 125 co-sponsors of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in the House and Senate.
In 2015, it looked as if the bill might gain traction. The Supreme Court had just ruled in favor of Peggy Young, a UPS driver who was denied light duty after getting pregnant. Pregnancy discrimination was suddenly grabbing headlines.
But some Republicans, including Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, where the XPO warehouse is, viewed that bill as adding a confusing new layer of regulations, according to Senate aides. Mr. Alexander, who is chairman of the Senate committee on health and labor, co-sponsored a competing bill. It expanded protections for pregnant women in some cases. But it still allowed employers to deny accommodations if they weren’t being provided to other workers in similar situations.
“It was a useful mechanism in order to divert some of the momentum that was building,” said Emily Martin of the National Women’s Law Center, an advocacy group focused on women’s rights.
Both bills stalled.
Outside Washington, there have been fewer roadblocks. At least 23 states have passed laws that are stronger than current federal protections (Tennessee is not among them). In Utah, Delaware, Colorado and New York, Republicans led the charge. In Nebraska, an anti-abortion Democrat pushed the measure.
“Women have lost their children due to the lack of robust pregnancy protections in the workplace,” said Catherine Glenn Foster, the president of Americans United for Life, an anti-abortion group. “Anyone who can’t get behind this or uses it as a political game — it’s a travesty.”
XPO Logistics has had run-ins with regulators over labor issues. Last year, the state of California awarded four truck drivers $855,000 in back wages after XPO misclassified them as independent contractors.
‘I Watched Her Die’
The problems extend beyond the warehouse floor — to hotels, restaurants, fire stations and stores.
At the Albertsons grocery store in Atascadero, Calif., Reyna Garcia had one of the toughest jobs. She pushed 200-pound carts, dragged sacks of cat litter and climbed 10-foot ladders to stock goods.
Ms. Garcia got pregnant in July 2012, found out she was having a girl and decided to name the baby Jade.
Ms. Garcia told her boss that her pregnancy was high risk — she had previously given birth prematurely. She presented a doctor’s note saying she should not lift more than 15 pounds. The boss ignored the recommendation, according to a lawsuit she filed against Albertsons in federal court in Los Angeles.
“She was feeling like she wasn’t getting any response from her supervisor,” her doctor, Mareeni Stanislaus, said in an interview. She said the restrictions were “even more important” because Ms. Garcia had a high-risk pregnancy. Heavy lifting can prompt smooth muscles like the uterus to contract, potentially inducing preterm labor, Dr. Stanislaus said.
The regular twisting and hoisting caused intense pain, but Ms. Garcia needed the paycheck and the health insurance. She requested any other position — in the Albertsons bakery or at the meat counter or as a fruit cutter or in the pharmacy or at the customer service desk.
Her boss turned her down, according to the lawsuit, which included corroborating statements from her colleagues.
Her doctors sent two more notes. “She should avoid prolonged standing without a break and should avoid excessive bending and reaching and balancing,” Dr. Stanislaus wrote. Copies of the letters were included in the suit.
About three weeks later, in the middle of her shift, Ms. Garcia began feeling “pelvic pressure,” according to her lawsuit. She asked her boss for permission to leave early; he gave her a long list of tasks that she needed to finish first.
Ms. Garcia ended up working overtime. By the time she got home, she could feel her amniotic sac bulging between her legs. It felt “like a balloon coming out of me,” she said in a sworn statement. She went to the emergency room. She could feel something scratching from inside; her doctor told her it was the baby’s fingernails. She was 20 weeks pregnant.
Five days later, Ms. Garcia gave birth to Jade. The baby lived less than 10 minutes.
“My husband and I watched her die,” Ms. Garcia said in her statement. “It was the most painful thing I have ever experienced.”
In 2014, Albertsons settled Ms. Garcia’s lawsuit for an undisclosed amount; the deal prohibited her from speaking publicly about what happened. “The company has a policy against pregnancy discrimination, and we accommodate employees with pregnancy-related disabilities in accordance with state and federal law,” said Christine Wilcox, an Albertsons spokeswoman.
Ms. Garcia’s boss demoted her when she returned to work.
“I lost my baby for this job,” Ms. Garcia said, according to her lawsuit. “Why didn’t you give me help when I was pregnant and asked for it?”
