A pregnant officer's denied requests spark a legal showdown – are your workplace policies up to date?
A federal court says a pregnant worker’s claims of denied accommodations and retaliation can proceed, putting employer obligations under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in focus.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought a case against Security Assurance Management, Inc., focusing on the company’s treatment of Simone Cooper, an Unarmed Special Police Officer.
According to the court record, Cooper was removed from her assignment at the District of Columbia Department of Behavioral Health’s Comprehensive Psychiatric Emergency Program after her employer learned she was pregnant. The complaint states that Cooper had not received negative performance evaluations or discipline prior to her removal. After being taken off the site, she was not scheduled for comparable work and, following her maternity leave, was assigned to a different location with a new schedule.
Upon returning from leave, Cooper was breastfeeding and requested accommodations, including a private lactation room and a work schedule that would allow her to take breaks to pump. The complaint alleges that Security Assurance Management, Inc. either denied or ignored these requests. As a result, Cooper had to pump in her car and experienced incidents where she leaked through her clothing during work. Attempts by Cooper, her union representative, and her attorney to discuss accommodations with the company were unsuccessful, according to the complaint.
The company later issued Cooper a written warning for “excessive absenteeism,” which included days she was not scheduled to work and for leaving early after incidents related to her lactation needs. After receiving the warning, Cooper informed the company she could work Saturdays if her schedule allowed her to pump, but she was not scheduled for further shifts and eventually accepted a job with another security firm.
The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged violations of Title VII and the PWFA, including failure to accommodate, adverse actions for requesting accommodations, denial of employment opportunities, retaliation, and interference with statutory rights. Security Assurance Management, Inc. filed a partial motion to dismiss several of the PWFA claims, arguing that they were duplicative.
Judge Rudolph Contreras denied the motion, ruling that the claims were not duplicative because they involved different legal standards and factual circumstances. The court found that claims for adverse actions, retaliation, failure to accommodate, denial of employment opportunities, and interference with statutory rights each addressed distinct aspects of the law.
This decision allows the EEOC’s claims to move forward. For HR professionals, the case underscores the importance of responding to accommodation requests and maintaining compliance with federal workplace laws. The outcome serves as a reminder that clear procedures and timely communication are essential when handling employee needs related to pregnancy and related conditions.
