The same supervisor who okayed her time off later warned her about absences, the EEOC says
A Georgia company fired a pregnant worker one day after she asked for a single day of leave, federal regulators allege.
The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit against Guice Services, Inc., which operates as Rooter ProXpress, on July 20, 2026, in the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The agency claims the company fired a bilingual customer service representative because she was pregnant, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal law that bars sex and pregnancy discrimination.
Here is the sequence the EEOC lays out. The worker started in January 2024. In February, she told her office manager she was pregnant, and the office manager passed the news to her direct supervisor the same day, according to the complaint.
Weeks later, the filing says, that same supervisor issued a written warning about the worker's absences - even though the supervisor had approved the time off, and at least two of the flagged absences were for pregnancy-related medical appointments.
The events moved quickly from there, according to the complaint. On May 8, 2024, the worker asked her supervisor for one day off, citing pregnancy-related high blood pressure, nausea, and round ligament pain. She said the day was to protect her health and her baby's, the filing states. The supervisor's reply, according to the complaint: "Ok no problem . . . feel better." She returned to work on May 10. That day, the EEOC alleges, the office manager told her she had already been fired the day before - for "excessive" time off without approval.
The complaint also cites a remark it attributes to the supervisor. The office manager, it says, told another employee that the supervisor had said, "let's get rid of [the worker]. She's pregnant and having a baby . . . She's irresponsible, she didn't show up for work."
For HR leaders, the EEOC's account reads like a training slide. Two moves sit at the center of the agency's theory: disciplining an employee for absences a manager had already signed off on, and terminating her right after a protected request. The agency alleges the company fired the worker within one day of her leave request - the kind of tight timing that tends to draw scrutiny from investigators and juries alike.
The case is also a reminder that manager comments carry weight. A single remark linking a firing to pregnancy, even repeated second-hand, can become the backbone of a discrimination claim.
The EEOC says it tried to settle first. It issued a reasonable-cause finding in August 2025 and a notice of failed conciliation in March 2026 before going to court. It is now seeking back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and a court order barring the company from discriminating on the basis of pregnancy.
None of the allegations have been tested in court, and no judge has ruled.
