The EEOC says her points kept adding up even while she was out on approved leave
A federal agency is suing a toy maker, saying its attendance policy punished a pregnant worker for absences tied to her pregnancy.
On July 8, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit against The Step2 Company, LLC, an Ohio plastics and toy manufacturer, in the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The complaint alleges the company violated the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, Title VII, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case turns on a point-based attendance system - the kind many employers use. The complaint describes a worker who joined as an assembler in January 2022 and, by the EEOC's account, was a strong performer: an above-average review, a promotion within her role, training duties, and monetary awards for perfect attendance. She had also told the HR manager she lived with depression and anxiety.
According to the filing, things changed once the points started adding up. Step2's policy assessed points for absences unless they were excused, with ten points leading to a "Last Chance Agreement" and twelve to termination. The complaint says the policy excused several categories of time off but named only the FMLA as protected statutory leave.
The EEOC alleges the company treated pregnancy-related absences as "unexcused." That included December 2023 absences tied to pregnancy sickness and a miscarriage, which the complaint says were later used as a basis for discipline. When the worker pointed out what those December absences were, the filing states, the company did not change its decision.
The worker became pregnant again in spring 2024 and, per the complaint, asked to avoid the company's largest machine and a task involving a gas product the complaint says may be harmful to her pregnancy. She was placed on a Last Chance Agreement on June 5, 2024, the filing says, even though she had fewer than ten points at the time.
The FMLA allegations sit at the core of the case. The complaint alleges the company marked her July 2024 FMLA days "unexcused" and continued assigning points during protected leave. When she requested accommodations on July 22 - such as sitting briefly between assemblies - the filing says the HR manager told her she "would not be catered to."
She was terminated soon after. According to the complaint, the company sent a letter stating she had been "absent" on July 23, 2024, "which violated the Last Chance Agreement." The EEOC also cites an October 2024 state unemployment hearing where, it alleges, the company told the hearing officer it had assigned points for FMLA-covered absences and discharged her over her point total.
The EEOC issued a reasonable-cause determination in September 2025 and a Notice of Failure of Conciliation that November before suing.
For HR professionals, the message is about system design. The agency is not just questioning one firing - the complaint challenges the policy itself: automatic points, no accommodation exception, and a ninety-day no-absence rule. A no-fault attendance policy that names only the FMLA, and treats pregnancy and disability accommodations as ordinary absences, is exactly the structure the EEOC says is unlawful here.
The allegations have not been tested in court, and no judge has ruled.
