Steakhouse hires — then fires — worker after learning they’re pregnant, feds say
A Washington steakhouse’s decision to fire a new employee when they revealed they were pregnant violated federal employment law, according to officials.
Now, Lady Luck Steakhouse in Tacoma owes the former employee, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced in an Aug. 22 news release.
The restaurant — which describes itself as a saloon “known for girls dancing on the bar” offering homemade cuisine, drinks and late-night music — was accused of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after it fired the pregnant worker following their first shift, the EEOC said.
The law prohibits job discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin and sex — including discrimination against pregnancy, according to the agency.
In addition, the EEOC accused Lady Luck’s management of not allowing pregnant workers to work “certain ‘club night’ shifts,” which is also considered discrimination under law, the EEOC said.
After a charge of discrimination was filed with the EEOC, Lady Luck agreed to the terms of a two-year conciliation agreement to resolve the charge, according to the release.
“Pregnant workers must be afforded the same rights and benefits as non-pregnant workers,” Elizabeth M. Cannon, the director of EEOC’s Seattle field office, said in a statement. “Well-intended as some employers may be, placing special conditions or limits on a worker simply because they are pregnant is against the law.”
McClatchy News attempted to reach Lady Luck for comment multiple times on Aug. 23 but did not get a response.
The restaurant owes the former worker compensatory damages and back pay as part of the conciliation agreement’s terms, the EEOC said. It will also review its policy on nondiscrimination, refrain from restricting pregnant employees from certain shifts or duties, and will hold training for management and HR employees.
How much the former employee will be awarded in damages and back pay wasn’t specified.
Since Lady Luck agreed to resolve the charge, Title VII confidentiality provisions prevent information surrounding from becoming public, according to Joseph J. Olivares, an EEOC spokesman.
“Due to Lady Luck wanting to show their commitment to resolving the charge, it was agreed upon to make the (conciliation) agreement public,” Olivares said.
More on pregnancy discrimination
On June 27, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act went into effect.
Under the federal law, “employers are also required to provide reasonable accommodations to workers who are pregnant, trying to become pregnant, experiencing pregnancy-related medical conditions, or recovering from childbirth, unless it causes an undue hardship,” Cannon said.
Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s office announced on Aug. 16 it is suing O’Reilly Auto Parts, which runs 169 stores in the state, accusing the company of discriminating and retaliating against pregnant employees.
According to the lawsuit filed in King County Superior Court, at least 22 pregnant women were refused “reasonable workplace accommodations,” including adequate breaks to rest and use the restroom and to pump breast milk after returning to work following the birth of their babies, a news release said.
When the employees tried to lawfully obtain these accommodations, they were met with backlash — such as demotion and threats of termination, according to Ferguson’s office.
Further information from the EEOC on federal regulations protecting pregnant employees can be found here.
This story was originally published August 24, 2023 at 6:44 AM with the headline "Steakhouse hires — then fires — worker after learning they’re pregnant, feds say."
.jpg)