New York Judge Dismisses EEOC Pregnancy Discrimination Class Action

A federal judge in New York granted an employer’s request for summary judgment, finding that the EEOC failed to demonstrate that an employer engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against pregnant employees or those who have returned from maternity leave in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  EEOC v. Bloomberg L.P., No. 07-CV-08383 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2011).

Judge Loretta Preska found that the EEOC presented insufficient evidence of discrimination in its lawsuit. According to Judge Preska, while that law requires fair treatment of all employees, it does not require companies to ignore employees' work-family tradeoffs when deciding about employee pay and promotions.

The EEOC filed a lawsuit against Bloomberg L.P. on behalf of a class of female employees who worked for the company between Feb. 2, 2002, and March 31, 2009, alleging that they were discriminated against because they were pregnant or took a maternity leave of absence. The EEOC alleged that Bloomberg engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of Title VII, because Bloomberg reduced pregnant women’s or mothers’ pay and demoted them based on the class members’ pregnancy and pregnancy-related leave.

Judge Preska found that the EEOC failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claim. According to the Court, the agency was required to prove more than “sporadic acts of discrimination” – it needed to establish that intentional discrimination was the defendant’s “standard operating procedure”. While the EEOC presented anecdotal evidence of discrimination, it was not enough. It could not overcome the company’s statistical evidence which showed the company’s “standard operating procedure” was to treat pregnant employees who took leave similarly to any other employee who took leaves of absence similar in length for other reasons.