A recent lawsuit, Wyatt v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., alleges that the supermarket chain fired a pregnant employee due to her need for accommodations related to pregnancy-related medical conditions and her plans to take leave for childbirth. The employee, who worked as an inventory control analyst at a Florida Publix location, experienced severe morning sickness and pregnancy-related hypertension in 2023. The complaint claims that the employee was initially called back to the store from telework and later required to report to work at 5 a.m., despite her morning sickness being at its worst during that time.
After the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) took effect in June 2023, Publix allowed the employee to work from home with necessary breaks. However, shortly before her due date, she was terminated, allegedly for completing work without being logged in. The employee claims that Publix did not inform her that this was an issue and did not discipline other workers in similar situations who were not pregnant.
The employee has filed suit, claiming violations of the PWFA, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Florida Civil Rights Act. The lawsuit argues that Publix fired her due to her request for reasonable accommodations related to her pregnancy and medical conditions and her intention to take FMLA leave for her child’s birth and care.
The case underscores the need for employers to ensure compliance with pregnancy discrimination laws, particularly the PWFA and ADA, which require accommodations for employees with pregnancy-related conditions unless it would cause undue hardship. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance specifies that accommodations for pregnancy-related conditions, including morning sickness or other episodic limitations, should be provided. Employers have faced legal challenges in other cases for failing to accommodate pregnant employees, such as refusing transfers or denying necessary work modifications.
The ADA also plays a role, as conditions related to pregnancy may qualify as disabilities that require accommodation. Furthermore, the FMLA allows eligible employees to take job-protected leave for childbirth or to care for a newborn.
The lawsuit also highlights potential issues with Title VII, which prohibits pregnancy discrimination and harassment in the workplace. The employee alleged that her supervisor supported her accommodations, but his superior was dismissive and pressured her to work in-person despite her medical conditions. The supervisor’s boss allegedly made inappropriate comments and became hostile when the employee resisted the pressure.
Publix has not commented on the pending litigation, but this case serves as a reminder to employers of the importance of providing accommodations and adhering to pregnancy-related discrimination laws.
