Pregnant Employees are a Protected Class, Not an Inconvenience

A federal jury in Washington, D.C. found that Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. discriminated against a pregnant worker when it restricted her bathroom breaks, reacted negatively when she left work for a doctor's appointment and ultimately fired her. (Garcia Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., D.D.C., No. 1:14-cv-00297, jury verdict 8/4/16).

Doris Garcia Hernandez sued Chipotle under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act. After a four-day trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the jury sided with Garcia, awarding $50,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. It is possible that the Judge may also award equitable damages, such as back pay, attorneys' fees and litigation costs. Needless the say, this case has also resulted in a lot of negative publicity for Chipotle.

At trial, the jury had to decide who to believe—the plaintiff or the supervisor. The Plaintiff claimed that the supervisor began scrutinizing her more closely after she told him she was pregnant. She testified that he implemented a policy requiring workers to verbally announce to every employee in the store when they needed to step away from their work stations to use the bathroom or have a drink of water. Because she was pregnant, however, the Plaintiff had to do this more frequently than other employees, which the Plaintiff characterized as "humiliating." In addition, the Plaintiff testified that her supervisor wouldn't let her leave work early for a prenatal doctor's appointment she had told him about several days earlier. She testified that she repeatedly asked her supervisor for permission to leave for the appointment, but he ignored her, and she left anyway for the appointment. The next day, the supervisor fired her in front of the other employees in the main area of the restaurant. The Plaintiff contended that she had been allowed to leave work early for doctor's appointments on short notice before she informed her supervisor she was pregnant.

The supervisor denied adopting the policy or treating the Plaintiff harshly. The jury chose to believe the Plaintiff.

It would appear from the facts that the supervisor in this case may have felt "inconvenienced" by the pregnant employee's need for more bathroom breaks or doctor's appointments, and he treated her adversely as a result. Certainly the jury thought so. This is an example of a situation in which a supervisor cannot hide behind the argument that he was "treating all employees the same" and therefore, was not discriminating against any particular employee. When a policy or practice adversely impacts a protected group, such as pregnant women in this case, that adverse impact can also be considered discrimination.

Bottom line: it does not look good from a legal or public relations perspective to fire a pregnant employee for going to the doctor for a prenatal visit. This is the kind of supervisory decision that warranted review by a trained human resources professional.