A Huntsville employer discriminated against a pregnant woman by requiring her to work overtime despite a doctor’s orders, a federal lawsuit alleges.
Polaris Industries refused to excuse their pregnant employee for medical appointments, made her work mandatory overtime and threatened to terminate her if she missed any more work, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
“No pregnant worker should have to choose between their health and earning a living to support their family,” said Karla Gilbride, general counsel for the EEOC, in a statement.
The federal agency said that Polaris violated the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which went into effect last year, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
In a statement to AL.com a spokesperson for Polaris said “we disagree with the allegations in the complaint.”
“Polaris is committed to providing a fair and inclusive workplace for all our employees,” the statement says, “and we take seriously our compliance with all applicable employment laws, including the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.”
The company makes off-road vehicles, motorcycles, snowmobiles and boats at its manufacturing facility in Huntsville and is headquartered in Minnesota.
The employee, who installed floor panels on electric vehicles, first notified Polaris of her pregnancy during orientation, according to the lawsuit.
She developed nausea, swelling in her feet and gestational diabetes as a result of her pregnancy and sometimes had to be absent from work as a result, the lawsuit says.
According to the EEOC, the company’s policies only allowed absences for military or jury duty, bereavement, inclement weather or to give subpoenaed witness testimony. Any employee who had more than two unexcused absences could be fired, according to the lawsuit.
The woman could not take time off to attend to her medical needs because she was under a 60-day probationary period as a new employee and so ‘attendance points’ were filed against her.
According to the lawsuit, the employee went to HR to ask how she could avoid termination, and was told she would continue to accrue attendance points until her probationary period was finished and she could be eligible for time off.
The employee went to her doctor to get a medical note saying she could only work a maximum of 40 hours a week, the lawsuit says. “Four minutes later” she received a response from HR saying “we cannot accommodate this restriction as overtime is an essential function of the position,” according to the suit.
Rather than get fired, the employee resigned to protect her pregnancy, according to the EEOC.
The first case under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was filed this month. The law applies to both public and private employers and is meant to protect workers from discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related conditions.
Gilbride said in a statement that if an employee needs accommodations at work because of their pregnancy, the law requires the employer to work with them to find a solution.
“When employers apply inflexible policies that drive pregnant workers out of the workplace rather than engaging in this interactive process, the EEOC will step in to defend workers’ rights under this new law,” she added.
The lawsuit is asking for the company to change its policies to accommodate pregnant workers and comply with the law, and to compensate the employee for lost wages and benefits.
“Employers should be on notice that since June 27, 2023, it has been illegal under the PWFA to deny reasonable accommodations to employees with known limitations related to their pregnancy, even if the employee is temporarily unable to perform an essential function of her job, provided that she will be able to perform that function in the near future,” said Marsha Rucker, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Birmingham District.