A federal lawsuit claims that Polaris Industries discriminated against a pregnant woman by forcing her to work overtime despite her doctor’s orders. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed the lawsuit on Wednesday.
The lawsuit states that Polaris refused to excuse the employee from work for medical appointments, made her work mandatory overtime, and threatened to fire her if she missed any additional workdays. Karla Gilbride, general counsel for the EEOC, emphasized that “no pregnant worker should have to choose between their health and earning a living to support their family.”
The EEOC alleges that Polaris violated the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which was enacted last year, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act.
In a statement to AL.com, a Polaris spokesperson responded, “We disagree with the allegations in the complaint.” The company stated, “Polaris is committed to providing a fair and inclusive workplace for all our employees and takes seriously our compliance with all applicable employment laws, including the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.”
Polaris, headquartered in Minnesota, manufactures off-road vehicles, motorcycles, snowmobiles, and boats at its facility in Huntsville.
The lawsuit outlines that the employee, who installed floor panels on electric vehicles, informed Polaris of her pregnancy during her orientation. Due to her pregnancy, she experienced nausea, swelling in her feet, and gestational diabetes, which occasionally forced her to miss work.
According to the EEOC, Polaris’s policies only permitted absences for military duty, jury duty, bereavement, inclement weather, or to give testimony as a subpoenaed witness. The lawsuit states that employees could be terminated for having more than two unexcused absences.
The employee was unable to take time off for her medical needs because she was in a 60-day probationary period as a new employee, which resulted in “attendance points” against her.
When she approached HR to discuss how to avoid termination, she was informed that she would continue to accrue attendance points until her probationary period ended and she became eligible for time off.
To protect her job, the employee obtained a medical note stating that she could only work a maximum of 40 hours a week. However, “four minutes later,” she received a response from HR indicating, “we cannot accommodate this restriction as overtime is an essential function of the position,” according to the lawsuit.
Facing the threat of termination, the employee chose to resign to safeguard her pregnancy.
This case marks the first lawsuit filed under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act since its enactment. The law protects workers from discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related conditions and applies to both public and private employers. Gilbride stated that if an employee requires accommodations due to pregnancy, employers must collaborate to find a solution.
“When employers apply inflexible policies that drive pregnant workers out of the workplace instead of engaging in this interactive process, the EEOC will step in to defend workers’ rights under this new law,” she added.
The lawsuit seeks to compel Polaris to amend its policies to accommodate pregnant workers and ensure compliance with the law. Additionally, it requests compensation for the employee’s lost wages and benefits.
Marsha Rucker, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Birmingham District, warned employers that since June 27, 2023, it is illegal under the PWFA to deny reasonable accommodations to employees with known limitations related to pregnancy, even if the employee is temporarily unable to perform an essential job function, provided she will be able to perform that function in the near future.
You Might Be Interested In
