The police officers alleged they were forced to go on sick leave, even if they could perform other duties. Five of the female officers said they were stuck at home without pay after exhausting sick leave. Many times it takes a case like this to change policy at a large corporation or government agency. In the future females who become pregnant will not have to endure this type of treatment.

The company claimed they had to fire her because they did not have enough work for her to perform with the restrictions. However after firing her Terminix hired two male employees to perform reinspections that the female technician could have performed. Another words, there was work she could have performed and instead of letting her work, they chose to fire her. The EEOC could have also filed gender discrimination charges against the company because the fired a female and hired two males to take her job.

“Pregnancy discrimination charges have nearly doubled since 1992,” said Faye Williams, attorney for the EEOC. “Many employers operate on the mistaken belief that they may treat pregnant employees differently by forcing them to take medical leave and then terminating them. This settlement should place employers on notice that pregnant employees may not be singled out for termination or forced medical leave.”

The HR manager reported Male's complaints to the general manager of the facility, and Male was fired within less than 72 hours. This type of behavior is so obvious and it is amazing that companies still believe they can get away with treating people this way. It is nice to see people stand up for their rights and not let companies operate in this fashion.

“No one should lose his job for alerting human resources to inappropriate workplace behavior,” said EEOC attorney Jim Sacher.

The Obama administration has taken a very aggressive stance on gender discrimination and equal pay issues. With huge jury verdicts like this, you can expect large companies to be taken to court if they are paying females workers less than their male counterparts. The downturn in the economy combined with social networking sites and online recruiting website allows people to follow pay issues more closely.

In the case of Brown she already received an employment offer when she went for a follow-up meeting with the headmaster to discuss some final pre-employment matters before she was to begin her new job. During this meeting, Brown informed the headmaster that she was pregnant and the headmaster told her she would not be able to teach there because of her pregnancy. This is a clear violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In the second case Prince was called into a meeting with the school’s director to discuss some concerns she had about Prince’s health. Although the context of the meeting seemed routine it was really a pretext for discussing Princes pregnancy. During the meeting, the director told Prince she heard rumors that Prince was pregnant. Prince confirmed that she was pregnant and the director fired her.

“Pregnant women have an equal right to participate in the work force,” said Robert Dawkins, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office.

The problem continued when Johnson was denied a raise, which she alleges she would have received if she were not pregnant. Additionally, Johnson began pregnant a second time and claims she was fired once she notified the cleaners of the second pregnancy. In this case the cleaners own policy shows they were discriminating against pregnant women. If a pregnant woman does not mind working in the back around chemicals, it should be of no concern to the company. The employee should have a choice in keeping the job they currently hold if they become pregnant.

“The U.S. Supreme Court held almost 20 years ago that an employer may not substitute its own judgment on an employee’s pregnancy for hers. The EEOC is dedicated to ensuring that women are not treated differently because they are or may become pregnant, and this case reminds employers of their obligations under the law.”

Pregnancy discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is very sad that at this time in our history female workers are still being singled out and discriminated against. Large settlements like this should make employers take heed and stop this type of behavior. Many times employers believe they can get away with their behavior and it takes a lawsuit to stop them.

“Unfortunately, the EEOC keeps having to drive home the point that no woman should lose her means of earning a living simply because she is pregnant,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru.

Details of the discrimination and civil rights violations were that Gibson was subjected to unwarranted discipline, sexist comments and mistreatment after she told her manager about the pregnancy. Allegedly, Gibson’s manager said a pregnant woman should be at home, not at work, and that Gibson’s focus should be on her children. These types of comments are from the dark ages and have place in the modern work place. In another shocking comment the manager also complained about Gibson’s pregnant appearance in the guard uniform.

Most cases of retaliation are proved with circumstantial evidence. In this case Gibson’s was fired the same day she turned in her paperwork for maternity leave. That is awful coincidental to be a coincidence. According to court documents U.S. Security Associates terminated her husband when he failed to stop his wife from filing a discrimination charge with the EEOC.

“The EEOC is dedicated to ensuring that employers treat all employees equally, regardless of gender, pregnancy status or association,” said Robert Dawkins, regional attorney for the Atlanta District Office.

The lawsuit alleges Haner offered to obtain a doctor’s release allowing her to take part in training at the academy but the County refused saying she was a liability. The remarkable portion of this lawsuit is that after they dismissed her from the academy they assigned to her a full-time job that involved direct contact with inmates. In her lawsuit Haner contends that county policy calls for pregnant corrections officers to be placed on light duty work and have no contact with inmates. She alleges the County engaged in pregnancy discrimination by the conduct which violated her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

It is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to discrimination against a pregnant person. Many times companies will try to make up reasons to fire a worker once she becomes pregnant and it is important for the worker to protect her rights.

"Under federal law, employers must permit pregnant employees to work as long as they are able to perform their jobs," said EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O'Neill. "All workers, including pregnant employees, deserve fairness in the workplace. Women should not lose employment opportunities because of pregnancy."

Other interesting statistics in the report include of 7,538 cases closed on the merits, 2.5% resulted in findings of unlawful discrimination. Both parties entered into settlements in 19.5 % or 3,249 complaints. Agencies awarded a total of over $50 million in monetary benefits to complainants for unlawful discrimination.

“Federal agencies must step up their efforts to improve complaint processing time, while also focusing on quality results,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “

This new law adds order of protection status to the current protected classifications of religion, age, race, national origin, gender, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, military status, and unfavorable discharge from military service. The initial charge would be filed with the Illinois Department of Human Rights in either Chicago or Springfield.

The allegations in the case also included that Bangladeshi security guards were being treated differently than Nepalese with respect to assignment of overtime hours, work location, and housing. Further, the EEOC said the defendants discriminated on the basis of national origin by providing different amounts of benefits to Nepalese, Chinese, Filipino and Bangladeshi employees, and failed to conduct any investigation regarding the claimants’ allegations. Within two or three months after the charge was filed with the EEOC, the defendants unlawfully retaliated against the workers by failing to renew their contracts.

“This major settlement shows that the EEOC will vigorously protect the rights of all workers, within every reach of our jurisdiction, to be free of discrimination,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “The resolutions of these egregious cases bring a measure of justice to the many workers who were retaliated against and otherwise victimized by discriminatory employment practices because of their national origin, age, or pregnancy.”

In the settlement, the University of Phoenix admitted no wrongdoing or liability, according to a statement provided to the Phoenix Business Journal. The “University of Phoenix is pleased to have resolved this matter. We are dedicated to providing a work environment in which our employees are treated fairly and with respect, and are recognized and rewarded based on their accomplishments. University of Phoenix is committed to providing equal opportunity in all aspects of employment and does not tolerate discrimination or harassment of any kind,” the university statement read.