Federal Appeals Court Rules That Employers Must Provide Equal Accommodations to Breastfeeding Workers
Police Officer Demoted, Demeaned and Pushed Off the Job
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday recognized for the first time that employers have an obligation to provide job modifications to workers who are breastfeeding on the same terms as they accommodate workers for other conditions, and held that failing to provide them with necessary accommodations on the job can be tantamount to firing them.
In the case, Hicks v. Tuscaloosa, the court upheld a jury's verdict finding that Stephanie Hicks, who worked for the West Alabama Narcotics Task Force, was discriminated against when she was demoted to patrol duty just eight days after her return from maternity leave and then denied accommodations for breastfeeding, forcing her to quit. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for WorkLife Law submitted a friend of the court brief on behalf of 22 women’s rights organizations and helped argue the case before the court last month.
Agent Hicks had requested a desk job because the bulletproof vest officers must wear on patrol interfered with breastfeeding and put her at risk of infection and other medical complications. The department denied her request even though other officers were routinely provided the same accommodation for other reasons. Her supervisors told her that she seemed “changed,” and intimated that it was because she had the “baby blues.” They were also overheard complaining about the length of time she had taken off for maternity leave, referring to her as a “stupid cunt,” and saying they would “find any way” to “get rid of that bitch.”
“I loved my job as a police officer, but I was demeaned, demoted and discriminated against for choosing to be a mom, and then forced to choose between my job and breastfeeding,” said Hicks. “I took a stand and fought back on behalf of all women so no other moms would be put in this situation.”
This court decision follows the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Young v. U.P.S., which held that an employer’s failure to provide accommodations related to pregnancy — in that case, a request for light duty due to a lifting restriction — could amount to sex discrimination.
The court’s decision also recognizes that liability for pregnancy discrimination does not end simply because a woman is no longer pregnant. The Eleventh Circuit is only the second appellate court — after the Fifth Circuit — to hold that women who are breastfeeding are protected under Title VII, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in employment. This decision goes further by recognizing a right to equal accommodations, and that failing to provide women with those accommodations may sometimes leave them with no choice but to resign.
“The Pregnancy Discrimination Act was enacted so that women would no longer be put in the position of having to choose between having a family and continuing to work, yet that is exactly what happened to Agent Hicks when she was reassigned to patrol,” said Galen Sherwin, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Women’s Rights Project. “The court’s ruling vindicates the rights of new mothers to be treated equally and with dignity on the job.”
“We were very pleased that the court adopted the legal arguments and even some of the specific language in our amicus brief,” said Hilary Rau, staff attorney with the Center for WorkLife Law. “Agent Hicks was given the impossible choice between risking her life by patrolling without a properly fitting bulletproof vest and risking her health and ability to breastfeed by wearing a heavy vest that unsafely compressed her chest. This ruling is a huge victory for all new and expecting moms who need equal accommodations at work so that they can continue to support their families.”
The ACLU has previously succeeded in similar pregnancy discrimination cases, including a federal jury’s verdict against a Suffolk County, New York police department in 2006, which found the department discriminated against women officers by denying them access to limited duty positions, like working the precinct desk, during their pregnancies; and a settlement in 2013 of its complaint against the Wallingford, Connecticut police department on behalf of police officer Annie Balcastro, whom the department denied a “light duty” assignment while she was pregnant.
The ACLU has also filed recent pregnancy discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of female police officers in Cromwell, Connecticut and Frankfort, Illinois.
The 22 organizations on whose behalf the ACLU and the Center for WorkLife Law submitted the amicus brief include the ACLU of Alabama, Inc., 9to5, A Better Balance, California Women’s Law Center, Equal Rights Advocates, Family Values @ Work, Feminist Majority Foundation, Gender Justice, Legal Aid Society – Employment Law Center, Legal Momentum, Legal Voice, National Association of Women Lawyers, National Association of Working Women, National Organization for Women, National Partnership for Women & Families, National Women’s Law Center, Southwest Women’s Law Center, Women Employed, Women’s Law Center of Maryland, Inc., Women’s Law Project, and the United States Breastfeeding Committee.
Today’s opinion can be found here:
/legal-document/hicks-v-tuscaloosa-opinion
The ACLU’s brief can be found here:
/legal-document/hicks-v-tuscaloosa-amicus-brief
Women's Rights
Hicks v Tuscaloosa
Women's Rights
Hicks v Tuscaloosa
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseOct 2024
LGBTQ Rights
+2 Issues
At Supreme Court, Tennessee Seeks to Expand Reach of Dobbs to Ban Health Care for Transgender YouthAt Supreme Court, Tennessee Seeks to Expand Reach of Dobbs to Ban Health Care for Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON – In their brief defending the state’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has asked the Supreme Court to expand its ruling overturning Roe v. Wade and allow the state to target transgender people’s autonomy over their own bodies, too. In U.S. v. Skrmetti, three Tennessee transgender youth and their families are challenging a state law that prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that are allowed for minors who are not transgender. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, the families argue that the ban violates their Equal Protection rights under the 14th Amendment. In the brief filed today, Tennessee relies on the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Whole Women’s Health in an attempt to justify its ban on gender-affirming health care for transgender people. The brief cites to Dobbs at least 10 times in sweeping arguments to justify government sex discrimination. “We’ve seen just how far extreme politicians will push to deny us our reproductive freedom, from banning abortion to threatening IVF to even threatening to put doctors in jail for providing emergency care, with deadly consequences for women’s lives,” said Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project. “The same politicians who are trying to control women have now set their sights on transgender people and their families and are trying to control their bodies and lives. Allowing politicians to continue down this road could hold severe implications for the freedom of all people to decide what is right for their own body.” Tennessee claims that their ban on gender-affirming care does not discriminate on the basis of sex even though it bans minors of one sex from accessing health care it allows to members of another sex. A transgender girl is barred from taking doctor-prescribed estrogen because Tennessee considers it “inconsistent” with her birth-assigned sex of male but a cisgender girl with a birth-assigned sex of female is permitted to take estrogen for any purpose including to affirm her female gender identity. “Since this Project’s founding by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we have adamantly challenged efforts to limit who we can be based on our gender or ability to bear children,” said Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project. “Tennessee’s attempt to limit who young people can become based on their sex shares a through-line with our nation’s history of subjugating women in the name of biology. The fight for each of us to live fully and authentically must include trans people. There is no ‘transgender’ exception to the U.S. Constitution.” In April 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP sued the state of Tennessee to block S.B. 1, which prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that it exempts for minors who are not transgender. Following a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, S.B. 1 took effect in July 2023. Since 2021, 24 states have banned hormone therapies for transgender youth. “Laws like Tennessee’s are not benign regulations of medical care; they are discriminatory efforts to exclude transgender people from the protections of the Constitution,” said Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “These bans represent a dangerous and discriminatory affront to the well-being of transgender youth across the country and their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.” -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Women's Rights
Civil Rights Groups Tell Federal Appeals Court that Protections for Pregnant Workers Cover Abortion CareCivil Rights Groups Tell Federal Appeals Court that Protections for Pregnant Workers Cover Abortion Care
WASHINGTON, D.C. - On Friday, a broad coalition of labor, workers’ rights, and gender justice organizations — led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Arkansas, and the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) — filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in support of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) regulations implementing the landmark Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), including the regulations’ explicit protection for workers who have abortions. The PWFA, which took effect last year, was the culmination of a decade-long campaign to secure access to reasonable accommodations for workers with temporary limitations caused by “pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.” The EEOC’s regulations provide comprehensive guidance to workers, employers, and the courts about the statute’s range of protections, including job-protected time off for medical treatment and recovery. The amicus brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit supports the EEOC in a challenge by 17 red states that are trying to block the PWFA regulations’ coverage of accommodations for abortion-related care. In June, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the states’ challenge, and the states appealed to the Eighth Circuit. Their appeal includes a request that the Eighth Circuit issue a preliminary injunction of the regulations’ abortion provisions. The ACLU-NWLC brief details the federal law’s longstanding ban on discrimination against workers who obtain abortions – protection the PWFA intended to continue. The brief also documents the accounts of workers whose health and jobs were put at risk when their employers denied them accommodations, including time off, for abortion care. Such accounts illustrate the urgent need for clarity with respect to the PWFA’s coverage of abortion-related accommodations, and the devastating medical and financial consequences if such accommodations are denied. “Abortion has long been recognized as part of the full spectrum of workers’ pregnancy-related needs that are protected by the law, ” said Gillian Thomas, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Women's Rights Project. “The states’ challenge has created uncertainty, and seeks to deprive workers of essential, job-protected time off for abortion care, posing significant health risks and leading to forced pregnancies. The EEOC regulations are vital to ensure pregnant workers don't have to choose between their health and their jobs.” “Extremist politicians are demonstrating repeatedly their willingness to risk women’s health to advance their anti-abortion agenda,” said Gaylynn Burroughs, vice president for Education and Workplace Justice at the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC). “Let’s be clear: abortion care is pregnancy-related care, and stripping essential protections for abortion from the PWFA would endanger the health and economic security of pregnant workers.” “The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and its regulations provide a lifeline for workers who need accommodations during the most critical periods of their lives. Attempting to strip away these protections, particularly for abortion-related needs, is an affront to the rights and well-being of pregnant workers,” said John Williams, legal director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “All people in all aspects of pregnancy, including abortion, should be treated with the care and consideration they deserve. We stand firmly with the EEOC in defending these essential protections.” A copy of the brief can be found here. -
PodcastSep 2024
Women's Rights
How Sue Bird Is Supercharging Women's SportsHow Sue Bird Is Supercharging Women's Sports
-
Press ReleaseJul 2024
Women's Rights
LGBTQ Rights
ACLU Condemns House Measure Against Department of Education Title IX RuleACLU Condemns House Measure Against Department of Education Title IX Rule
WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass H.J. Res. 165, a Congressional Review Act resolution disapproving of the U.S. Department of Education’s final Title IX rule providing guidance to schools on protecting students from sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination, anti-LGBTQ discrimination, and other forms of sex discrimination. Mike Zamore, ACLU National Policy and Government Affairs Director, had the following response: “Today’s vote to completely repeal the Title IX rule takes a sledgehammer to the government’s ability to ensure that all students have the opportunity to learn free from sex discrimination and harassment. Stripping critical civil rights protections from LGBTQ students and students who are pregnant and parenting - as this resolution would do - is something that all members of Congress should strongly oppose. This is also not how Congress should act to protect the rights of students who face disciplinary action under Title IX because passing this resolution would prevent future rulemaking to ensure fair processes in school disciplinary proceedings.” The ACLU’s letter urging a “No” vote on H.J. Res. 165 can be found here: /documents/aclu-urges-no-vote-on-h-j-res-165 The ACLU’s statement on the final Title IX rule can be found here: /press-releases/155090