EEOC Sues Victra for Discrimination Due to Pregnancy and Perceived Disability

RENO, Nev. – Victra, the business name of ABC Phones of North Carolina and a nationwide retailer of Verizon mobile devices, violated federal law when it denied a worker’s request to leave new hire training early for an urgent medical evaluation related to her pregnancy and rescinded her job offer instead, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced today.

According to the suit, a woman hired as a sales consultant at Victra’s Dayton, Nevada, store discovered prior to her start date that she needed to schedule an ultrasound and to see a high-risk pregnancy doctor right away. Hours after notifying the district sales manager that she needed to go to a medical appointment on the afternoon of her first day of training because “there might be something wrong with my daughter’s heart,” Victra withdrew the job offer and told her she would need to reapply once she knew she could “100% attend.” In contrast, the EEOC found that the company permitted other new hires to adjust or reschedule their training start dates or attendance for various reasons unrelated to pregnancy.

Such alleged conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination because of pregnancy and related medical conditions, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which forbids discrimination against a qualified individual because of a pregnancy-related impairment the employer regards as a disability.

The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. ABC Phones of North Carolina, Inc. d/b/a Victra, Case No. 3:24-cv-00444) in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, Northern Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process. The lawsuit seeks back pay and compensatory and punitive damages, as well as appropriate injunctive relief to prevent such discriminatory practices from occurring again.

“Workers should never be forced to choose between keeping their job or seeking urgent prenatal care to protect the health of both parent and child,” said Nancy Sienko, district director for the EEOC’s San Francisco District. “Losing the ability to earn income at such a critical time is devastating, and the EEOC will vigorously defend the rights of pregnant applicants and employees against employment discrimination.”

EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Mariko Ashley said, “Employers cannot discriminate against workers because they regard pregnancy-related complications as an impairment. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires employers to provide equal opportunities and equal flexibility to pregnant workers as they extend to other applicants or employees. Further, federal law now provides additional protections for pregnant workers under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which went into effect on June 27, 2023.”

More information about pregnancy discrimination is available at https://www.eeoc.gov/pregnancy-discrimination.

The suit was brought by the EEOC’s San Francisco District Office which has jurisdiction in Northern Nevada as well as Northern California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho. The San Francisco District has offices in Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose and Seattle.

The EEOC prevents and remedies unlawful employment discrimination and advances equal opportunity for all. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.