JUDGE AWARDS MAXIMUM DAMAGES IN EEOC PREGNANCY BIAS SUIT AGAINST JANITORIAL COMPANY

Owner Fired Housekeeper Solely Because of Pregnancy, Federal Agency Charged

DALLAS – A federal district court today awarded  the maximum damages of $50,000 and significant injunctive relief in favor of  the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in a discrimination  lawsuit against a Dallas-based commercial janitorial company, the agency  announced today.

        According to the EEOC’s suit, the  owners of First Sreymco, LLC, doing  business as Jani-King, reduced the work hours of housekeeper Sonia Alvarado  simply because she was pregnant and subsequently fired her. The company ignored medical assurances  that Alvarado presented to them, the EEOC said, and co-owner Michelle Myers  told her that the company did not want to take any risks because of her  pregnancy.

Such conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,  as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, under which employ­ment  discrimination on the basis of preg­nancy, childbirth, or related medical  conditions con­stitutes unlawful sex discrimination. In June 2007, Alvarado filed a discrimination  charge with the EEOC, initiating an investigation by the agency’s Dallas  District Office.

The  EEOC’s suit (EEOC v. First Sreymco, LLC, d/b/a Jani-King, Civ. 3:08—CV—1607--D)  was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas  Division, on September 12, 2008. Despite  receiving notice of the lawsuit, Jani-King failed to file an answer to the  litigation or otherwise appear in the case, and the court entered a default  judgment against the company on May 13, 2009.

Judge Sidney  A. Fitzwater awarded $50,000, which is the maximum amount of damages an  employer having fewer than 100 employees is required to pay in an employment  discrimination lawsuit. The judge ruled  that these damages consisted of both compensatory damages to com­pensate  Alvarado for the pain and anguish she suffered as a result of the  discrimination, and punitive damages to punish Jani-King for its malicious or  reckless indifference to Alvarado’s federal right to be free from employment  discrimination.

The  court also awarded significant injunctive relief against Jani-King. The judge ordered Jani-King, its owners,  managers, successors, and all persons in active concert or participation with  them to be enjoined from engaging in discrimination on the basis of sex or  pregnancy. The judge further ordered Jani-King to institute, disseminate, and  enforce a policy under which pregnant employees are permitted to work as long  as they are able to and choose to do so.

Devika Seth, senior trial attorney  with the EEOC’s Dallas office, said, “We hope this Judgment sends a message to  employers that women who wish to continue working and are able to do so should  not be penalized simply because they are expecting a child. We are so proud of  Ms. Alvarado for coming forward and standing up for her right to work.”

“I lost my  happiness when Jani-King told me they didn’t want me because I was pregnant,” said  Alvarado. “The news of the judgment has  brought hope back to me because I know now that there is support for pregnant  women when their employer breaks the law.”

During  Fiscal Year 2007, pregnancy charges rose to a record high level of 5,587, up 14  percent from the prior fiscal year’s record of 4,901.

The  EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the agency is  available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.