A customer’s preference does not excuse an employer’s discrimination. In the EEOC’s case against Security Assurance Management, a private security company agreed to a consent decree and $45,000 after a hospital client objected to a pregnant officer working at its site. ComPsych ADA coach Melissa Greisel walks through the case below.
What happened
Security Assurance Management hired an unarmed special police officer and placed her on site at a mental and behavioral health hospital. She had no performance problems and worked there for about nine months. In her third trimester, the hospital told the security company it did not want her working at its site while pregnant.
After removing her from the hospital, the company did not offer her anything close to her previous position. She went from full time to about a day and a half per week until she began maternity leave a month or so later. After the birth, the company failed to provide private lactation facilities, ignored or denied her attempts to engage in the interactive process under the ADA and the PWFA, and disciplined her for absences connected to her medical and maternity-related conditions.
How it resolved
The case ended in a consent decree. Besides paying the employee $45,000, the company must put in place policies for how employees request accommodations for pregnancy-related conditions and train employees on its obligations under Title VII, the PWFA, and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. It must also report to the EEOC any denial of a pregnancy-related accommodation and any complaint of pregnancy discrimination.
Beyond the payment, the company must give the EEOC access to its inner workings, ccover the cost of building the policies and training it should have had already, and meet the decree’s terms to the EEOC’s satisfaction rather than its own. Breaking the agreement carries more severe consequences.
Key takeaways for employers
- Customer or client preference does not excuse discrimination. The employer is responsible for its own decisions and employment practices, and the same rule applies under the ADA, the PWFA, Title VII, and most other situations. Customer preference matters only in a narrow set of circumstances, such as a patient choosing the gender of their own healthcare worker.
- Run the interactive process and do not ignore the employee or the problem.
- Plan lactation facilities in advance. If an employee is pregnant, assume she will return and need them.
- If you must move an employee to a different role, the alternative should be close to equivalent in pay, hours, location, difficulty, work environment, and commute. Equivalent roles can be hard to find.
- When a customer makes a troubling request, offer other ways to meet its concern. Quality or production goals can replace a demand that everyone work in office, and an expert’s safety report can ease worries about a disability on a job site.
- Remind the customer that a business cannot be contractually obligated to break the law.
An important caveat: This case resolved by consent decree, so it is not precedent and the facts above are allegations rather than findings. None of these steps protect an employer who honors a discriminatory request in the first place. If the initial reason for the change was discriminatory, a good alternative position or a well-run process will not cure it. And 100% of the liability from a charge of discrimination lands on the employer, not the customer.
Received a customer request that does not sound right? Reach out to your ADA coach before making a decision.
