Court rules on pregnancy discrimination suit

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has won its lawsuit against Sako Corporation after U.S. District Judge Alex R. Munson granted a summary judgment stemming from a pregnancy discrimination complaint lodged by seven of its workers.

The Korean-owned garment firm could face penalties and other monetary damages which will be determined at a trial scheduled for September 25.

In the ruling, Judge Munson affirmed that differential treatment based on pregnancy is illegal.

Pregnant women “who are able to work must be permitted to work on the same condition as other employees and when they are not able to work for medical reasons… must be accorded the same rights, leave privileges and other benefits, as other workers who are disabled from working,” he said.

“Sako treated pregnancy-related medical care differently when it initially required pregnant employees to pay for their medical expenses,” he added.

EEOC, which filed the suit on behalf of seven Sako employees who were not paid maternity medical expenses when they became pregnant, hailed the court’s decision.

“Judge Munson has clearly ruled that pregnant workers on Saipan are entitled to protection under [the law],” said William R. Tamayo, regional attorney for the federal agency’s San Francisco District Office. “We urge all employers to comply with federal civil rights laws.”

Susan L. McDuffie, EEOC’s San Francisco District director, said Sako violated the pregnant workers’ civil rights when it refused to pay medical expenses of these guest workers, while paying medical expenses of resident workers who were not pregnant.

“We are pleased with the decision to grant summary judgment in this important pregnancy discrimination case,” she said in a statement.

Senior Trial Attorney Daphne Barbee-Wooten, who argued the case on behalf of EEOC, said that pregnant workers must not be singled out for different treatment from other workers with temporary disabilities.

“When an employer pays medical expenses for employees who are not pregnant, then it must similarly pay for the medical expenses of pregnant workers,” she said.

The June 12 judgment addressed one of two EEOC lawsuits filed against Sako, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978.