EEOC sues Sako for termination of 3 workers

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued a defunct garment manufacturing company yesterday for terminating at least three women who had refused to pay for their pregnancy-related expenses.

EEOC filed the suit against Sako Corp. under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, alleging sex-based pregnancy discrimination.

Sako Corp. ceased operations in March 2005.

According to the federal labor agency, Sako discriminated against at least three pregnant women by firing them after they refused a demand by the company’s vice president to pay for their pregnancy-related medical expenses before their employment contracts could be renewed.

CNMI immigration and labor laws require employers to pay medical expenses, including those related to pregnancy, of all its workers.

“By requiring pregnant workers to pay for their pregnancy-related expenses but not requiring non-pregnant workers to pay for them, Sako illegally discriminated against pregnant women,” EEOC said in a statement.

In addition, the commission said the women were asked to agree not to file a complaint with the federal commission.

When the pregnant employees refused these demands, they were allegedly given only a short-term extension of their contracts and later terminated after giving birth. Meanwhile, another woman who agreed to pay for her pregnancy medical expenses was given a full one-year renewal of her employment contract.

Other non-pregnant women employees whose contracts were up for renewal were also given a full one-year contract.

“It is hard to believe that a corporation would require its employees to pay for their medical expenses when it is obligated under the law to absorb the cost,” said William R. Tamayo, regional attorney for EEOC’s San Francisco District. “It is particularly blatant discrimination to require the charging parties to pay for their medical expenses when they were pregnant at the time. The company had previously been sued and entered into a consent decree not to engage in this type of prohibited conduct.”

The EEOC filed suit against Sako Corp. in the U.S. District Court in the Northern Marianas after the parties failed to reach conciliation.

EEOC is seeking back pay, lost wages, and compensatory damages, among other relief, on behalf of the charging employees.

Joan Ehrlich, director of EEOC’s San Francisco District, admitted that EEOC might not recover fully from the now defunct corporation. Still, she said, it is important to send a message to other employers that EEOC will not tolerate discrimination in the workplace.

“Women have the right to take reasonable maternity leave during their pregnancy and the right to return to their job if they wish to after their pregnancies. Any restriction of these rights is a violation of the law,” Ehrlich said.

For his part, EEOC Honolulu Local Office director Tim Riera said, “Employers must honor their obligations to non-resident workers that it employs. They cannot condition the renewal of these workers’ employment contracts by requiring them to shoulder pregnancy related medical expenses.”