Quantcast

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Saturday, November 2, 2024

Judge grants in part and denies in part dismissal of pregnancy discrimination claims

Federal Court
Pregnantwoman 800x450

PHILADELPHIA - Aramark Campus' motion to dismiss a pregnancy discrimination case was granted in part and denied in part in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 12.

Shavon Williams accused Aramark of refusing to accommodate her amid her pregnancy-related disability. She ultimately resigned because of the intolerable working environment and sued for 10 counts including violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for discrimination and a hostile work environment.

As for the discrimination claims, the defendants said that she has no proof that the people who allegedly discriminated against her knew that she was pregnant, or even that they were the people who shut down her certain requests to accommodate her pregnancy.

Judge John R. Padova disagreed and pointed to Williams’s allegations that she “reminded” defendant Chris Ansardi in question about her condition but was still denied the rest breaks she needed throughout the day. Defendant Steve Mauz even allegedly confessed to simply ignoring her issues. Both Mauz and Ansardi were the plaintiff’s supervisors at the time in question.

“Viewing these allegations in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we find that they suggest that each of these defendants was aware that plaintiff was seeing rest breaks because of her pregnancy and that these defendants did not accommodate her requests for the breaks,” wrote Judge Padova. Because of this, the motion to dismiss her discrimination claims against Ansardi, Mauz and Torres were denied.

But the hostile work environment claims were dismissed as she didn’t point to plausible allegations.

The defendants sending her home early one day, a new uniform rule, and Williams’ “nitpicking” retaliation claims also fell short as she didn’t allege she lost any money after being sent home early, that the uniform rule or the alleged nitpicking was a violation of a protected activity.

But the retaliation claim for being denied breaks survived dismissal as Williams properly showed that she was denied the breaks she needed to cope with her condition throughout the day.

More News