Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / News / Pregnancy discrimination case settles for $45 million

Pregnancy discrimination case settles for $45 million

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has agreed to pay $45 million to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging widespread pregnancy discrimination.

The case highlights the need to provide equal opportunities and accommodations for pregnant employees, as well as the necessity of training for managers on how to properly handle pregnancy-related matters in the workplace.

The case, which involved over 1,000 employees, challenged the agency’s practice of involuntarily removing pregnant officers and agriculture specialists from their regular roles.

The lawsuit, initially filed in 2016 with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), claimed that CBP systematically placed pregnant employees on light duty without offering them the option to remain in their regular positions, with or without accommodations.

Plaintiffs said this practice limited their ability to earn overtime and differential pay rates, lowered their chances of promotion, and made it more difficult to obtain preferred schedules.

Legal basis

At the heart of the legal challenge was the assertion that CBP’s actions violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

The plaintiffs argued that the agency treated pregnancy differently from other short-term disabilities, unfairly disadvantaging pregnant workers.

The case received class certification in April 2023, paving the way for the recent settlement.

Settlement terms

The settlement includes a commitment from CBP to implement reforms, including a new policy that presumes pregnant officers and specialists can continue in their positions. Additionally, CBP has agreed to identify a non-exhaustive list of accommodations for pregnant employees and to provide mandatory training for managers and supervisors on the rights and reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers.

As part of the settlement, CBP does not admit fault. The agency had argued that it was not standard policy to put pregnant employees on light duty, but that some managers operated outside agency guidelines.