New England Biz Law Update
Fitness company Equinox Holdings will pay $48,000 and implement anti-discrimination safeguards to resolve a lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which alleged that the company rejected a job applicant after she requested to reschedule an interview due to menstrual cramps tied to endometriosis.
The federal suit accused Equinox of violating both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, citing disability and sex discrimination.
According to the complaint, the applicant – who had prior fitness industry experience – was told via text message that she was being passed over “only because of the concern in the future if your absence may occur due to your monthly cycle.”
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, was settled by a two-year consent decree that includes monetary relief, policy changes and mandatory anti-discrimination training at Equinox’s five D.C.-area locations. The decree also requires the company to post notices about employee rights and implement procedures for reasonable accommodation requests.
Menstrual conditions and the ADA: an emerging legal frontier
The case adds to a growing body of legal actions and conversations about whether conditions like endometriosis, premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) and severe menstrual cramps may qualify as disabilities under the ADA, particularly when they substantially limit major life activities such as working or concentrating.
Although menstruation itself isn’t considered a disability, courts have found that chronic, painful menstrual-related conditions could warrant accommodation.
In this case, the EEOC made clear that rejecting a qualified applicant due to a short delay request tied to menstrual pain was not only medically insensitive but legally discriminatory.
What employers should know
The case brings the following lessons for employers:
- Severe menstrual symptoms may qualify for protection under the ADA if they stem from an underlying condition and substantially limit daily functioning.
- Denying employment based on assumptions about future absences tied to menstruation or related conditions risks violating both ADA and Title VII.
- Reasonable accommodations apply at the interview stage, not just after hire.
- It is important to train hiring managers on how to handle accommodation requests appropriately and update anti-discrimination policies to include less visible or stigmatized conditions.
This case underscores that reproductive and menstrual health issues are not off-limits for ADA protections, and that dismissing them can have both legal and reputational consequences.
