Discrimination Complaints Against Frontier Airlines by Employee Moms Mount
Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union on Tuesday broadened its legal battle on behalf of pregnant and breast-feeding mothers by…
May 17, 2017 at 11:11 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union on Tuesday broadened its legal battle on behalf of pregnant and breast-feeding mothers by filing another discrimination complaint against Frontier Airlines.
It is the second time the ACLU and its pro bono partner, New York litigation boutique Holwell Shuster & Goldberg, has gone after Frontier. A prior complaint on behalf of four women pilots is pending before the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Jim Faulkner, head of corporate communications at Frontier, said in a statement, “Our policies and practices comply with all federal and state laws as well as with the relevant provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between Frontier and its flight attendant group. We have made good-faith efforts to identity and provide rooms and other secure locations for use by breast-feeding flight attendants during their duty travel.”
Galen Sherwin, staff attorney with the ACLU in New York, said the group has litigated and successfully settled numerous cases involving pregnant or nursing employees, and has several charges pending now with the EEOC in various parts of the country. Another breast-feeding case against the city of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Sherwin said.
The ACLU led the amicus brief effort on the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court case, filed against UPS, that established that failure to accommodate pregnant workers can amount to sex discrimination under federal law.
In Tuesday's complaints to the EEOC, flight attendants Jo Roby, a 13-year Frontier employee, and Stacy Rewitzer, an 11-year employee, said they were forced to take unpaid leave after having their babies. They also said Frontier refused to provide accommodations for them to pump breast milk, and that they were told not to pump while on duty.
The attendants said in their affidavits that they often work 10-hour or longer shifts, but need to pump their milk about every four hours. Their charges assert that Frontier's policies violate federal and state laws against discrimination based on sex, pregnancy, childbirth and disability in employment, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Last year the ACLU and the law firm filed similar discrimination charges against Frontier with the EEOC on behalf of the pilots. That claim says the company forces pregnant pilots to take eight to 10 weeks of unpaid leave before their due date; allows a maximum of 120 days of maternity leave, all of it unpaid, and fails to make accommodations to enable pilots who are breast-feeding after they return to work.
Lani Perlman, associate at Holwell Shuster, said, “We did reach out to Frontier before filing the flight attendant charges. We are always pleased to have companies change their policies without litigation, but Frontier did not do so.”
Perlman added, “This is an issue that has come to light throughout the aviation industry after the pilot charges were filed. Some other airlines are trying to address the issue.”
A Milwaukee law firm employment blog reported that last year Delta Air Lines settled a claim by a flight attendant who said Delta violated a New York City human rights law by failing to provide her with space to pump breast milk.
Delta reportedly paid $30,000 and agreed to revise its accommodation policies. An airline spokesperson couldn't address the settlement, but told the blog the company strives “to provide a great place to work … including offering lactation rooms and other reasonable accommodation to new mothers and expectant mothers.”
Contact the reporter Sue Reisinger at [email protected].
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllClifford Chance Under Fire for Human Rights Assessment of Saudi Arabia World Cup Bid
5 minute readTransgender Woman Awarded $150K Default Judgment Against Corrections Officer for Alleged Assault
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250