This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Pregnancy Discrimination

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Medical Response Ambulance Service Inc.

Published: Jan. 15, 2021 | Result Date: Dec. 18, 2020 | Filing Date: Jul. 25, 2019 |

Case number: 2:19-cv-00258-RMP Settlement –  $162,500

Court

USDC Eastern Washington


Attorneys

Plaintiff

John F. Stanley
(U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)

May R. Che
(U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)

Roberta L. Steele
(U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)


Defendant

Barry A. Johnsrud
(Jackson Lewis PC)

Meredith A. Smith
(Jackson Lewis PC)


Facts

Plaintiff the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, filed suit against defendant American Medical Response Ambulance Service, Inc. for discrimination based on violations of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. AMR is a medical transportation company that provides and manages community-based medical transportation services.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended a paramedic who worked for AMR in Spokane, Washington had previously requested light duty for the last part of her pregnancy and supplied a doctor's note in support of her request. However, Plaintiff contended AMR denied her request, and directed the pregnant paramedic to take unpaid leave or work without any restrictions. Plaintiff contended Defendant allows non-pregnant employees injured on the job to perform light duty. Plaintiff contended that this violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Plaintiff contended that under the PDA, an employer is required to accommodate pregnant employees to the same extent that it accommodates other non-pregnant, but injured employees.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied Plaintiff's contentions and any wrongdoing.

Result

The parties agreed to settle for $162,500. Moreover, Defendant was required to provide anti-discrimination training on Title VII and the PDA to all supervisors, safety and human resources personnel, and employees at AMR's Spokane facilities. AMR was also required to revise its policies and procedures for Title VII compliance and post a notice that informed employees of the company's obligations.

Other Information

JUDGE: Hon. Rosanna Malouf Peterson.


#136450

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390