By Sheri Qualters, From The National Law Journal

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has sued a Chicago hospital in an early test of fresh agency guidelines addressing discrimination by failure to accommodate pregnancy-related medical restrictions.

The agency filed EEOC v. Roseland Community Hospital Inc. in the Northern District of Illinois. It alleged the hospital discharged mental-health counselor Quinniya Hearn instead of accommodating her temporary medical restrictions or transferring her to an open position.

In emailed statement, Roseland president and chief executive Tim Egan wrote that “the hospital prides itself in its strong nondiscrimination policy. This issue arose in 2011 and the hospital acted appropriately and in full compliance with the law in Ms. Hearn’s situation, and we intend to defend and respond appropriately to the complaint in court, not in the press.”

The EEOC has a policy against commenting on pending litigation, according spokeswoman Justine Lisser.

The case, filed on Sept. 17, followed the agency’s July release of guidelines concerning pregnancy discrimination, centering on the interaction between the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act. The guidelines make clear that, in the agency’s view, the ADA’s definition of disability applies to workers with pregnancy-related limitations.

The EEOC identified two additional pregnancy- and disability-discrimination suits it filed and settled before the new guidelines. In April 2013, a government-support services contractor agreed to settle a Nevada federal case for $70,000. In December, Hawaiian resort retailer Step Three Ltd. paid $60,000 to settle a Hawaii federal case.

The U.S. Supreme Court is slated to take up the scope of the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act on Dec. 3 in Young v. United Parcel Service.

“It’s the EEOC’s new push,” said Chicago employment lawyer David Porter, who isn’t involved in the case.

“They now are saying that even if someone doesn’t have a disability per se, that being pregnant is a situation where the employer should be treating the employee as if they’re covered by the [Americans With Disabilities Act],” Porter said.

A positive reception to the case by the courts could “embolden” plaintiffs’ attorneys, he said. “I don’t think it’s all that rare, the situation where an employer doesn’t want to accommodate someone who is pregnant,” he said.

Contact Sheri Qualters at [email protected]

For more on this story go to: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202670955608/EEOC-Accuses-Hospital-of-Pregnancy-Discrimination#ixzz3E9q6Rnsx