Jumping To Conclusions Can Cost You: Rescinded Offer to Pregnant Applicant Costs Employer 6-Figure Settlement
- Written by Rebecca Hause-Schultz
Earlier this month, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and a Florida employer reached a $100,000.00 settlement stemming from a discrimination claim by a pregnant job applicant who alleged her offer was pulled because of her pregnancy. The applicant, Nicole Purcell, contended that the employer formally offered her a job in March 2015. After receiving the job offer, Purcell called the employer’s office and asked to speak with a department head. She told the department head she was pregnant, and asked about the employer’s maternity policy. Less than half an hour later, the employer pulled Purcell’s offer, explaining that they had a very urgent need to have somebody in the position long term.
The EEOC said that the employer violated the law by assuming that Purcell could not perform the duties asked of her. The employer was required under the law to assume that a pregnant employee could perform the job until proven otherwise, or until the employee asks for an accommodation due to her pregnancy.
- Written by Gregory Blueford
Last week, a Florida citrus grower was found to be a joint employer of its hired farm labor contractor’s H-2A employees (“Plaintiffs”) after a federal judge determined the grower extensively controlled the manner and means by which the harvesters accomplished their work.
In Garcia-Celestino v. Ruiz Harvesting, Inc., et al., Consolidated Citrus LP (“Consolidated Citrus”) hired Ruiz Harvesting, Inc. (“RHI”) to recruit and hire H-2A workers from Mexico to harvest oranges. Plaintiffs sued both Consolidated Citrus and RHI for unpaid wages under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Protection Act (“MSPA”), and Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), common law breach of contract and state violations of minimum wage law. RHI was later dismissed after settling their claims separately with Plaintiffs.