©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2026 EDITION | 22 In EEOC v. Support Center For Child Advocates, No. 2:25-cv-00310, filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on January 17, 2025, the EEOC alleges that the employer denied an employee’s request— necessitated by her high-risk pregnancy during the COVID-19 pandemic—to be exempted from the employer’s policy requiring in-office attendance three days per week, while providing the same accommodation to a non-pregnant employee, which resulted in the employee’s constructive discharge. On October 16, 2025, after the parties’ third motion for entry of a Consent Decree was denied, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal and Settlement Agreement, and the Court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice. (This case is also noteworthy for the fact that it resolved with a Stipulation of Dismissal and Settlement Agreement; not a Consent Decree.) In EEOC v. QSR Pita USA, Inc., Bubbamax, LLC, Paul Duerre, et al., No. 4:25-cv-04109, filed in the District of South Dakota on June 23, 2025, the EEOC alleges the employer discriminated against its employee due to pregnancy and a related disability and denied reasonable accommodation, which ultimately lead to her termination. This case is in the early stages of litigation. In EEOC v. PT Administrative Services LLC, No. 1:25-cv-03615, filed in the Eastern District of New York on June 30, 2025, the EEOC alleges that the employer unlawfully discriminated against its employee by denying reasonable accommodations related to childbirth and lactation, firing her shortly after giving birth for requesting support, and refusing to rehire her despite her willingness to return without accommodations. This case is in the early stages of litigation. In EEOC v. Smithfield Fresh Meats Corp., No. 7:25-cv-1410, filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina on August 19, 2025, the EEOC alleges that the employer refused to accommodate an employee’s pregnancy-related limitations, forced her to take leave unnecessarily, and discharged her. This case is in the early stages of litigation. In EEOC v. Roland Park SNF Operations, LLC, et al., No, 1:25-cv-02986, filed in the District of Maryland on September 10, 2025, the EEOC alleges a certified nursing assistant told her employer she was temporarily restricted by her doctor from lifting patients due to risks in her pregnancy. In response, the employer, which maintained a policy of reserving light or modified duty for workers with on-the-job injuries only, refused to provide a reasonable accommodation for the employee as required by federal law. Instead, the company terminated her, telling her to reapply for a position after her pregnancy. This case is in the early stages of litigation. In EEOC v. Smoke BBQ LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00278, filed in the Southern District of Mississippi, or September 15, 2025, the EEOC alleges that in November 2023, shortly after a server started working at the restaurant, the server told her colleagues about her pregnancy. The next day, after the server’s manager heard about her pregnancy, the server was fired. This case is in the early stages of litigation. In EEOC v. Blue Island SLF, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-11111, filed in the Norther District of Illinois on September 15, 2025, the EEOC alleges the employer, an assisted living facility in Blue Island, Illinois, terminated a pregnant employee after she disclosed her pregnancy and related lifting restriction. This case is in the early stages of litigation. In EEOC v. iPro Dental Laboratory, Inc., No. 0:25-cv-61904, filed in the Southern District of Florida on September 23, 2025, the EEOC alleges that iPro Dental hired a woman in January 2023, describing her as “perfect,” for the position of office assistant at its Fort Lauderdale location. The company fired her just days later after learning she was pregnant. Prior to her termination, the new employee had not been disciplined for her work performance. This case is in the early stages of litigation.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4