Pregnancy discrimination” involves treating an applicant or employee unfavorably because of pregnancy, childbirth, or a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth. Federal and Maryland law forbid discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including, but not limited to, hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, and layoffs. The attorneys at Patel & Williams, PLLC, represented the plaintiff, a social worker, in her pregnancy discrimination action against her former employer. In Ferdinand-Davenport v. The Children’s Guild, the plaintiff’s position had been eliminated, and she was not allowed to be considered for other available positions with the company. The employer moved to dismiss the Complaint, which alleged discrimination in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, codified as part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Title 20 of the Maryland State Government Article; and, Article IV of the Baltimore City Code. The District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division, permitted the plaintiff to proceed with her federal and state failure to hire claims against the employer.

Ferdinand-Davenport v. The Children’s Guild, is noteworthy primarily for two reasons. First, five months after notifying her employer that she was pregnant, the plaintiff was informed that her position may be eliminated. Around the same time, other employees were advised that their positions were in jeopardy; however, at least one female social worker, who was not pregnant, was advised of two available positions. The plaintiff’s attempts to apply for the open positions were stymied by her employer.

In its motion to dismiss, the employer argued that the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support her federal pregnancy discrimination claim. The Court, however, did not agree. The Court noted that the plaintiff attempted to communicate her interest in the positions but that her efforts were frustrated by the employer’s failure to return her telephone calls, to provide adequate communication, and to provide the plaintiff with information regarding the application process. The Court added that while there is no requirement that an employer hold a position open for a candidate while that candidate decides to pursue the position, “the employer does not escape responsibility for discriminatory failure to hire by making the application process so onerous for a candidate within a protected class that he or she is denied the opportunity to apply at all.”

Second, the plaintiff filed her charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Baltimore City Community Relations Commission. Under Maryland law, a complainant is permitted to bring a civil claim only after he/she has timely filed an administrative charge under federal, state, or local law alleging unlawful employment practice. In its motion to dismiss, the employer argued that the plaintiff’s claims under Title 20 of the Maryland State Government Article must be dismissed because she failed to file a complaint with the Maryland Commission on Human Relations. Again, the Court disagreed. The Court held that a reasonable interpretation of the statute is that a party may meet the state law requirement of exhausting administrative remedies by filing a charge with the EEOC or the local commission within six months of the alleged discriminatory act. Accordingly, the plaintiff had adequately satisfied her obligation to file a complaint with the State by filing her charge with the EEOC and the Baltimore City Community Relations Commission.

If you believe that you have been discriminated against on the basis of pregnancy or race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, contact the attorneys at Patel & Williams, PLLC, for a free telephone consultation. Our attorneys are committed to protecting the civil rights of employees in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.

The Court’s Opinion may be found at:http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Opinions/Ferdinand-Davenport05oct10.pdf