The latest charge, against Bloomberg L.P., is a class action suit alleging pregnancy bias against many women who did or do work for the financial services and media firm. In early May, 54 additional plaintiffs joined the class. And, this action is only the latest and largest of a string of discrimination and sexual harassment complaints filed against Bloomberg--which is owned by New York City mayor Michael R. Bloomberg--since the 1990s.

Jacques explains that pregnancy bias claims generally fall into one of two categories: Either the plaintiffs allege that they were denied promotions or other opportunities, or they charge that they needed an accommodation during all or the latter part of their pregnancy, an accommodation that the employer refused to grant. The Bloomberg suit is in the first category--the women allege that male co-workers made insensitive comments and that the women's careers were stalled or stopped.

It's possible that most suits have been filed against Bloomberg because it is a very visible, very successful company that is perceived as having 'deep pockets,' or the ability to pay large judgments against it. But, says Jacques, it's also possible that the environment at the firm is hostile to women. Only time in court will determine the merits of the women's claims.

The basis of the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), an amendment to civil rights laws, seems simple enough, Jacques observes: Employers may not treat a pregnant employee any differently than they would treat another employee with a temporarily indisposing condition. For example, if an employer offers 'light duty' assignments only to workers who have work-related injuries, that employer may refuse to give such assignments to pregnant women--even if those women have doctors' notes saying they are temporarily unable to lift or have other restrictions.

At the same time, women who take time off for childbirth and maternity leave are sometimes perceived as being "less committed" to their careers than men or childless women. If those mothers can show that they were deliberately sidelined after maternity leave, they may succeed. Similar suits have been won by mothers of young children whose employers assumed they wouldn't want jobs involving travel or big responsibilities. Some can show they weren't treated equally. Note especially that the federal PDA covers employers with 15 or more workers, while some state laws cover much smaller organizations.

A Closer Look

Regarding pregnancy discrimination--or charges of it--Jacques pointed to some cases that show how much state laws differ on the issue. In a 2005 Connecticut appeals court ruling (Davis v. Manchester Health Center), judges found that the employer had refused to accommodate a certified nursing assistant who was having a difficult pregnancy. Davis could be assigned to any of four wings, but one of them contained significantly more patients who were heavier to lift and more combative than those on other wings. A supervisor one evening demanded that Davis work on that wing. Referring to her pregnancy, she requested reassignment, and a nearby co-worker offered to trade with her. But the supervisor refused, giving Davis the choice of working on that wing or being fired.

Davis sued, and both a jury and the appeals court sided with her. Connecticut's pregnancy discrimination law, unlike the federal one, specifies that if either the employer or the pregnant employee believes that her work assignment may injure her or her fetus, the employer must make a reasonable effort to reassign her temporarily. A similar case in Rhode Island went the other way, because that state's law does not require accommodation. And in a 1994 Alabama case, a nurse refused to provide home care to an HIV-positive patient during the nurse's pregnancy. She was fired, sued, and lost her case, because the state has no fair employment law and the employer had not violated the federal law.

Because pregnancy is both normal and temporary, says Jacques, it doesn't constitute a disability. But that doesn't stop some states from requiring that pregnant employees be given disability leave before or after childbirth if it's needed: California and North Carolina are examples. And, Oregon's family and medical leave act provides similar time off if the pregnant woman can show she has a serious health condition.

Whether a mother is treated less favorably on the job than men or childless women is a somewhat more clear-cut issue. For example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission successfully sued on behalf of an Illinois emergency room physician whose employers, each 5 percent owners of their business, denied her full and equal ownership because she had three children. Testimony showed that two of those owners had pronounced her less committed to her work because of her children. (EEOC v. Midwest Emergency Medical Associates, 1/29/08). Here, the federal PDA prevailed rather than Illinois law: The owners of the business offered the mother a 3.5 percent ownership, thus failing to treat her as they treated one another.