Plaintiff Amelia Alexander sued defendants Two Oaks Investments, LLC d.b.a. Consolidated Benefits Resources (CBR) Inc. and The Key Group, Inc. d.b.a. Key Personnel DS in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, raising claims of employment discrimination based on pregnancy, sex, gender, disability, and religious beliefs, as well as retaliation and wrongful termination. Defendant The Key Group moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and disability-related claims under the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (OADA).
Factual Overview
Alexander was hired by CBR through Key Group, a temporary agency, as a receptionist in May 2021. She informed both companies that she was carrying a high-risk pregnancy and required time off for medical appointments. Alexander alleges that her co-worker, Trena Jones, treated unmarried pregnant women differently and made inappropriate comments. In August 2021, Alexander requested information about maternity and medical leave but received no response from CBR and was told by Key Group that they would not provide leave.
On August 31, 2021, Alexander was terminated after missing work due to a COVID-19 exposure. She filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on May 10, 2022, alleging sex discrimination. Alexander subsequently filed a lawsuit, initially asserting claims under Title VII and the OADA. She later amended her complaint to include claims under the PWFA and ADA.
Legal Analysis
PWFA Claims: The court dismissed Alexander’s PWFA claims because the act was enacted after the alleged incidents occurred and is not retroactive.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Key Group argued that Alexander failed to exhaust her administrative remedies for her ADA and disability-related OADA claims. The court agreed, finding that Alexander’s EEOC charge did not clearly set forth a basis for disability discrimination.
Pregnancy as a Disability: The court elaborated on the distinction between pregnancy and disability under the ADA. While pregnancy itself is not considered a disability, the court explained that pregnancy-related impairments could potentially qualify as disabilities if they substantially limit a major life activity. The court referenced EEOC guidance, which provides examples of pregnancy-related conditions that might be considered disabilities, such as cervical insufficiency requiring bed rest, or other impairments like anemia, sciatica, or depression that result in significant limitations. However, in Alexander’s case, the court found that her EEOC charge lacked sufficient detail about any pregnancy-related impairments that might have qualified as disabilities. The charge merely described her pregnancy as “high-risk” and mentioned pre-approved appointments and one instance of emergency fetal monitoring, without specifying how these factors substantially limited any major life activities. This lack of specificity in the EEOC charge was a key factor in the court’s decision to dismiss the ADA claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Scope of EEOC Charge: The court found that Alexander’s EEOC charge did not contain facts indicating she suffered from a pregnancy-related impairment that limited a major life activity. As such, the EEOC would not have been reasonably expected to investigate disability-related discrimination based on her charge.
The court granted Key Group’s motion to dismiss, dismissing Alexander’s PWFA claims, ADA claims, and disability-related OADA claims with prejudice due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the expiration of the time limit to file a new EEOC charge.
Schrag on Law 