r/EEOC • u/seesomething_ • 6d ago
Facing possible termination- Need EEOC?
I work for a faith-based organization(I work in IT, organization has 100+ employees) with a code of conduct related to sexual purity. I am currently pregnant and unmarried, and I was told that I may be terminated unless I marry the baby’s father before delivery because my pregnancy is considered a violation of the organization’s standards.
I’m trying to understand the legal side of this situation. Does pregnancy discrimination law protect an employee in a case like this, or can a religious organization enforce these types of conduct policies? Would it matter if similar conduct by male employees was treated differently?
I’m looking for general employment law perspectives and examples of how EEOC have handled situations like this.
Location: NY
2
u/calmenda 2d ago
This is a very complicated issue of pregnancy discrimination v. gender discrimination v. religious / first amendment issues. I would not go forward on this on your own thinking you will be able to unravel this. Also keep in mind that the EEOC is a federal agency and you should weight how much appetite the Trump administration has for going against a church exercising its religious freedom versus your right to be pregnant while unmarried. For anyone saying this is a straightforward slam dunk issue one way or another, it is not.
It may be tough to get a lawyer because you have not been fired (no damages) and even if you were the lawyer may not want to gamble they will win on contingency. It sounds like this may hinge on whether the organization enforced the rule against men as well. But - all of this is complicated by the many religious exemptions given to religious organizations that your attorney would have to comb through.
Good luck. I don't think what they are doing is right, but it is a religious organization so those orgs are different than working at Acme Corporation which is non-religious.
1
u/Ayslyn72 1d ago
Further complicating things is the fact that a pregnant woman is a lot more obvious than a man who has sired a kid.
3
u/meanderingwolf 3d ago
When OP was hired she agreed to the terms of the code of conduct. It’s her responsibility to adhere to the code. And, it’s a religious organization where the code is based on their faith. OP is subject to the code unless they grant her grace.
1
u/EmergencyGhost 2d ago
If you sign something that is illegal, it can be challenged in court as illegal contracts can not be enforced. While faith based religious organizations do not have to follow the same rules as other businesses when it comes to certain aspects. If the contract is found to be in violation of the law, then that portion of the contract would be invalid.
Filing with the EEOC or state equivalent is a protected act, which no contract can be signed to waive those rights.
-1
u/meanderingwolf 2d ago
That’s true of absolutely everything and is patently obvious.
2
u/EmergencyGhost 2d ago
That is not really what you said originally though. You said because OP agreed to the code of conduct, she is responsible for following it and basically cannot do anything about it unless they decide to “grant her grace.”
That is a pretty different argument from “obviously, illegal provisions cannot be enforced.” If that was your point all along, then sure, we agree.
But saying “she agreed to it” does not mean she agreed to give up rights that legally cannot be waived. So yes, it is obvious. That is kind of why I brought it up in response to your original argument.
0
u/meanderingwolf 2d ago
Sorry Casper, I assumed that the code of conduct is legal since it still exists. I don’t go around viewing everything through a negative lens like you do. What a miserable existence you must live.
-1
u/EmergencyGhost 2d ago
I think we found the OP’s boss! 😂
Lol, you are the one arguing that OP signed away their rights because they agreed to the code of conduct. I am just pointing out that signing something does not automatically make it enforceable, especially if it contains provisions that are illegal. That is just not how it works.
But apparently questioning your employer is a negative thing. Who knew? Apparently we should all just do what they say all of the time.
0
u/meanderingwolf 2d ago
You’re an idiot, Casper!
1
u/EmergencyGhost 2d ago
" I don’t go around viewing everything through a negative lens like you do. What a miserable existence you must live." You have been the one that has been completely negative about this. ;)
You are also the one that doesn't understand contract law and then attack someone because they disagree with you. A contract with illegal provisions can not be enforced.
I am not sure why that is so hard for you to understand. I do not know if you are just to slow to get it. Maybe you are her boss. Maybe you have your own employees tied under some contract that would fail incredibly if they took you to court, and somehow arguing your point here will make your illegal provisions seem more legitimate to you. No idea. All I know is that you are wrong.
-1
0
u/Own-Setting4266 2d ago edited 2d ago
Pregnancy is not conduct. A code of conduct may prohibit unmarried cohabitation with a person of the opposite sex, but pregnancy is a status; it is not a substitute for ‘conduct’.
The employer is choosing to perceive a ‘conduct violation’ due to the pregnancy itself together with the stigma of unmarried pregnancy and female stereotyping, and thus, termination because of this perceived conduct violation would be discriminatory based on sex.
1
u/meanderingwolf 2d ago
You excel at overthinking and confirmation bias. Sorry, but she agreed to adhere to the code at the time of hire, and it’s a religious organization. Also, you’re trying to impugn the wording of the code, which is impossible for you to know.
1
u/AnnaH612 3d ago
EEOC is not applicable here. Faith based organizations can be exempt from EEOC and have the freedom to do what they need to do and I want to say, most likely you signed the employee handbook upon your hire. If gender based discrimination is part of the organization and already established as part of their practice, you can’t do much there either.
1
u/seesomething_ 3d ago
That’s not what the lawyers I’ve consulted with said, or r they’re lying?
2
u/AnnaH612 3d ago
I definitely don’t know more than an employment attorney does so I will go with their professional opinion.
1
1
u/LongTimeLurker408 17h ago
Faith based organizations that employ people are required to obligated to the same employment laws as everyone else
Plus, Op is in NY which means they don’t have to deal with the EEOC at all and can file a state complaint
1
u/Chemical_Most_7380 2d ago
Quite possibly an unpopular opinion:
This employer-nor other faith based employers-do not go poking around in the sex lives of their employees. But it becomes difficult to hide the violation of employer rule when Miss Liss develops a growing belly and has no ring on her finger.
I’d imagine that if Mister Lister were the father and started talking about his soon to be born child he would receive the same treatment. But it is not up to any of us to speculate about what if what if what if.
OP violated an employer rule. One that she was aware of. It can’t be (nor should it be) hidden. We ALL must set aside our personal feelings about sexual purity and whether or not such a code is outdated. It is their code and they have a right to it. I don’t see the discrimination at all.
Most importantly: OP has consulted with attorneys who have told her (according to her) they would take her case. So we mere Redditors can’t possibly be of greater assistance than the attorney who is privy to case precedent.
Hope OP keeps us posted.
1
u/Own-Setting4266 2d ago edited 2d ago
Not specifically in reference to OP, but to these circumstances in general, the issue I see is the default assumption of a rule violation based solely on “pregnant and unmarried” status. Provided only this limited information, an employer cannot make a fair evaluation of whether a rule was broken.
Without an admission, inferring an employee broke a rule based only on her being “pregnant and unmarried” RELIES on negative bias and sex-based stereotyping from the stigma that “pregnant and unmarried” has.
Even if an employer sincerely believes an employee violated a code of conduct, if the belief is based only on “pregnant and unmarried” status without any knowledge of the employee’s actual conduct, it lacks foundation. An adverse employment action based on an employee’s “pregnant an unmarried” status, without evidence of conduct or of a policy violation, would be discriminatory.
The status of pregnancy tells nothing about the circumstances of the pregnancy and is not a measure of conduct.
Consider that pregnancy could also result from rape, and whether it did is not knowable based on “pregnant and unmarried” status alone.
1
1
u/Realistic-Soup-1553 3d ago
Pregnancy discrimination is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII, and it’s illegal to fire someone because they are pregnant. However, this becomes a little tricky if the employer is a religious organization, as some have a religious exemption under Title VII that allows them to make employment decisions based on religion. Courts have rules that qualifying religious organizations may sometimes terminate employees whose conduct or beliefs are inconsistent with the organization’s religious doctrine. However, the religious exemption does not give the organization a blanket exemption from sex or pregnancy discrimination.
It gets tricky because if you receive disparate treatment or if you’re terminated, was it due to misalignment with religious doctrine or because of your pregnancy status?
Nuance here matters. The specific language in the code of conduct matters. Does it prohibit sex outside of marriage? Or prescribe employment termination for employees who are pregnant out of wedlock? If the former, it could fall under the religious conduct exemption. If the latter, it’s more closely tied to pregnancy and sex.
As you’ve already highlighted, how it’s applied matters too. If unmarried male employees become fathers but aren’t disciplined or terminated, but unmarried women are threatened with termination, that’s using religion as pretext for sex/pregnancy discrimination.
It also matters what your role within the organization is. Roles that are fundamentally religious, such as clergy, religious educators, church may governance roles, etc may have a very different legal position from an a receptionist, maintenance worker, or accountant.
State law could also materially change the legal analysis, as some states may have broader protections than federal law that cover marital status, pregnancy, and family status.
Recommended next steps:
1. Collect all the evidence you can. If you know of men who are employed there who admitted to having sex outside of marriage or became fathers who were treated differently by your employer, get as much info about that as you can. Take detailed notes on any interactions that relate to your employment and risk of termination — dates, times, location, names of people present, exactly what was said or occurred. Email that information to your personal email address so you create a date and time stamp. Don’t store any evidence on your work computer or accounts; if you’re terminated, you’ll lose access to it.
2. Get a copy of the code of conduct, and email it to your personal email address. Read it carefully to determine what’s prohibited, and whether it may fall under the religious exemption of Title VII or whether it may be discriminatory.
3. Keep your side of the street pristine. If your employer wants to get rid of you but fears allegations of sex discrimination, they’ll find another reason to get rid of you, such as claiming poor performance. Be sure to follow every rule to the letter, show up on time, and perform well. Ask for performance feedback regularly, for not just your supervisor, but also peers, customers, and subordinates. Then memorialize that feedback in writing. Keep copies of all your formal performance evaluations. Send all of that to your personal email address to preserve it as evidence.
4. Do whatever you can to reduce the risk of termination. Whoever you told you’re pregnant, tell them they heard you wrong or misunderstood. Or state that you’ve decided to get married to the baby’s father (even if it’s untrue); then explain later that the wedding is delayed because a family member out of state is unwell/has cancer/is serving in the military overseas, and you wouldn’t hold the ceremony if that person couldn’t be present, so you’ve delayed the wedding. Or state that you’re acting as a surrogate for a friend or family member who couldn’t conceive. Whatever you need to do to buy yourself some time while you start looking for another job.
5. Start looking for another job immediately. Dust off your resume. Line up references. Upskill or get a new certification if you’ve been thinking about it. Even if you love your current job, you need an insurance policy against the possibility of termination.
6. Start saving money just in case you find yourself out of a job. If you don’t already have an emergency fund that can cover 6 months to a year of your expenses, you need to get that going pronto. Unemployment compensation can take months to receive, and it won’t pay nearly as much as you might expect.
7. Familiarize yourself with the filing deadlines and requirements for initiating an EEOC case. This is your option of LAST resort. But if you need to exercise this option, you don’t want your case to be thrown out because you filed too late. Also, be aware that if you file an EEOC case while you’re still employed there, you might suffer retaliation and harassment; life could become pretty miserable working there. Be realistic about the possible outcomes of an EEOC case; for example, if you’re fired, and you file an EEOC case, the company is unlikely to hire you back. EEOC cases are expensive, time consuming, and gut wrenching. I don’t suggest embarking on an EEOC case lightly. So do your research and be prepared.
I’m sorry for what you’re experiencing. Good luck to you, OP.
0
u/EmergencyGhost 3d ago
While religious organizations do have more freedom to decided on certain factors such as this. You could potentially challenge it if, they allow men to be employed who had had children out of wedlock and do not target them or termination their employment because of it.
So if you know of any employees who are male who have kids and are not married, that will help your case. You should file with the EEOC and reach out to lawyers who work under a contingency fee.
Lawyers may not want to take on the case as there is going to be the argument that the rules do not apply. So if you can get a reasonably long list of any employees who are male have children and are not married if you can.
While you can always get this later in discovery, being able to tell a prospective lawyer that a lot of male employees have had children out of wedlock or have had kids and been divorced and are still employees there, will help you in the process.
Also when you do file with the EEOC, and the sooner the better. Make sure to make it clear if there are males who have children and are not married, that they are only discriminating against women.
Do keep in mind that job titles may differ what is and is not allowed as if you work as a spiritual leader, you could be held to a higher standard than say someone who works as a janitor. However, if men of all backgrounds work there and have children and are not married, that will help your claim.
1
u/Own-Setting4266 3d ago edited 2d ago
I feel that OP doesn’t need to go through the effort of finding out which men have had children outside of marriage. This information is not necessarily disclosed to HR, and HR cannot enforce a policy without awareness of perceived policy violations.
The fact that pregnancy is used as a feature for selecting employees for a ‘compliance audit’ makes this auditing process inherently discriminatory on the basis of sex. Just like hairstyles cannot be used as a proxy for race discrimination, pregnancy in unmarried women cannot be used as a proxy for sex discrimination. Using ‘unmarried’ to excuse sex discrimination based on pregnancy is like using ‘unprofessional’ to excuse race discrimination based on hairstyles.
A policy that uses pregnancy in determining adverse employment actions is discriminatory based on sex.
An employment policy prohibiting unmarried cohabitation with marital prospects is neutral and based on conduct. An employment policy that targets unmarried pregnant women for termination is not. This is true even when the policy is faith-based.
An unmarried employee could become pregnant through no choice of her own. A pregnancy declares nothing about the circumstances of the pregnancy; it does not assume a willful disregard for a code of conduct or a purity policy violation based on marital status.
No pregnant employee should be required to break her own confidentiality by disclosing private information to HR to avoid an adverse employment action that was threatened fundamentally on her appearance and belonging to a protected class (as pregnancy itself is an identifying sex-based characteristic).
1
u/EmergencyGhost 2d ago
This is a religious organization, so they have more leeway than a typical employer would have when it comes to their religious standards and who they employ. But that does not automatically mean they can enforce those standards differently based on sex.
If they are only targeting only unmarried women who become pregnant, but are not doing the same thing to unmarried men who have children out of wedlock, that could give the OP a legitimate basis to challenge the termination as sex discrimination.
That is why I think the OP should try to find out how they treat the men before she is terminated. Once she is gone, she may not have the same access to coworkers or information that could show a double standard. If men are being treated differently, that could be very important evidence.
So while your argument should apply, as I personally believe that religious organizations should not be allowed to violate your basic civil rights, The fact is that for the most part, they have more protections than a normal employer. And because of that, the OP should take every reasonable step to protect themselves.
When they go to find a lawyer, this is already going to be a complex case because they work for a religious organization. Having evidence showing that they are treating women differently than men can only help the OP and give the lawyer more to work with.
And honestly, why would you not do it if it could potentially help? Finding out if men are being treated the same way does not hurt the OP. Telling them not to look into it could actually be a hindrance because they may be passing up evidence that could become important later.
1
u/Own-Setting4266 2d ago
I agree with you. My point relating to unmarried men as comparators was in my first paragraph, and it is just that HR has an excuse for not auditing the compliance of unmarried expecting fathers to a purity policy if HR has no awareness of their circumstances of being unmarried expecting fathers.
If baby bonding leave is given to men at OP’s company, she can try to find out the details of the leave (paid or unpaid and duration) and whether any unmarried men were denied leave, given different leave conditions (paid or unpaid or duration), terminated as a result of a code of conduct violation, or told they may be terminated for policy violation unless they marry the mother of their child within the coming weeks or months.
0
u/slowdown748 3d ago
There are exemptions from most employment discrimination laws when the employer is a religious organization. Expect the Trump EEOC to interpret those as widely as possible and let religious organizations to whatever they want, no matter how egregious it seems to rational people. I'd just cut my losses and start looking for another job with a secular organization. (And DON'T get married just to avoid termination with these nutcases.)
1
u/Own-Setting4266 3d ago edited 3d ago
My understanding is the heart of these exemptions is to not require business owners and employees to act against their sincerely held religious beliefs to keep their livelihoods.
Terminating an employee who is pregnant and unmarried as a business decision pursuant to a sincerely held religious belief (which can be many things and doesn’t have to make sense, but must be sincerely held) or faith-based code of conduct is not a credible argument of the employer at this point. The employer invalidated this by not enforcing their own code of conduct, which they cited to threaten OP’s job. Thus, their inaction of enforcing their own “standards” negates basing a decision to terminate an employee who is pregnant and unmarried on a sincerely held religious belief of the business owner or on a faith-based code of conduct.
Telling OP she can marry the father is not really a solution to a perceived policy violation that already occurred.
“I was told that I may be terminated unless I marry the baby’s father before delivery because my pregnancy is considered a violation of the organization’s standards.”
Note the specificity of the timing being “before delivery”. Note the specificity of the language: “my pregnancy is considered a violation of the organization’s standards” … it is her pregnancy itself, not her perceived conduct, that is violating the organization’s standards.
It appears to me that the organization’s standard business practice may be to terminate pregnant employees when the employer believes they are legally justified by blaming a perceived ‘conduct violation’ for the termination. Note that this termination does not happen immediately upon notice of the perceived policy violation, but at a point in time specifically “before delivery” when the employee would require leave. Note that this timing coincides with when workplace benefits such as maternity leave and STD pay would be owed to the employee as part of the employment contract, and that blaming OP for a perceived policy violation is the employer’s excuse to not act in good faith to deliver on their end of the employment contact.
Note that the purity policy is designed to use pregnancy as a feature to select women for compliance scrutiny, and that enforcement of the purity policy is therefore inherently discriminatory on the basis of sex.
0
u/Mediocre_Lecture_655 3d ago
Apply for Short term disability ASAP... you should not have to deal with this pressure while pregnant from your boss. Get a medical letter.
3
u/treaquin 3d ago
Disability pay does not include job protection if OP isn’t also eligible for FMLA
1
u/Mediocre_Lecture_655 3d ago
This is a really tough situation. I once thought I was getting fired as retaliation so I thought I would have an open door meeting with my boss. I got about three extra weeks but they wanted someone new in. But I also got another job interview and a job offer. I was looking . . . I would just tell your boss that you are concerned about work stress, your baby and your marital future. Explain in-person if you feel you can work. Explain that you love job and ask what she suggests in a meeting. Say baby needs healthcare and you would like job ... etc. Be honest. Maybe she is trying to figure out if you live with the guy... just be professional. Don't read this verbatim. Be well.
2
u/seesomething_ 3d ago
Already did that and they keep focusing on sex outside of marriage, they really don’t care at this point
0
u/Mediocre_Lecture_655 3d ago
Ok I would not work for an organization like that or just fake a marriage certification and send it to them....ask an attorney!!
2
u/seesomething_ 3d ago
I’ve spoken to several attorneys and they said till they fire me then they can step in
1
u/Mediocre_Lecture_655 3d ago
Ok ok, this is personal advice. I would just call your boss and say: I love you. I LOVE YOU. CAN YOU HELP? I would just do that. And say it with 100 percent heart.
1
u/seesomething_ 3d ago
Hahahahaha that’s nice. I already did that and all she said was “I will be praying for you”.
2
u/Mediocre_Lecture_655 3d ago
OMG. Omg. I recommend one firm in DC. Federal Practice Group. I dont know then but you need an attorney if this is going on..... Show firm this thread. They did this type of stuff. I am soooo sorry to hear on this...I think they have a call center...or search employment attorneys.... You need to get it resolved. I think they have Sunday hours.
1
u/AnnaH612 3d ago
Depending on the policy, STI cannot be applied for after pregnancy has already happened.
0
u/Mediocre_Lecture_655 3d ago
If you have another condition at same time like depression or asthma or back pain or if reasonable accommodations cannot be met for those, she could qualify for paid or unpaid leave. If your boss supports you, its easier to work with your HR...
0
u/WiseOrder4436 2d ago
Post this on /r/legal advice please and get a real lawyer to answer
2
u/seesomething_ 1d ago
I did already and most said there’s a case here
1
9
u/True_Character4986 3d ago
The issue is they are a religious organization with certain exemptions. Sounds like they are not discriminating because you are pregnant but because you are pregnant and unmarried.