Sept 29 (Reuters) – Walgreen Co has been sued by the U.S. Equal Employment Possibility Commission (EEOC) for allegedly refusing to make it possible for a expecting, diabetic retail worker in Louisiana to acquire unexpected emergency professional medical depart, forcing her to quit hrs in advance of she miscarried, the company introduced on Thursday.

The EEOC submitted a lawsuit on Wednesday in Alexandria, Louisiana federal courtroom saying a manager in December 2020 told the employee she had asked for “much too quite a few lodging” and could not depart to see her medical doctor except she discovered a substitute.

The EEOC mentioned the worker determined as Jane Doe experienced questioned to leave right after she noticed that she was spotting, then stop right before possessing a miscarriage afterwards that working day.

A spokesperson for Walgreens declined to comment.

The EEOC accused Walgreens of violating the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) and People in america with Disabilities Act by refusing to grant Doe a affordable lodging related to her pregnancy and disability.

In a 2015 situation involving UPS Inc, the U.S. Supreme Court docket said the PDA needs employers to grant expecting workers the same lodging that they give to employees who are wounded or disabled.

The EEOC in Wednesday’s complaint claimed Walgreens ordinarily permits staff to leave get the job done if they are having an unexpected emergency.

The fee is in search of backpay and compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of Doe.

In a statement, EEOC attorneys mentioned the circumstance highlights that emergency depart can be thought of a sensible accommodation.

“No a single really should have to select among shedding a being pregnant and getting rid of a task,” stated Andrew Kingsley, a senior demo lawyer.

The circumstance is EEOC v. Walgreen Co, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, No. 1:22-cv-05357.

For the EEOC: Andrew Kingsley

For Walgreens: Not available

(Observe: This report has been updated to mirror that Walgreens declined to comment on the lawsuit. A former edition of the post also improperly discovered Walgreen Co as Walgreens Co.)

Browse more:

U.S. Supreme Courtroom revives expecting worker’s case from UPS

Our Benchmarks: The Thomson Reuters Have faith in Ideas.