EEOC: Bob Evans restaurant in West Mifflin discriminated against pregnant worker |

EEOC: Bob Evans restaurant in West Mifflin discriminated against pregnant worker

Bob Evans Farms LLC cut the work hours of an employee at its West Mifflin restaurant because she was pregnant, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims in a lawsuit it filed Wednesday against the company.

The EEOC says in the lawsuit that it’s been unable to work out an agreement with the company. A company spokesman declined comment.

An agency spokesman said the employee, who had worked at the restaurant for five years, should have been allowed to keep earning a living for herself and her family.

“Reducing the hours or pay of an employee because of speculative fears about her pregnancy is illegal sex discrimination,” said EEOC Philadelphia District Director Spencer H. Lewis Jr.

Hayley Macioce was about six months pregnant in July 2014 when her manager asked her about her plans to take pregnancy leave. Macioce had no medical restrictions and told her manager she planned to work until her delivery date, the lawsuit says.

Instead of letting her work her normal hours, the manager “drastically reduced” her hours for the next three months, causing her to lose pay, the lawsuit says.

The EEOC is seeking an injunction that would ban the New Albany, Ohio, company from discriminating against pregnant employees, require it to provide training on pregnancy discrimination, and pay Macioce compensatory and punitive damages.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.