Houston Court Rejects “Lactation Discrimination” Claim

09 February 2012 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Author(s): Carrie Hoffman

Last week, a federal judge in Houston granted summary judgment to an employer being sued by an employee for pregnancy discrimination.  Specifically, the former employee alleged that she was terminated after asking if she would be able to use a back room to express milk when she returned from maternity leave.  The court found that lactation was not a medical condition covered by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.  The court relied on several other federal district court cases in reaching that decision.  The Court’s decision was based on

the narrow interpretation that “lactation is not pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.” 

Interestingly, this Houston District Court decision is the only one since the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which amended the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) to require employers to provide reasonable break times for employees to express breast milk.  While this law does not provide protection from termination to employees who seek to express milk at their site of employment, the ability to breaks during the workday to express milk is meaningless if an employer can simply terminate an employee for making the request.

Courts appear to be very narrowly interpreting Title VII in this instance.  Stay tuned to see if the 5th Circuit is asked to review this decision or Congress decides to intervene. 

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services