US Border Patrol Demands $45 Million Payment for Discriminating Against Pregnant Women

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will settle a lawsuit alleging the agency discriminated against pregnant employees, attorneys for the plaintiffs said.

In a press release, attorneys for the CBP employees confirmed Tuesday that a $45 million settlement had been agreed to as part of a class-action lawsuit involving nearly 1,100 women. The attorneys said the settlement also includes the implementation of reforms by CBP to combat discriminatory practices.

The lawsuit, filed in 2016 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleged there was a widespread practice at CBP of assigning female agents and agricultural specialists to light duty when they became pregnant. CBP did not give them the opportunity to remain on the job with or without accommodations for their condition, according to the lawsuit.

This meant, according to the suit, that pregnant women lost the opportunity to work overtime, receive bonuses for working Sundays or nights, and be promoted. In addition, women assigned to light duty duties had to give up carrying a firearm and might have to be recertified to carry one again.

“Announcing my pregnancy to my coworkers and supervisor should have been a joyous occasion, but it soon became clear that the news was not well received. It was assumed that I could no longer perform my job effectively simply because I was pregnant,” Roberta Gabaldon, the lead plaintiff in the case, said in a press release.

CBP had argued that assigning light duty to pregnant women was not its standard policy and said any misunderstanding about its light-duty policy was limited to a handful of offices and not widespread practice, according to a judge’s ruling last year that certified the case as a class action.

In a statement Wednesday, CBP said it could not comment on the cases in litigation. CBP praised its nearly 7,000 female agents and said its maternity leave policy adheres to federal law and that managers are being trained to ensure compliance.

The settlement agreement still needs to be ratified by a judge. The plaintiffs will receive a copy of the agreement and will be able to raise objections, although lawyers said they had already been in touch with many of them and were confident they would accept it. A trial was scheduled to begin in September.