A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

Recognize the signs of pregnancy discrimination

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok
With women now long established in the workplace in California, pregnant women are a common sight at many jobs. Female workers are entitled to maternity leave under the California Family Rights Act and the California Pregnancy Disability Leave Law, but some employers deny them those rights, or pressure their female workers not to have children. Pregnancy discrimination, obviously, affects women the most directly, but husbands and sons may also suffer if the worker loses his or her job because she took maternity leave. Having a baby should be a joyous life event, not a reason to be the victim of employment discrimination. The law gives victims the right to fight back by seek compensation for lost wages and other damages in court. Signs that your employer is discriminating against you because you are pregnant, or there is a possibility you will become pregnant, include the following:
  • Asking you if you are pregnant, or trying to get pregnant
  • Failing to provide reasonable accommodations to allow you to keep working while pregnant
  • Firing you for becoming pregnant
  • Failing to grant you maternity leave
  • Harassing you due to your pregnancy
Employers have a legal obligation to allow new mothers to take maternity leave, and hold their job for them until they get back. If they don’t, or otherwise abuse women who are pregnant or trying to become pregnant, they are discriminating against some of their employees. Workers do not have to suffer the consequences by themselves, if they hire an experienced employment law attorney.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.