Overview
Attention: This case has settled. If you are a member of the class, you should have received a Notice via mail or email from the Agency and/or Class Counsel. You are a member of the class if you were an Officer or Agriculture Specialist who was pregnant and placed on temporary light duty at any point between July 18, 2016 and June 26, 2024.
For more information, see the CBP Pregnancy Discrimination Class Action website.
On August 13, 2024, a class of over 1,000 employees of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the largest federal law enforcement agency in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, reached a historic $45 million settlement in this class action alleging that CBP discriminated against pregnant employees. The settlement includes an agreement by CBP to enact sweeping reforms to policies that will eliminate long-standing discriminatory practices.
Initially filed in 2016 with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the case challenged the widespread practice of placing Officers and Agriculture Specialists on light duty because of their pregnancy without offering them the opportunity to remain in their regular positions, with or without an accommodation, in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA).
Placement on temporary light duty limited the pregnant employees’ ability to earn overtime and enhanced pay rates. In addition, pregnant officers placed on leave were required to turn in their firearm, among other things.
Important Rulings
- On April 21, 2023, the EEOC certified a class of all women who were employed as CBP Officers and Agriculture Specialists and were placed on temporary light duty pursuant to CBP’s Temporary Light Duty Policy due to their pregnancy, at any time after July 18, 2016.
- On May 30, 2023, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights & Civil Liberties (“CRCL”) issued a final order determining that the agency would not fully implement the EEOC’s ruling and that it was appealing the decision to the EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (“OFO”).
Case Background
On October 14, 2016, Roberta Gabaldon, a CBP Protection Agricultural Specialist, filed a complaint with the EEOC, alleging that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, CBP discriminated against her and other similarly situated pregnant employees on the basis of their sex (female/pregnancy) in violation of the PDA. A second complainant, Courtney Schilling, a CBP Officer, also joined this action on September 27, 2022 as a class agent.
The complaint challenged a CBP policy and practice pursuant to which more than 500 Officers and Agricultural Specialists have been in temporary light duty positions. The evidence collected strongly supported the conclusion that all or most of these women were placed in these temporary light duty positions simply because they were pregnant, without assessing whether they could continue to perform the essential functions of their positions of record and without, according to them, the process and protections afforded to employees with comparable short-term disabilities.
Complainants contend that the text and implementation of the temporary light duty policy violated the PDA because it treated pregnant CBP Officers and Agricultural Specialists differently than employees with other short-term impairments. While other employees are only placed in temporary light duty positions upon their request, Complainants asserted, and the evidence supported, that supervisors regularly assigned pregnant employees from their positions of record into temporary light duty positions once they notified CBP of their pregnancy. Temporary light duty positions often limit the pregnant employees’ ability to earn overtime or other types of differential pay. In addition, Complainants contend that the TLD policy as applied to pregnant employees impaired their chances of promotion, rendered them ineligible for various training opportunities, and affected their chances of obtaining preferred schedules. Placement on temporary light duty also resulted in the removal of the employee’s firearm and could require the employee to requalify to carry a weapon.
Case name: Gabaldon, et al. V. Mayorkas, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Agency Case No. HS-CBP-00258-2017, EEOC Case No. 450-2017-00086X