A Philly nonprofit is facing a federal lawsuit for denying a pregnant employee’s request to work remotely

When a pregnant Philadelphia social worker asked to work remotely in early 2022, out of concern that exposure to COVID-19 could put her and her unborn baby’s health at risk, she was denied. Her employer, a local nonprofit focused on child safety and well-being, is now facing a federal employment discrimination lawsuit.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing the nonprofit, the Support Center for Child Advocates, on behalf of social worker Meghan Seitz.

Seitz asked for an exception to the organization’s in-office work requirement in 2022, while the omicron variant of COVID-19 was causing a wave of infections across the U.S. The Support Center for Child Advocates had just recently instructed its employees to report to the office three days a week.

While her requests were denied, ultimately driving her to leave the job, she alleged that the organization granted another employee’s request for remote work due to non-pregnancy medical reasons.

In a statement Friday, sent by board president Alisa Huth Gifford, the Support Center for Child Advocates said it could not comment in detail on ongoing litigation but “is committed to the well-being of all of our employees.”

“We are, and have always been, an agency dedicated to serving children and families in Philadelphia,” Gifford’s statement said. “Despite the EEOC’s claim, we will remain focused on our mission and committed to our employees.”

» READ MORE: What the new U.S. law protecting pregnant workers means for Pennsylvania

Like many employers, the Support Center for Child Advocates moved operations online in March 2020, in the early days of the pandemic. The organization continued that way for some time, but began encouraging employees to visit client homes and go to court appearances in person in August 2021.

Seitz, who had been employed by the center since January 2019, learned she was pregnant in December 2021.

On multiple occasions from that December to the following March, she requested permission to work remotely aside from court appearances and client visits. She included notes from her doctors stating that her pregnancy — classified as “high-risk” because of her age — created greater risk for COVID-19 infection, the EEOC’s complaint said.

The organization “took no action” in response to the initial requests, the complaint alleged. Then, in February, the three-day in-office requirement took effect.

Seitz continued to request to work remotely, but her request was denied with an instruction to “provide ‘more specificity,‘” the complaint said. Seitz then asked specifically to do her administrative work, meetings, and trainings remotely, and worked in the office three days per week while she waited for an answer.

Her final request was in a letter to human resources, and after more than two weeks with no response, she resigned from the organization because she “feared for her health and the health of her baby,” the complaint said.

Meanwhile, the complaint alleged, a different social worker requested to work remotely because she wanted to protect herself from COVID-19 due to an immune system condition. The organization allowed that social worker to work from home, including an exemption from home visits and court appearances, the complaint said.

The other social worker was allowed to work remotely until at least 2024, the EEOC alleged.

The commission is seeking to get back pay and lost benefits for Seitz, as well as an order compelling the Support Center for Child Advocates to change its employment practices.

The commission tried to reach an agreement with the Support Center for Child Advocates to resolve Seitz’s case before suing, the complaint notes. This is typical for EEOC cases.

This story has been updated to include a statement from the Support Center for Child Advocates.