Skip to main content

Employer Decides to Deny Employee Lactation Breaks? Think Again


Lico v. TD Bank - United States District Court Eastern District of New York


Facts:  Aida Lico ("Lico") worked at TD Bank ("TD") from September 2008 to May 2012. After giving birth, Lico returned to work in March 2012 from maternity leave.  At the time, Lico was nursing and needed to take lactation breaks while at work.  Her Branch Assistant Manager told her she was permitted to take only two daily lactation breaks and was required to use the restroom to do so.  When Lico objected to the bathroom on the grounds it was unsanitary, the Manager told her to use the mailroom.  Lico objected to the mailroom as a lactation room and claimed that since it had no lock, it did not afford her any privacy.  The Manager then instructed Lico to use the safe-deposit room for lactation breaks. 

Lico also alleged that almost every time she asked her Manager permission to take a lactation break, she was denied the request and given additional assignments.  Lico subsequently began arriving late to work, traveling home during the work day, and leaving early so she could nurse her child and lactate at home.  As a result of missing this work time, TD terminated Lico for "attendance issues."

Lico subsequently brought a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") claim against TD.  TD  moved for the Court to dismiss Lico's claims.

Holding:  The United States District Court denied TD's motion to dismiss on the grounds that the FLSA provides employees the right to lactation breaks while at work.  Specifically, 29 U.S.C. § 207(r) provides:

  • (1) An employer shall provide --
    • (A) a reasonable break time for an employee to express milk for her nursing child for 1 year after the child's birth each time such employee has need to express the milk; and
    • (B) a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from coworkers and the public, which may be used by an employee to express breast milk.

As a result of the facts alleged by Lico, and the claims she brought under the FLSA, the Court held that she had alleged a "legally cognizable injury" under 29 U.S.C. § 207(r).  Therefore, TD's motion to dismiss was denied.

Judgment:  The United States District Court denied TD's motion to dismiss, as Lico had raised valid claims for violations of the FLSA as a result of her employer's decision to deny her lactation breaks while at work, as she had validly requested in accordance with the law.

The Takeaway:  At the outset, it is important to note that the Court did not rule either way on whether an employer allowing an employee to use a safe-deposit room for lactation breaks was suitable under the FLSA.  Instead, the Court only considered the facts as alleged by Lico and held that she had raised legitimate claims under the FLSA, sufficient to deny TD's motion to dismiss.

Employers would be wise to use this case as a reminder to train (or re-train) their managers/supervisors that lactation breaks are required, if requested by an employee.  While the employer is not required to pay these employees for these breaks, each time a nursing employee requests a lactation break, the employer is required to comply.  And do not forget:  the employer needs to provide a place, other than a bathroom, which shields the employee from view and free from intrusion from coworkers and the public!  But you readers already know that, since I laid out a portion of the relevant law above, right?

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Bianco

Date:  June 1, 2015

Opinion:  www.babc-employmentlawinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/375/2015/06/Lico-v-TD-Bank-Memorandum-Order.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more