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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more