Wabash National Pays $50,000 to Settle EEOC Pregnancy Bias Suit

Wabash National Corp. will pay $50,000 and provide additional relief to settle a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency announced. The settlement covers alleged conduct at the company's Cadiz, Kentucky facility, part of an operation headquartered in Lafayette, Indiana that produces semi-trailers and other commercial trucking equipment nationwide.

The sum is modest by corporate litigation standards. For Wabash National, which operates plants across the country, $50,000 is unlikely to register as a financial event. The compliance obligations attached to the settlement, however, may prove more consequential than the payment itself.

What did the EEOC allege happened?

The EEOC's suit charged that Wabash National denied a pregnant employee's request to transfer to a role that did not require lying on her stomach. Instead of granting the accommodation, the company forced her onto unpaid leave, according to the agency.

The employee ultimately had no choice but to return to her assembler position without any modification, the EEOC said. The company also unlawfully required her to provide medical documentation before considering her request, according to the suit.

The agency's complaint notes what the company did not do. Wabash National could have provided changes similar to those it already provides for non-pregnant workers with similar limitations, the EEOC stated. The implication is blunt: the accommodation pathway existed; it was simply not extended to this employee.

How did the dispute end for the worker?

The denial of the accommodation caused the employee to fear for the health of her pregnancy, the EEOC said. She resigned at nearly eight months pregnant in November 2023.

That timeline matters. The resignation came after the unpaid leave and the unmodified return to work — a sequence the agency frames as a forced exit rather than a voluntary one. The employee lost her income weeks before childbirth, the point in a pregnancy when wages are hardest to replace.

The EEOC did not disclose the terms of the "other relief" beyond the monetary payment, and the settlement figure does not appear to include lost wages as a separately itemized amount. What the agency did disclose is the legal basis for its claims.

Which laws did the conduct allegedly violate?

The alleged conduct violates three federal statutes, according to the suit:

• the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA);
• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended;
• the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (ADA).

The PWFA is the newest of the three. It requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations for known limitations related to pregnancy and childbirth, and it has given the EEOC a sharper enforcement tool since taking effect. Cases like this one test how manufacturers handle accommodation requests on factory floors, where physical job demands are the norm rather than the exception.

Wabash National did not admit liability in the settlement, and the announcement contains no statement from the company. The EEOC's account is the only version of events in the public record from this announcement.

What should other employers take from this?

The settlement signals that the EEOC will pursue PWFA claims even where the dollar amounts are small, and that documentation demands used to stall accommodation requests carry legal risk of their own. Manufacturers with physically demanding roles should expect closer scrutiny of how they treat pregnant workers relative to employees with comparable physical limitations.