Search
The Employer Handbook Blog
Disclosed Menstrual Pain. Denied the Job. Now They’re Paying $48K to the EEOC.
A job candidate allegedly asked to reschedule an interview due to severe menstrual symptoms. She didn’t get the job. But she did get the EEOC’s attention—and a settlement.
TL;DR: The EEOC alleged that a national fitness company violated the ADA and Title VII when it rejected a female applicant after she disclosed painful endometriosis symptoms and asked to reschedule her interview. According to the EEOC, the company later cited concerns about future absences due to her cycle. The employer denied wrongdoing but agreed to settle for $48,000 and a two-year consent decree that includes training, policy updates, and EEOC monitoring.
👉 Read the EEOC press release here.
The EEOC’s Allegations: A Reschedule Request, Then a Rejection
According to the EEOC’s complaint, the applicant interviewed for a Front Desk Associate role and was told she was a strong candidate. When offered a second-round interview two days later, she allegedly asked to postpone until the following week because of painful menstrual symptoms caused by endometriosis.
The EEOC claimed the company then rejected her and, in a follow-up text, confirmed that the decision was due to concerns about potential absences tied to her monthly cycle.
What the EEOC Claimed Violated Federal Law
The EEOC alleged violations of both:
- The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Protects qualified applicants from discrimination based on disability or the need for a reasonable accommodation—like rescheduling an interview.
- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act: Prohibits discrimination based on sex, including adverse treatment tied to sex-specific medical conditions like menstruation.
The EEOC asserted that the applicant’s endometriosis qualified as a disability and that her rescheduling request was a protected accommodation. As for the Title VII claim, the agency argued that rejecting someone because of symptoms tied to menstruation—which only affects individuals based on their sex—constituted sex discrimination. The EEOC also noted that the company later hired a male applicant with less relevant experience.
The employer denied all allegations but agreed to resolve the matter voluntarily through a consent decree.
The Terms of the Consent Decree
Without admitting liability, the employer agreed to:
- Pay $48,000, including:
- $11,174 in back pay (taxable),
- $36,826 in compensatory damages (non-wage).
- Adopt new anti-discrimination and accommodation policies.
- Deliver interactive training to managers and non-managers at five D.C.-area clubs.
- Post required notices, revise onboarding procedures, and report to the EEOC.
- Allow federal monitoring during the two-year decree period.
Employer Takeaways: Minimize Risk and Maximize Compliance
1. The ADA applies during hiring.
Even applicants—before they’re hired—may be entitled to reasonable accommodations under the ADA. Rescheduling an interview due to a medical issue can trigger that obligation.
2. Menstrual symptoms may be protected.
The EEOC viewed endometriosis as a potentially disabling condition under the ADA. And treating someone differently because of menstruation-related issues can implicate Title VII.
3. Text messages can become evidence.
The EEOC pointed to a follow-up text referencing the applicant’s “monthly cycle” as the reason for the rejection. If it’s in writing, assume it could end up in court—or an agency investigation.
4. EEOC settlements don’t end with a check.
Most EEOC consent decrees come with strings attached—training requirements, policy updates, notice postings, and federal monitoring. Employers may also be required to report back to the agency and make new hires aware of their rights. The compliance obligations often last years and extend well beyond the settlement amount.
5. Frontline managers must be trained on accommodation triggers.
From scheduling interviews to onboarding, hiring teams need to recognize when a candidate’s disclosure may invoke ADA protections—and when to loop in HR or legal.
Conclusion:
When an applicant references a medical condition, even in a casual conversation, it can trigger legal obligations under federal law. Ignoring the request—or making a decision based on it—risks far more than a missed hire. As this case shows, it could lead straight to a settlement with the EEOC.