Stay Curious. Stay Connected.
MailNewsletters♡Donate Now
Sign up
*Password must be at least 8 characters and contain one uppercase letter, one lowercase letter, one number and one symbol.
Already have an account?
By submitting, you consent that you are at least 18 years of age and to receive information about MPR's or APMG entities' programs and offerings. The personally identifying information you provide will not be sold, shared, or used for purposes other than to communicate with you about MPR, APMG entities, and its sponsors. You may opt-out at any time clicking the unsubscribe link at the bottom of any email communication. View our Privacy Policy.
Sign in to your profile
Forgot Password?
New to MPR News?
Welcome back
to news
for you
Reset Password

Enter the username on file and we'll send you a code to reset your password.

Still require assistance or not sure what your User Name is?
Welcome back
to news
for you
Email Verification

A verification code has been emailed to

Still awaiting the code?
Elizabeth Baier and Madeleine Baran
St. Paul, Minn.

Dry cleaner sued for firing pregnant worker

Go Deeper.

Create an account or log in to save stories.

Like this?

Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.

The country's equal employment watchdog has filed a lawsuit against White Way Cleaners, claiming the St. Paul-based dry cleaner wrongfully fired an employee because she was pregnant.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleges White Way, which has 10 facilities around the Twin Cities, violated federal law by firing Michelle Johnson when she became pregnant with her second child.

According to the EEOC, White Way transferred Johnson to a counter job when she became pregnant the first time, but when she became pregnant again, the company terminated her employment. The EEOC contends that White Way Cleaners terminated Johnson because of her pregnancy.

The suit claims that White Way Cleaners maintained a policy barring pregnant women from working in its St. Paul plant. The company told the EEOC it implemented this policy to protect the pregnant women from chemicals released during dry cleaning processes.

"Our investigation showed that the chemicals released during White Way's dry cleaning processes were in levels so minute that they did not pose a concern," said John Rowe, director of the EEOC's Chicago District Office, which covers Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and most of Illinois. "White Way Cleaners acted unnecessarily and discriminatorily to bar pregnant women from the plant."

In a statement released today, the company denied the allegations. White Way said that during Johnson's first pregnancy, the company "provided benefits beyond those required by law."

The EEOC said it filed the suit after first attempting to resolve the case through voluntary efforts.

John Hendrickson, regional attorney of the EEOC's Chicago District Office, said the Supreme Court has made it clear that decisions regarding where and whether to work are to be left to the pregnant woman.

"Employers cannot restrict women -- pregnant or otherwise -- from their facilities in anything but the most unique of circumstances," Hendrickson said. "The EEOC contends that this wasn't one of those circumstances."