On Sept. 21, 2015, claimant Breane Wingfield, a server at La Louisanne, a jazz nightclub in Los Angeles, informed her employer that she was nine weeks pregnant. Wingfield claimed that, thereafter, her working hours were subsequently reduced and that she was ultimately terminated on Jan. 29, 2016. She also claimed that other servers at the nightclub/restaurant experienced similar discrimination during their pregnancies. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of Wingfield and a class of similarly aggrieved individuals, sued the operator of the nightclub and restaurant, La Louisanne Inc. The EEOC alleged that La Louisanne’s actions constituted pregnancy discrimination, retaliation and wrongful termination. Wingfield claimed that when she informed her employer that she was pregnant, she stated that she wanted to continue working for as long as she was physically able, but that the restaurant reduced her hours from 30 hours per week to 16 hours per week, without an explanation, while non-pregnant co-workers received more work hours. She also claimed that she was subjected to pregnancy-related comments from co-workers about twice a week from October 2015 through January 2016. In addition, Wingfield claimed that by late January 2016, La Louisanne failed to assign her any work hours and had effectively discharged her employment. She alleged that as a result, she visited the restaurant regarding her employment status on or about Jan. 31, 2016 and sought reinstatement. However, she claimed that during the visit, her employer told her that she had been removed from the work schedule because the owner believed that she “was a liability for the employer in [her] pregnant state.” Wingfield claimed that around Feb. 1, 2016, she again returned to the restaurant to seek reinstatement of her server position and submitted a full medical release to work, but that La Louisanne refused to reinstate her. In addition, Wingfield claimed that other servers were similarly discriminated against during their pregnancies. Thus, the EEOC asserted that La Louisanne violated federal law when it reduced the working hours of Wingfield after learning that she was pregnant. Specifically, it asserted that La Louisanne violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. La Louisanne denied all of Wingfield’s and the EEOC’s allegations, and asserted that the reduction of hours and Wingfield’s termination were for legitimate business reasons., Wingfield claimed that she was hired as a server at the jazz club in June 2015 and that she worked 30 hours a week. However, she claimed that after she informed her employer that she was pregnant, her hours were cut to 16 hours per week, without an explanation, before ultimately terminating her employment on or about Jan. 31, 2016. Thus, the EEOC, acting on behalf of Wingfield and other class members, sought recovery of back pay, damages for their emotional distress, and compensation for past and future pecuniary losses. It also sought an injunctive relief against La Louisanne.