TAP Series Blog
TEG Staffing Agrees to $185,000 Settlement in Federal Pregnancy Discrimination Case
Background
TEG Staffing, Inc., operating as Eastridge Workforce Solutions, is a Southern California–based staffing agency that places workers at client locations across the region. In recent years, pregnancy discrimination claims have remained a significant focus of federal enforcement, particularly in staffing and warehouse environments where temporary workers may face inconsistent treatment or limited job protections. This case centers on allegations that pregnant workers assigned through TEG Staffing were treated unlawfully and terminated because of their pregnancy.
Details of the Incident
According to the federal lawsuit, a female employee assigned by TEG Staffing to work at Feit Electric’s warehouse in Pico Rivera, California, was discharged after becoming pregnant. The complaint alleges that both TEG Staffing and Feit Electric were involved in the termination decision, which was based on the employee’s pregnancy rather than job performance or legitimate business reasons.
The lawsuit further alleged that this was not an isolated incident. Other female employees handled by TEG Staffing were reportedly subjected to similar treatment, with pregnancy-related terminations occurring as early as 2019. These actions formed the basis of the federal claim that the staffing agency engaged in a pattern of pregnancy-based discrimination affecting multiple workers.
Legal Background
Federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. These protections are established under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). Employers, including staffing agencies, are required to treat pregnant employees the same as other employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work.
Staffing agencies may be held liable when they participate in or permit discriminatory employment decisions, even when workers are placed at third-party client sites. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California after efforts to resolve the matter through administrative conciliation were unsuccessful.
Settlement and Relief
Under a three-year consent decree signed on December 23, 2025, TEG Staffing agreed to pay $185,000 in monetary relief to resolve the allegations. In addition to the financial settlement, the company committed to several non-monetary remedies designed to address the alleged discrimination and prevent future violations.
These measures include expunging certain personnel records, providing neutral employment references, and considering reinstatement for affected former employees identified in the case. TEG Staffing is also required to review and update its anti-discrimination policies to ensure compliance with federal law and distribute any revised policies to both temporary and permanent employees.
Further obligations under the consent decree include posting a statement affirming equal employment opportunity, conducting training on federal laws prohibiting pregnancy discrimination, establishing dedicated reporting channels for discrimination complaints, and maintaining appropriate employment records. The settlement also provides a claims process allowing eligible current and former employees to seek compensation from the monetary fund.
Key Takeaways
- Staffing agencies share responsibility for workplace discrimination: Liability can extend to staffing firms when discriminatory decisions affect workers placed with client companies.
- Pregnancy discrimination remains a significant compliance risk: Terminating or disadvantaging employees due to pregnancy violates long-standing federal protections.
- Policy reviews and training are critical preventive tools: Updated policies, clear reporting mechanisms, and supervisor education are central to avoiding similar claims.
Conclusion
The settlement involving TEG Staffing underscores the continued enforcement of federal pregnancy discrimination laws and the responsibilities of staffing agencies operating in joint employment arrangements. Beyond the financial payment, the case highlights the importance of proactive compliance measures, consistent treatment of pregnant workers, and clear accountability across staffing and client organizations. For employers in the staffing industry, the case serves as a reminder that pregnancy-related employment decisions must align strictly with federal law to avoid legal and operational consequences.