Pleasanton Unified School District agreed to a $60,000 civil-rights settlement after a pregnant custodian alleged that she was denied workplace accommodations and terminated after submitting medical restrictions.
Editorial Note
This article is provided for general educational and informational purposes. It does not constitute legal or employment advice.
The allegations discussed in this article were resolved through a mediated settlement with the California Civil Rights Department. Pleasanton Unified School District did not admit wrongdoing, and the settlement is not a court judgment establishing that the district violated the law.
The employee’s identity was not disclosed in the public materials reviewed for this article. Her allegations should therefore be described carefully and without speculation about details not included in the official settlement announcement.
Pleasanton Unified School District has agreed to pay $60,000 and reform parts of its employment practices after a pregnant custodian alleged that she was denied workplace accommodations and terminated after submitting medical restrictions.
The California Civil Rights Department announced the settlement on July 22. The agreement requires the Alameda County school district to review its antidiscrimination and pregnancy-disability policies, provide additional training to human-resources personnel and a supervisor, issue revised policies when necessary and report its compliance to the state.
The district entered the settlement without admitting wrongdoing.
The case is significant because it involves a school employee whose job required substantial physical activity, including standing, walking, bending and lifting. It also illustrates the legal difference between an employer deciding that a worker cannot perform every normal duty and an employer properly evaluating whether temporary changes could allow the employee to continue working.
What the Custodian Alleged
The California Civil Rights Department said it received the employee’s complaint in 2025.
According to the complaint, the custodian informed her supervisor that she was pregnant and submitted a medical note describing specific work restrictions.
Those restrictions reportedly included reducing the amount of time she spent standing and walking, avoiding bending at the waist or twisting her spine and limiting the weight she lifted to no more than 20 pounds.
The employee alleged that after providing those restrictions, her supervisor immediately told her that the district had no work available for her until after the birth of her child.
She further alleged that a human-resources employee later confirmed that she had been terminated because the district could not accommodate her restrictions.
These allegations were not tested at trial.
The settlement instead resulted from an initial state investigation followed by mediation between the employee and the district.
The Complaint Also Alleged Unequal Treatment
One of the most important allegations involved how the district allegedly treated another custodian.
The complainant asserted that a male custodian had been placed on light duty after experiencing a disability unrelated to pregnancy.
If accurate, that comparison could be relevant because it may suggest that modified work was available in at least some circumstances, even though the pregnant employee was allegedly told there was no work she could perform.
A comparison employee does not automatically prove discrimination. The jobs, medical restrictions, seniority rules and available assignments may have differed.
However, employers should expect investigators to examine whether workers requesting similar modifications were treated consistently.
A policy that permits light duty for some temporary medical limitations but excludes pregnancy-related limitations may create serious legal risk.
What the District Agreed to Do
Under the settlement, Pleasanton Unified School District agreed to compensate the former employee and cover legal costs through a total payment of $60,000.
The district must also conduct a comprehensive review of its antidiscrimination and pregnancy-disability-leave policies.
If that review identifies deficiencies, the district must revise the policies and distribute the updated versions to employees.
The supervisor and relevant human-resources personnel must receive civil-rights training emphasizing pregnancy-disability protections.
The district must also report to the California Civil Rights Department on its compliance with the agreement.
These requirements show that the settlement is not limited to a financial payment.
The state is also requiring institutional changes intended to reduce the likelihood that a similar dispute will occur again.
Why the Settlement Does Not Equal an Admission
Pleasanton Unified resolved the matter without admitting liability.
That language is common in civil-rights and employment settlements.
An employer may settle to avoid the cost, uncertainty and public disruption of extended litigation, even when it disputes some or all of the allegations.
The employee may accept a settlement because it provides compensation and policy changes without requiring years of litigation.
Readers should therefore avoid describing the allegations as proven facts.
The accurate conclusion is that the state investigated the complaint, the parties entered mediation and the district agreed to compensation, training, policy review and compliance reporting without admitting wrongdoing.
California Law Protects Pregnancy-Related Accommodations
California law provides significant protections for employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions.
Government Code Section 12945 generally makes it unlawful for a covered employer to refuse a reasonable accommodation requested by an employee for a pregnancy-related condition when the request is supported by advice from a health-care provider.
The law also addresses temporary transfers to less strenuous or hazardous positions when such a transfer can reasonably be made.
California’s Civil Rights Department explains that possible accommodations can include modified job duties, more frequent breaks, use of a chair or stool, temporary transfer to less strenuous work and pregnancy-disability leave. The accommodation available in a particular case depends on the employee’s medical restrictions, essential job duties and workplace circumstances.
The law does not require an employer to eliminate every essential function permanently or create an entirely new job.
It does require an employer to evaluate possible accommodations rather than immediately assuming that the employee cannot work.
The Interactive Process Is Critical
Employers are generally expected to engage in an interactive process when an employee requests a reasonable accommodation.
The interactive process is a communication-based effort to understand the employee’s limitations and identify a workable solution.
Possible questions may include whether duties can be temporarily redistributed, whether equipment can reduce physical strain, whether a schedule can be modified or whether a temporary transfer is available.
The California Civil Rights Department says employers must initiate the interactive process when an employee requests an accommodation and may also have a duty to begin that process when they become aware that an accommodation may be needed.
An employer does not necessarily have to provide the employee’s preferred accommodation.
However, a quick statement that no work is available can be legally risky when the employer has not meaningfully evaluated alternatives.
Why Custodial Work Creates Difficult Accommodation Questions
Custodial positions are physically demanding.
Typical duties may include lifting supplies, moving equipment, bending, reaching, walking across large campuses, cleaning floors and restrooms and remaining on one’s feet for extended periods.
Pregnancy-related restrictions can therefore affect several normal job functions at once.
That does not automatically mean accommodation is impossible.
A district might consider temporary assignment to less strenuous cleaning duties, inventory work, supply management, daytime monitoring, documentation, limited-area cleaning or other available tasks.
Whether those options are reasonable depends on the actual workplace, staffing structure, collective-bargaining agreement and essential duties of the position.
The important legal principle is that the employer should evaluate the facts rather than relying on assumptions about what pregnant employees can or cannot do.
Light Duty Must Be Administered Consistently
Many employers maintain informal or formal light-duty arrangements for employees recovering from workplace injuries or temporary disabilities.
Those programs can become a source of discrimination claims when pregnancy-related restrictions are handled differently.
If a school district offers temporary modified duties to employees with lifting or mobility restrictions, it should carefully evaluate whether the same options are available to a pregnant worker with comparable limitations.
The employer may have legitimate reasons for distinguishing between employees, but those reasons should be based on actual duties, qualifications and operational needs.
They should not be based on stereotypes that pregnancy automatically makes an employee unable to work.
The alleged male-custodian comparison in the Pleasanton case is therefore especially important.
It raises the question of whether the district had an available light-duty practice but did not apply it consistently.
Federal Law May Also Apply
Pregnant workers may also have protection under the federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
The federal law generally requires covered employers with at least 15 employees to provide reasonable accommodations for known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions unless the accommodation would create an undue hardship.
The law also prohibits an employer from requiring a qualified worker to take leave when another reasonable accommodation can be provided.
The federal law does not replace California protections that may be more generous.
A California school employee may have overlapping rights under state and federal law, along with rights created by a collective-bargaining agreement or district policy.
The Pleasanton settlement was announced by California’s enforcement agency and focused on state civil-rights obligations.
Pregnancy Disability Leave Is Different From Accommodation
Pregnancy-disability leave and workplace accommodation are related but legally distinct.
A worker may need time away from work because of a pregnancy-related disability.
California generally provides eligible workers with up to four months of pregnancy-disability leave per pregnancy, depending on the employee’s normal work schedule and medical need.
However, leave is not always the only solution.
A worker may be able and willing to continue working with temporary restrictions.
California guidance explains that employers should not automatically force an employee onto leave when the employee can perform the job with a reasonable accommodation.
In the Pleasanton case, the employee allegedly asked to continue working under medical restrictions.
The dispute therefore centers on whether the district should have identified a workable modified assignment instead of telling her that no work was available.
School Employees May Have Multiple Sources of Protection
Public-school employees may be protected through several overlapping systems.
State civil-rights law may require reasonable accommodation and prohibit pregnancy discrimination.
Federal law may impose additional accommodation requirements.
Collective-bargaining agreements may contain procedures involving modified duty, leave, seniority and job assignments.
District personnel policies may create additional rights or responsibilities.
A classified employee such as a custodian may also be represented by a union responsible for negotiating working conditions and assisting employees with grievances.
Pleasanton Unified’s public human-resources materials identify the California School Employees Association as the bargaining representative for its nonmanagement classified employees.
The available settlement announcement does not state what role, if any, the union played in this particular dispute.
Supervisors Should Not Make Accommodation Decisions Alone
One lesson from the case is that front-line supervisors should not make immediate final decisions about complicated medical restrictions without human-resources review.
A supervisor may understand the daily job duties but may not understand the full requirements of pregnancy-discrimination and accommodation law.
Telling an employee that there is “no work” can function like a termination decision when no alternative assignment or formal leave process is offered.
Districts should require supervisors to forward medical restrictions and accommodation requests promptly to trained personnel.
Human resources should then identify essential duties, discuss possible accommodations with the employee and document the process.
The goal should be to reach an individualized decision rather than applying a one-size-fits-all response.
Human Resources Must Do More Than Confirm a Decision
The complaint alleged that a human-resources staff member later confirmed that the employee had been terminated because the district could not accommodate her.
That allegation is important because human resources is often the department expected to correct an improper supervisory response.
HR personnel should independently evaluate whether the law requires accommodation, whether comparable employees have received modified duty and whether leave is appropriate.
They should not simply repeat a supervisor’s conclusion without examining the employee’s restrictions and the district’s available options.
The settlement’s training requirement appears designed to address that institutional responsibility.
Training one supervisor may correct an individual misunderstanding. Training HR personnel may change how accommodation requests are handled throughout the district.
Policy Review Can Reveal Systemic Problems
The settlement requires a comprehensive review of the district’s antidiscrimination and pregnancy-disability policies.
A policy can create risk even when no one intended to discriminate.
For example, a district policy might provide modified duty only for employees injured at work. It might direct pregnant employees automatically onto leave. It might fail to explain who receives accommodation requests or how decisions are documented.
A review should examine whether district policies clearly distinguish disability leave, pregnancy accommodation, temporary transfer and light duty.
The district should also assess whether its written rules match actual practice.
A well-written policy has limited value when supervisors and HR staff do not follow it consistently.
Why Training Matters
Employment law changes over time, and pregnancy protections have expanded significantly in recent years.
Supervisors may still rely on outdated assumptions, such as believing that an employee who cannot perform every usual task must immediately stop working.
Training should explain that accommodation analysis is individualized.
It should cover how to recognize a request, when medical documentation may be appropriate, how to begin the interactive process and how to evaluate undue hardship.
Training should also address retaliation.
An employee should not face punishment, hostility or loss of opportunities merely for requesting a pregnancy-related accommodation.
The goal is not only legal compliance. It is creating a workplace in which employees can disclose legitimate medical needs without fearing that the request will cost them their jobs.
The $60,000 Payment Is Only Part of the Outcome
The settlement amount covers compensation and legal costs, according to the Civil Rights Department.
The public announcement does not divide the amount among lost wages, emotional distress, attorney expenses or other categories.
It would therefore be inaccurate to describe the entire $60,000 as back pay.
The policy and training requirements may have a broader long-term effect than the financial payment.
If the district changes how it handles future accommodation requests, the settlement could protect other classified employees, teachers and administrators.
Civil-rights settlements often combine individual compensation with institutional reforms for that reason.
The Case Arrives During a Difficult Budget Period
Pleasanton Unified has also been addressing significant financial pressure.
The district says it faces an anticipated multimillion-dollar shortfall for the 2026–27 school year and has considered or approved reductions affecting classified and certificated positions.
Its public budget materials describe declining enrollment, rising costs, reduced reserves and the expiration of temporary pandemic-era funding as major challenges.
Those conditions provide context but do not excuse unlawful discrimination.
Financial difficulty may affect whether a particular accommodation creates an undue hardship, but an employer must still conduct an individualized analysis.
A district cannot automatically deny pregnancy accommodations simply because its budget is under pressure.
Budget Reductions and Civil-Rights Compliance Are Separate Issues
The settlement involved an individual complaint reportedly filed in 2025.
The district’s broader staffing reductions and fiscal challenges do not establish why this employee was terminated.
It would be irresponsible to connect the settlement directly to the district’s later reduction-in-force decisions without evidence.
The two issues do, however, highlight the need for careful documentation.
When districts are reducing staff, every employment decision may receive greater scrutiny.
Officials should be able to explain whether an action resulted from a budget elimination, performance issue, accommodation decision or another lawful reason.
Clear records protect both employees and the institution.
Why Classified Employees Deserve Greater Attention
Education reporting often focuses on teachers and administrators.
Classified employees such as custodians, bus drivers, food-service workers, clerical employees and instructional aides are also essential to school operations.
They may perform physically demanding work and have less control over schedules, assignments and workplace conditions.
A custodian’s pregnancy-accommodation request may not receive the same public attention as a dispute involving a superintendent or principal.
The legal protections are no less important.
Schools depend on classified employees to maintain safe, functioning environments. District leaders should ensure that those workers understand their rights and know where to request assistance.
What School Districts Should Learn From the Settlement
Districts should create a clear and centralized procedure for pregnancy-related accommodation requests.
Employees should know whether to contact a supervisor, human resources, a leave coordinator or another designated official.
Supervisors should be instructed not to promise, deny or terminate employment before the request is properly reviewed.
The district should identify whether temporary modified duties are available and apply those opportunities consistently.
Officials should document the interactive process, including the employee’s restrictions, possible accommodations, reasons an option was accepted or rejected and any follow-up discussion.
Districts should also audit older policies against current state and federal law.
A policy written before the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act or recent California guidance may no longer provide sufficient protection.
What Employees Should Do When Requesting Accommodation
Employees should notify the employer that they need a change at work because of pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition.
The request does not necessarily require special legal language.
However, a written request can help create a clear record.
Employees should describe the limitation and the workplace change they believe would help, while avoiding unnecessary disclosure of unrelated medical information.
A medical note may be useful when it explains functional restrictions, such as limits on lifting, standing or bending.
Employees should retain copies of medical documentation, emails and employer responses.
They should also document whether coworkers with similar temporary restrictions received modified duties.
Workers represented by a union may wish to contact a representative for assistance with accommodation, leave and grievance procedures.
What Employees Can Do When Accommodation Is Denied
An employee who receives a denial should ask the employer to explain the decision and whether another accommodation is available.
The employee may request continued participation in the interactive process.
If the employer claims that the accommodation would create an undue hardship, the employee can ask what factors were considered.
California workers may contact the Civil Rights Department regarding possible employment discrimination.
Federal claims involving pregnancy accommodation may fall within the authority of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Deadlines can apply to administrative complaints and lawsuits, so employees facing an active dispute should obtain individualized guidance promptly.
How New To Education Supports School Employees
New To Education publishes accessible reporting on educational law, employee rights, workplace accommodations and school-district accountability.
School employment law affects far more than teachers.
Custodians, paraprofessionals, transportation workers, office staff and food-service employees all have important roles and legal protections.
Understanding the difference between leave, accommodation, modified duty and termination can help employees communicate more effectively and help districts prevent avoidable violations.
Learn more about New To Education:
Key Takeaways
Pleasanton Unified School District agreed to a $60,000 settlement after a pregnant custodian alleged that she was denied accommodations and terminated.
The employee reportedly submitted medical restrictions involving standing, walking, bending, twisting and lifting more than 20 pounds.
She alleged that her supervisor told her the district had no work available until after her baby was born.
The complaint also alleged that a male custodian had previously received light duty for a non-pregnancy-related disability.
The district resolved the case without admitting wrongdoing.
The settlement requires policy review, possible policy revisions, civil-rights training and compliance reporting to the California Civil Rights Department.
California law generally protects pregnancy-related accommodations and temporary transfers when they can be reasonably provided.
Federal law may provide overlapping protection through the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did a court find Pleasanton Unified guilty of pregnancy discrimination?
No. The matter was resolved through mediation and a settlement. The district did not admit wrongdoing.
How much will the district pay?
The settlement requires a total payment of $60,000 for compensation and legal costs.
What accommodations did the custodian request?
The reported restrictions included reducing standing and walking, avoiding bending or twisting and limiting lifting to no more than 20 pounds.
Was the employee placed on leave?
The complaint alleged that her supervisor told her there was no work for her until after childbirth and that human resources later confirmed she had been terminated.
Why does the male custodian matter?
The employee alleged that a male custodian received light duty after a non-pregnancy-related disability. That comparison may be relevant to whether modified work was applied consistently.
Must an employer provide every requested accommodation?
No. The employer must generally provide a reasonable accommodation unless it would create an undue hardship. The exact accommodation depends on the job and workplace circumstances.
Can an employer require a pregnant employee to take leave?
Under state and federal protections, an employer generally should not force an employee onto leave when another reasonable accommodation would allow the employee to continue working.
What is the interactive process?
It is a discussion between the employer and employee intended to identify an effective and reasonable workplace accommodation.
Does California pregnancy-disability leave apply to school employees?
It can. California’s pregnancy-disability protections generally apply to employers with five or more employees, subject to the employee’s medical condition and other legal requirements.
What policy changes must the district make?
The district must review its antidiscrimination and pregnancy-disability policies, revise them when necessary, distribute updates, train staff and report compliance to the state.
Final Thoughts
The Pleasanton settlement illustrates how quickly an accommodation request can become a civil-rights dispute.
The custodian allegedly provided clear medical restrictions and sought a way to continue working.
According to the complaint, the response was not a meaningful discussion about modified duties. It was a statement that there was no work available, followed by termination.
Pleasanton Unified disputes liability and did not admit wrongdoing.
The settlement nevertheless reflects the state’s concern that school employers must treat pregnancy accommodation as an individualized legal process rather than an automatic reason to remove someone from the workplace.
School districts regularly ask employees to model fairness, respect and inclusion for students.
Those principles must also apply to the adults who clean classrooms, maintain campuses, transport children and support daily operations.
Pregnancy should not be treated as evidence that an employee can no longer contribute.
The proper question is whether temporary, reasonable changes can allow the worker to perform the job safely.
The district’s policy review and training requirements now provide an opportunity to improve that process for every employee who may need accommodation in the future.
Support New To Education
New To Education publishes independent reporting and analysis on educational law, employee rights, civil-rights enforcement and school-district accountability.
Readers can support this work by sharing our reporting, exploring our educational and professional services or using the support options available through our website.
Related Articles
NYC Teacher Says Administrators Changed a Student’s Failing Grade and Retaliated When She Objected
Why Education Should Feel More Human Again
https://newtoeducation.com/view-blog/why-education-should-feel-more-human-again-6a0a4ab28fec9
Sources
California Civil Rights Department — Pleasanton Unified School District Agrees to Civil Rights Settlement After Alleged Illegal Firing of Pregnant Custodian
California Civil Rights Department — Employment and Pregnancy Disability Rights
https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/employment/
California Civil Rights Department — Reasonable Accommodation
https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/accommodation/
California Legislative Information — Government Code Section 12945
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=12945
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/pregnant-workers-fairness-act
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — What You Should Know About the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-pregnant-workers-fairness-act
Pleasanton Unified School District — Classified Employee Information
https://www.pleasantonusd.net/departments/human-resources-old/classified-information
Pleasanton Unified School District — Budget Updates and Community Engagement
