On November 25, 2002, Jane Does I, II, and III filed lawsuits against the District of Columbia under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 1983e in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. On the same day, the cases were removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On August 5, 2004, the United States filed an Intervenor Complaint in all three cases. The plaintiffs allege that the District of Columbia discriminated against the plaintiff and other females with respect to hiring into and employment in emergency medical response technician ("EMT") positions with the District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department ("FEMSD") because of their sex and deprived them of their constitutional right. The plaintiffs asked for injunctive, remedial and compensatory relief for the plaintiffs and other females similarly situated.

The complaint alleges that the District of Columbia discriminated on the basis of sex by: (1) subjecting the plaintiffs and other female applicants for EMT positions in the District of Columbia's FEMSD to a pre-hiring pregnancy test; (2) conditioning an offer of employment to plaintiffs and other female applicants upon a negative result of the test; (3) advising plaintiffs and other female EMT's that if during their probationary periods they were or became pregnant, they were at risk of losing their jobs; and (4) failing or refusing to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of the discrimination.

One of the individually named defendants filed a counterclaim for slander stating: (1) the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant as a result of the plaintiffs' failure to properly serve the defendant; (2) none of the said injuries were caused be or contributed to by the defendant's conduct; (3) each plaintiff gave informed consent to and assumed risk of having an abortion; (4) each plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies; and (5) the plaintiffs' legal representatives are the proximate cause of any alleged emotional distress, physical harm and pain arising in connection with each plaintiff's abortion.

As a result of the above discrimination, women who became pregnant during their probationary periods felt compelled to, and did, terminate their pregnancies by abortions. They did this so as not to risk losing their jobs. The plaintiffs filed a timely charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") in which she alleged the District of Columbia discriminated against her on the basis of sex. On August 31, 2005, a settlement agreement was reached that set the following provisions: (1) any and all claims or counter-claims the District of Columbia or its current or former employees have against the plaintiffs shall be released; (2) the District of Columbia's implementation and adoption of nondiscriminatory policies; (3) and the District of Columbia shall provide training on the rights of pregnant employees and applicants. The District of Columbia also agreed to report back to the United States with any complaints for three years.

The case is closed.

Erin Forman - 10/24/2007


compress summary