A former employee has filed a lawsuit against her previous employer, alleging pregnancy discrimination and wrongful termination. Chardonae Bostic initiated the legal action on October 8, 2024, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against In Home Senior Care Services, LLC. The complaint outlines accusations of discrimination based on pregnancy, harassment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act of 2023.
According to the court documents, Bostic began working as a home caregiver for In Home Senior Care Services on May 21, 2024. During her employment, she claims to have been subjected to discriminatory treatment after her manager discovered she was pregnant. Bostic alleges that her manager expressed anger upon learning about her pregnancy from a client and made derogatory comments about her physical appearance. Furthermore, she was pressured regarding her maternity leave plans. Despite these challenges, Bostic continued to fulfill her job responsibilities until August 23, 2024, when she was terminated under contentious circumstances.
Bostic's complaint details how a new employee named Kisha was hired shortly before her termination and eventually replaced her position. She argues that this hiring decision was premeditated by management to replace her due to her pregnancy status. The plaintiff contends that she was capable of continuing work until the end of September but was unjustly forced into early maternity leave and subsequently fired.
The lawsuit accuses In Home Senior Care Services of failing to accommodate Bostic's reasonable requests related to her pregnancy and retaliating against her for asserting these rights. The complaint cites violations under both Title VII and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, emphasizing unlawful employment practices including sex-based discrimination and harassment.
Bostic seeks several forms of relief from the court: back pay with interest, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees and costs, pre-judgment interest if applicable, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. She has also demanded a jury trial for all issues presented in the case.
Representing Bostic is attorney Chad W. Eisenback from Sulaiman Law Group Ltd., while details regarding defense counsel remain undisclosed at this stage. The case ID is: 1:24-cv-09727.