A recent federal lawsuit alleges that an employee was terminated from her job after requesting accommodations for her pregnancy, raising questions about workplace rights and protections for pregnant workers. The complaint was filed by Lila Bess in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 25, 2026, naming Crest Foods Co., Inc. as the defendant.
According to court documents, Lila Bess began working as a Mixer for Crest Foods Co., Inc. in July 2025 and remained employed until her termination on or about October 29, 2025. The lawsuit states that Bess informed her employer she was six weeks pregnant in October 2025 and soon after began experiencing symptoms such as nausea and vomiting that made certain physically demanding tasks more difficult.
The complaint outlines that on or about October 24, 2025, Bess obtained a doctor’s note recommending lighter duties due to her pregnancy-related symptoms. She provided this note to Crest Foods Co., Inc. and formally requested a transfer to a department or assignment with lighter duties to comply with medical restrictions. Bess also discussed her situation with her supervisor, identified as Jerry, who indicated he would speak with upper management regarding the request.
Despite these efforts, the filing asserts that Crest Foods did not propose alternative positions or engage in further discussion about possible accommodations. The company allegedly continued assigning Bess to regular duties without addressing her physician-identified limitations or initiating any interactive process required under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). Five days later, on or about October 29, 2025, Bess was terminated from employment.
The lawsuit reports that at the time of termination, Bess was told she was “not working enough” and “not a good fit.” The complaint contends this action deprived her of employment based on her pregnancy rather than job performance or work ethic. It further claims that male employees were not terminated for needing accommodations related to pregnancy.
Bess alleges multiple violations of federal law in connection with these events. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, she claims sex-based discrimination and retaliation for engaging in protected activity—specifically requesting accommodation due to pregnancy. The complaint states: “Defendant intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff based [on] Plaintiff’s sex” and “retaliated against Plaintiff based on Plaintiff’s disclosing her pregnancy.” According to Bess’s legal team, she met or exceeded performance expectations throughout her employment and received no disciplinary actions prior to termination.
In addition to Title VII claims, the suit invokes provisions of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act of 2023 (PWFA), alleging failure to accommodate pregnancy-related needs despite available light-duty positions within the company. The filing states: “Defendant failed to engage in the interactive process to determine the appropriate accommodation after Plaintiff requested reasonable accommodation.” It also alleges interference with statutory rights under PWFA by terminating employment following an accommodation request instead of determining whether such accommodation could be provided.
The plaintiff seeks several forms of relief from the court including back pay with interest; compensatory and punitive damages; attorneys’ fees; pre-judgment interest if applicable; and any other relief deemed just by the court. A jury trial has been demanded by Bess’s attorneys.
Representing Lila Bess are Sophia K. Steere and Nathan C. Volheim of Sulaiman Law Group Ltd., based in Lombard, Illinois. The case is identified as Case No. 3:26-cv-50120.
Source: 326cv50120_Lila_Bess_v_Crest_FoodsComplaint_Northern_District_of_Illinois.pdf
