A former employee has accused a major security services provider of discrimination and retaliation after she requested workplace accommodations during her pregnancy, raising questions about compliance with federal and state protections for pregnant workers. The complaint was filed by Journee Murphy in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 17, 2026, naming Universal Protection Service, LLC doing business as Allied Universal as the defendant.
According to the court filing, Murphy alleges that her termination from employment was motivated by her sex and pregnancy status. She claims that Allied Universal failed to provide reasonable accommodations for her medical condition related to pregnancy and subsequently retaliated against her after she engaged in protected activities such as disclosing her pregnancy and requesting adjustments to her work schedule.
The lawsuit is brought under several statutes: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA), the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) of 2023, and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) of 1978. Murphy asserts that these laws were violated when she was allegedly subjected to different terms and conditions of employment than others not in her protected class due to her sex and pregnancy.
Murphy began working for Allied Universal as a security officer around September 2024. Her duties included providing customer service within an educational environment, responding to incidents, conducting patrols, reporting unusual activity or property damage, communicating with campus personnel and visitors, documenting incidents according to company policy, and supporting emergency response efforts. Initially scheduled for two 16-hour shifts per week with occasional additional hours, Murphy states that working less than 40 hours per week was never raised as an issue by management.
In May 2025, Murphy took medical leave due to hyperemesis gravidarum—a severe pregnancy-related condition requiring hospitalization. Because she had not been employed for one year at that point, this leave was classified as personal rather than medical leave despite management’s awareness of its nature. Upon returning in late June 2025, Murphy was reassigned to overnight shifts based on her health needs.
On July 6, 2025, Murphy submitted documentation from her healthcare provider requesting accommodation: specifically that she should not be required to stand more than two hours per shift but could sit for four to six hours. As complications continued into late July 2025—resulting in occasional absences—her manager Wilbert Davis reportedly expressed dissatisfaction with both her reduced weekly hours and limitations on standing.
Murphy claims she reiterated her ability to perform job duties within those restrictions but found little flexibility from management regarding scheduling or task modification. On August 8, 2025, she informed Davis that consecutive overnight shifts were too physically demanding given her condition and requested either a reduction in weekly hours or reassignment away from overnights. According to the complaint, Davis denied these requests without proposing alternatives or engaging in further discussion about possible accommodations.
Murphy agreed to continue working as scheduled but was terminated on August 14, 2025—while twenty-one weeks pregnant—for allegedly allowing an “unauthorized user” into the building. She maintains that this reason was pretextual because she had verified the individual’s credentials appropriately according to procedures. The termination occurred less than a week after her latest request for accommodation.
The complaint states: “This reason for termination was pretextual and Plaintiff’s termination was motivated by her pregnancy, medical condition, and related requests for reasonable accommodation.” It further alleges that Allied Universal did not engage in a meaningful interactive process regarding accommodation requests nor offer alternative solutions such as task redistribution or temporary modifications—steps which Murphy argues would have been feasible within company operations.
Murphy contends she met or exceeded performance expectations throughout employment but suffered adverse actions including termination because of protected conduct under federal law: “Plaintiff can show that she engaged in statutorily protected activity—a necessary component of her retaliation claim…” The complaint highlights close timing between disclosure/request for accommodation and subsequent firing as evidence supporting an inference of unlawful motivation.
The legal filing details nine counts encompassing sex-based discrimination under Title VII and IHRA; retaliation under both statutes; failure to accommodate under PWFA and IHRA; retaliation under PWFA; disparate treatment under PDA; among others. For each count Murphy seeks remedies including back pay with interest; front pay; loss of benefits; compensatory and punitive damages; attorneys’ fees; pre-judgment interest if applicable; plus any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Murphy is represented by attorneys Chad W. Eisenback, Nathan C. Volheim, and Chasidy K. Clark of Sulaiman Law Group Ltd., Lombard Illinois (Case ID: 1:26-cv-02974).
Source: 126cv02974_Journee_Murphy_v_Universal_Protection_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Illinois.pdf
