EEOC sues Dentsu, alleges it rejected finalist over pregnancy

She moved through the process. A Talent Acquisition Business Partner found she met the minimum qualifications, the complaint says. She made the first-round cut of five candidates, then became one of two finalists. 

On November 13, 2023, the day before her second-round interview, she told the hiring manager she was pregnant, with an April 2024 due date, and would need maternity leave if hired. On or around November 17, Dentsu offered the position to a male candidate, who accepted. The agency alleges he was less qualified than she was. 

The filing also points to a comment months later. In or around March 2024, another employee asked the hiring manager why she had chosen the male candidate. The manager said the applicant’s “lifestyle didn’t fit” the position, according to the complaint. 

For HR teams, the claims land on familiar ground. The first falls under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which requires employers to make reasonable adjustments for known limitations tied to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The EEOC says Dentsu declined to hire the applicant because it would have had to give her leave to recover from childbirth. The second is under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, for allegedly failing to hire her because of her sex. The complaint says the conduct was intentional and done “with malice or with reckless indifference” to her federally protected rights. 

In pregnancy-bias claims, the dispute often turns on the timing of a hiring decision and how it was later explained, rather than on any written policy.