EEOC Sues Oklahoma Homebuilder Home Creations for Pregnancy Discrimination

OKLAHOMA CITY — The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit on July 2, 2026, against Oklahoma-based homebuilder H.C. Employees, LLC, which does business as Home Creations, alleging the company violated federal law by firing a new sales employee because she was pregnant.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, claims the company terminated sales consultant Izabelle Hacker in the fall of 2023, less than two weeks after learning of her pregnancy and near the conclusion of her 90-day introductory period. While Home Creations cited policy violations, including low home sales, as the reason for dismissal, the EEOC contends this was a pretext for discrimination. The agency alleges that a male probationary sales employee with a similar tenure and performance record was retained.

This case is a stark reminder for small and mid-sized business owners that operational policies and management behavior are significant sources of legal and financial risk. In our experience, many discrimination lawsuits stem not from explicit company policy but from the undocumented, inconsistent actions and words of managers. Seemingly casual remarks, like the alleged comment to “not drink the water” because female employees “get pregnant and leave,” can become central evidence in a costly legal battle, undermining any official non-discriminatory stance. It highlights a critical need for structured management training and clearly defined, consistently applied performance metrics, especially during probationary periods. This is precisely the kind of operational risk that our business process reengineering services are designed to mitigate. To ensure your company's internal policies and management practices are compliant and defensible, contact C&S Finance Group LLC at csfinancegroup.com for a comprehensive review.

According to the EEOC’s complaint, the alleged discriminatory behavior was not isolated. The lawsuit names Director of Sales and Marketing John Burris and Sales Field Manager Travis Basden as having repeatedly expressed negative views about pregnant sales consultants. The filing claims that during Hacker’s final job interview, Burris told her to “don’t drink the water” at the company, explaining that women there “get pregnant and leave.” The EEOC argues these comments reflect a pervasive bias against pregnant workers that ultimately led to Hacker’s termination.

“Firing a worker simply because she is pregnant — or because an employer assumes she will not return after maternity leave — is illegal,” said Andrea G. Baran, regional attorney for the EEOC’s St. Louis District, in a statement announcing the suit. “These assumptions are rooted in stereotypes and they have no place at work.”

The legal basis for the lawsuit is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA). This federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, which explicitly includes pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Under the law, employers are required to treat employees affected by pregnancy the same as other employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work.

Pregnancy discrimination cases often follow a legal framework established in the Supreme Court case McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. This process involves a burden-shifting analysis. First, the employee (or the EEOC on their behalf) must establish a basic, or prima facie, case by showing the employee was pregnant, was qualified for the job, suffered an adverse employment action like termination, and that the circumstances suggest a discriminatory motive. The burden then shifts to the employer to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its action — in this case, Home Creations’ claim of poor performance.

If the employer provides such a reason, the final and often most critical step is for the plaintiff to prove that the employer’s stated reason is merely a pretext for discrimination. The EEOC’s lawsuit against Home Creations appears built to challenge the company’s performance-based defense as pretextual, citing the managers’ alleged biased statements, the timing of the termination, and the different treatment of a comparable male employee.

The EEOC noted that it attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement with Home Creations through its administrative conciliation process before resorting to filing the lawsuit. This is a standard procedure for the agency, which is tasked with enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws. Under federal law, individuals in Oklahoma must typically file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act.

The lawsuit against Home Creations was filed the same day the EEOC sued another major Oklahoma-based company, Paycom, for alleged disability discrimination, suggesting a focused enforcement effort by the agency in the region.

The case, EEOC v. H.C. Employees, LLC d/b/a Home Creations, will now move through the federal court system. Home Creations will be required to file a formal response to the allegations, after which the parties will likely enter a period of discovery to gather evidence. The outcome will be closely watched by employers as an indicator of the EEOC’s enforcement priorities regarding pregnancy and family-related discrimination in the workplace.