When a jury lands a staggering $185 million punitive award against a national retailer, it is not just about one woman’s fight. It is a resounding message that California protects pregnant workers and will punish those who defy the law.
In Juarez v. AutoZone, a federal jury in San Diego found that Rosario Juarez was demoted and later fired because of her pregnancy. The jury delivered not only $872,000 in compensatory damages but a jaw-dropping $185 million in punitive damages. The verdict was designed to send a message to the company’s leadership and to every employer across the state.
A Jury Spoke Up And Spoke Loudly
A juror reportedly declared that the punitive award would “stand for the proposition that women are an equal part of the workplace, that they have a right to work pregnant, and that retaliation will not be tolerated.”
That statement echoes far beyond the courtroom. Employers should grasp one critical truth: intentionally punishing a worker for being pregnant can carry consequences far outweighing any economic gain from discrimination.
AutoZone Tried to Fight And Lost
AutoZone tried to delay the verdict by filing motions for a new trial and alleging juror misconduct, including claims that counsel made contact with jurors during deliberations. That motion eventually merged into a joint dismissal, but crucially, the company did not escape liability. The original punitive verdict remains a cornerstone, reinforcing that pregnancy discrimination will not be tolerated simply because a company tries to clean it up behind closed doors.
What Makes This Case Matter More
It was not Juarez’s financial award that captured attention but its size. The $185 million punishment was more than 200 times her compensatory award. It served as a loud call to action: punitive damages are real, and even giant companies must pay for systemic wrongdoing.
For pregnant workers in California, this verdict is legal armor. It makes clear that the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (PDLL) are not just words on paper. They are enforceable protections backed by public pride and judicial authority.
California’s Legal Backbone Is Strong But Enforcement Matters
California law grants pregnant employees up to four months of medical leave, accommodation rights, and the right to return to the same or a comparable job. Yet enforcement is what turns law into lived reality. Juarez’s case transformed individual injustice into public remedy and prevention.
If California wants to maintain its leadership in protecting pregnant workers, employers must not just know the law—they must apply it. When companies treat pregnancy as a weakness, they stake their reputation and finances on that decision. Juarez’s victory proves they cannot afford it.
Statewide Change Begins with One Voice
Enforcement cannot happen only in courtrooms. It must happen in boardrooms, manager training, and HR departments. This is not just about Juarez. It is about every Californian who has felt marginalized for taking a prenatal appointment or betrayed for announcing her pregnancy.
From Sacramento to San Diego, employers must pause and ask: does my workplace truly support expecting employees? And: could it pass the Juarez verdict test?
The Verdict Stands and So Should Our Resolve
Rosario Juarez did more than win her own fight; she set a precedent for justice, equality, and legal accountability. Her jury’s verdict warns that punitive damages are not fictional threats but potentially corporate-defining liabilities.
California employers must see this case not as a cautionary tale but as a benchmark. And pregnant workers should know that what happened in San Diego can happen for them, too: that is, if they are discriminated against, they have a voice, and the law is on their side.
The blog published by Fairchild Employment Law is available for informational purposes only, is not considered legal advice on any subject matter, and is not meant to guarantee an outcome. By viewing blog posts, the reader understands there is no attorney-client relationship between the reader and the blog publisher. The blog should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed professional attorney, and readers are urged to consult their own legal counsel on any specific legal questions concerning a specific situation.