Updated at 5:15 p.m. to include comment from the EEOC.

A Rowlett sports bar settled a discrimination lawsuit Wednesday with a woman who said she was forced out of her bartending job after she became pregnant.

The complaint was filed in 2016 by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of Taylor King.

From 2012 to 2014, King worked at Nick's Sports Grill, where body-hugging shirts and short "hot pants" are the required attire for female employees. She said she changed her outfit after she became pregnant, according to an EEOC release.

"When the short, tight outfit no longer worked, Ms. King no longer had a job," trial attorney Toby Wosk Costas said in a written statement.

Roger Albright, an attorney for the bar's parent company, said the allegations that King was not allowed to alter her uniform were never brought forth until now and the company "absolutely denies" them.

"All that is completely untrue," he said. "That's not even an allegation that the EEOC made in their complaint. It is a completely false issue, a red herring that there was anything about the uniform. In fact, Ms. King's statements were the contrary. She said she asked if she could wear something different, she was told 'yes' as long as it was black, and she did."

Albright said King voluntarily left her job at Nick's after she was offered a position as a hostess because she was unable to be on her feet all of the time as a bartender.

But according to the EEOC's recent release, King said the general manager "forced her off the job" in April 2014 after she started wearing capri pants and added a second layer on top of the tight shirt she was required to wear.

"Ms. King received a call from the general manager at 4 a.m., telling her he had to let her go," said Costas. "He said that the manager would not like that she had altered her uniform, due to her pregnancy. When she filed for unemployment benefits, this is what she stated on the application, and the company's attorney is aware of that application."

The EEOC says the general manager violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, a federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against women who are pregnant or affected by pregnancy-related conditions.

"Just because you look different as a pregnant woman doesn't mean you can't do your job," King said in a written statement. "I want people to know that if you feel you are being discriminated against, you should do something about it."

The bar's parent company, Off the Air II, has agreed to pay King $24,000 along with providing other relief. Also, as part of the consent decree, the company must implement annual training regarding discrimination, post notices of procedures for reporting discrimination and report all pregnancy discrimination complaints to the EEOC for the next three years.

Regional attorney for the EEOC's Dallas office, Robert A. Canino, said King's story is "another example of how myopic views by some employers about the value of women in the workplace operate to limit opportunities for women who are qualified and well-able to work."

A similar case happened in 2015 at an Addison restaurant. A cocktail waitress said she was fired from Arthur's Prime Steaks and Seafood for being pregnant.

The restaurant disputed the woman's claims but agreed to settle for $20,000.