Original Story: DetroitNews.com
After Wendy Lamond-Broughton had her first child, she joined Weight Watchers and lost 30 pounds. She was so proud of losing her baby weight that she applied for a job at the weight-loss company in Farmington Hills. An Austin Employment Lawyer has seen similar situations.
But when Weight Watchers personnel called her for an interview, she says she was told she couldn’t apply for the job — because she was pregnant again.
The WW Group Inc. has agreed to pay Lamond-Broughton $45,000 to settle a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit filed against it in U.S. District Court.
“It was a very blatant case of discrimination,” said Lamond-Broughton, 40, of Rochester Hills. “I haven’t been back since. I am still shocked and hurt by their treatment of me, and I don’t think I will ever go back.” A Hudson Valley Employment Lawyer said that this type of discrimination is still common.
On Tuesday, local Weight Watchers officials issued a statement.
“For over 40 years, The WW Group has been proud to employ a workforce of primarily women,” said Sheryl Fellows, spokeswoman for The WW Group in Farmington Hills. “There have been many pregnant women employed by our organization throughout the years.”
The case began in September 2009, after Lamond-Broughton, a lifetime member of Weight Watchers, was on a telephone interview with an area manager for a part-time job as a group leader in Troy, court records show.
At the time, she was five months pregnant with her second child. The 5-foot-9-inch woman weighed 169 pounds — about five pounds more than her Weight Watchers goal weight of 164 pounds.
The company requires a goal weight to be at least five pounds less than the joining weight and fall within its healthy weight ranges or one recommended by a health care professional. A Brooklyn DWI Lawyer is watching the case closely.
During the interview, Lamond-Broughton mentioned she was pregnant. The area manager then said Weight Watchers did not hire pregnant group leaders, according to the lawsuit.
“They are a company that markets themselves to women,” said Lamond-Broughton, a stay-at-home mom and part-time actress who does extra work in commercials. “It was shocking to me.”
Lamond-Broughton filed a complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which tried to settle the case. After the EEOC investigated, Weight Watchers said she was disqualified for being above her goal weight. A Binghamton Employment Lawyer said this is absurd.
When settlement efforts failed, Detroit branch officials sued Weight Watchers.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, bars discrimination against pregnant applicants and employees.
“Under the PDA, pregnant applicants have the right to fair and equal consideration for employment,” said Omar Weaver, senior trial attorney for the EEOC’s Detroit Field Office. “The EEOC is committed to ensuring that employers understand that a pregnant applicant’s ability or inability to perform the job is the only factor that may be considered.” An Albany Employment Lawyer agreed to this statement.
The WW Group Inc. denied allegations of pregnancy discrimination and made no admission of liability, court records show.
The consent decree included provisions for training personnel on unlawful employment practices; posting of anti-discrimination notices; and revising the goal weight policy to comply with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
Lamond-Broughton appreciates the monetary settlement but said she is even more grateful for the intangible outcome. “It’s a positive step for the rights of women everywhere,” she said.
Showing posts with label pregnancy discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pregnancy discrimination. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Teacher Fired For Pregnancy Outside of Marriage
Story originally appeared on ajc.com.
More than 20,000 people from across the U.S. are rallying behind a Montana middle school teacher who was fired for getting pregnant out of wedlock.
"Shaela Evenson says Butte Central Catholic School fired her last month. Yesterday Catholics delivered petitions with more than 20,000 signatures to the Helena Diocese." (Via KBZK)
Social justice group Faithful America started the petition to get Evenson her job back, saying, "Firing an unmarried teacher for becoming pregnant is cruel and hypocritical." The group has already surpassed its goal of 15,000 signatures.
The petition was sent to Bishop George Leo Thomas, of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Helena, on Feb 27. But a parishioner told USA Today she doesn't think it will cause the diocese to change its decision.
"The only way that change could be made is if (Pope) Francis himself came and asked for that change to be made, and I doubt that would happen."
The school's superintendent told The Montana Standard that the Catholic Diocese of Helena was in the right to fire Evenson, saying:
"[Evenson] 'made a willful decision to violate the terms of her contract,' which requires her to follow Catholic teachings in both her personal and professional life..."
According to New York Daily News, teachers at Butte Central have morality clauses in their contracts. Behavior that goes against church teachings like having same-sex relationships, getting an abortion or becoming pregnant outside of marriage is not allowed.
But if Evenson were to ever take her firing to court, she might have a leg to stand on. A Montana law protects people from discrimination on the basis of marital status. (Via Montana Department of Labor & Industry)
A similar case occurred back in 2010. The Huffington Post says unwed Catholic school teacher Christa Dias used artificial insemination to get pregnant.
"She was fired by the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, but took it to court. And a jury found that she'd been discriminated against. Dias ended up with $170,000 when the case was finished."? (Via KECI)
KECI reports Evenson, who is eight months pregnant, has hired the same law firm that represented Dias. Evenson's attorney says her client will file a discrimination charge against her employer.
More than 20,000 people from across the U.S. are rallying behind a Montana middle school teacher who was fired for getting pregnant out of wedlock.
"Shaela Evenson says Butte Central Catholic School fired her last month. Yesterday Catholics delivered petitions with more than 20,000 signatures to the Helena Diocese." (Via KBZK)
Social justice group Faithful America started the petition to get Evenson her job back, saying, "Firing an unmarried teacher for becoming pregnant is cruel and hypocritical." The group has already surpassed its goal of 15,000 signatures.
The petition was sent to Bishop George Leo Thomas, of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Helena, on Feb 27. But a parishioner told USA Today she doesn't think it will cause the diocese to change its decision.
"The only way that change could be made is if (Pope) Francis himself came and asked for that change to be made, and I doubt that would happen."
The school's superintendent told The Montana Standard that the Catholic Diocese of Helena was in the right to fire Evenson, saying:
"[Evenson] 'made a willful decision to violate the terms of her contract,' which requires her to follow Catholic teachings in both her personal and professional life..."
According to New York Daily News, teachers at Butte Central have morality clauses in their contracts. Behavior that goes against church teachings like having same-sex relationships, getting an abortion or becoming pregnant outside of marriage is not allowed.
But if Evenson were to ever take her firing to court, she might have a leg to stand on. A Montana law protects people from discrimination on the basis of marital status. (Via Montana Department of Labor & Industry)
A similar case occurred back in 2010. The Huffington Post says unwed Catholic school teacher Christa Dias used artificial insemination to get pregnant.
"She was fired by the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, but took it to court. And a jury found that she'd been discriminated against. Dias ended up with $170,000 when the case was finished."? (Via KECI)
KECI reports Evenson, who is eight months pregnant, has hired the same law firm that represented Dias. Evenson's attorney says her client will file a discrimination charge against her employer.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Woman Loses Job Due to Pregnancy
Story first appeared on ABC News.
A Pennsylvania woman said that she was fired because she missed 11 days of work after complications from her pregnancy. After she sued for sex and pregnancy discrimination, her employer counter-sued for $50,000, saying she broke a four-year employment contract. She is suing for an unspecified figure for back and front pay, with 2.5 years left from her employment contract, punitive damages, compensatory damages, and attorneys fees and costs.
Philadelphia Labor and Employment Lawyers say the case represents inconsistency in enforcing pregnancy discrimination laws, which the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has said is a long overdue issue.
The woman, a chiropractor based in Pennsylvania, began working at Herman Chiropractic Center in Waynesboro in January 2006. She notified her employer that she was pregnant in February 2007, and then missed 11 days of work because of hyperemesis gravidarum, which is a severe form of morning sickness that can cause dehydration, her court filing states.
After various doctor appointments, visits to the emergency room and submission of doctors notes, she called her employer March 26, 2007, stating that she was coming into the office. The owner of the practice informed her that the way the office was being run was unsatisfactory, and told her not to come back.
Her employer cancelled her health insurance benefits within days of the phone call. She never received a termination letter. The employer hired her replacement in early April, according to Pittsburgh Labor and Employment Defense Lawyers.
According to her employment agreement, if she left her job before the end of the four-year period, she was required to pay $50,000 for training and lost patient services. Her employer is counter-suing for that amount.
She filed discrimination claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and sued for pregnancy and sex discrimination. While many discrimination cases get dismissed on summary judgment, the case will get a jury trial, scheduled for May.
With her daughter almost 5 years old, her attorney said that it can take a woman this long to get through the court system.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) hosted a public meeting on the subject of pregnancy discrimination and caregiver issues Wednesday morning in Washington, D.C. The commission invited experts to testify about recent trends in discrimination against pregnant workers and workers with caregiving responsibilities.
The vice president and general counsel with the National Women's Law Center, said more women work during later stages of pregnancy now than before, but still face obstacles at the workplace.
During the meeting, representatives called for the EEOC to issue guidelines for courts and employers, which have found confusion in the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it illegal to discriminate against a woman because of pregnancy, childbirth or a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth. Court enforcement of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act has been inconsistent. Other experts have said there is still work to be done regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act and Family and Medical Leave Act regarding maternity and paternity leave.
When the EEOC asked the meeting's panelists why discrimination continues to persist 35 years after the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was passed, a law professor and director of the Center for Work Life Law at the University of California-Hastings, said the stereotype regarding gender and caregiving are very strong.
Herman Chiropractic said it was not required to provide maternity leave as a small employer because the Family and Medical Leave Act applies to employers with 50 or more employees for each working day during each of 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year.
According to the court filing, her former employer, recalls their last conversation differently. He remembers asking if she were able to return to work and she stated she was not coming back or able to do so, the filing states. The owner understood this to mean that she was quitting.
Now living in New Jersey with her husband and daughter, she said she did not just lose a job, she lost almost everything, including her income and health insurance. She said she lost her marital home and had to move into her sister's basement. She has been unable to get another position like the one that was lost, and her daughter is now 4 years old.
Instead of complying with even simple, pregnancy-related medical restrictions, all too often employers seize the opportunity to rid themselves of the supposed liability pregnant workers pose to them. Pregnant women are losing their jobs because they might need to use the bathroom more frequently than 'normal,' and because they may need to sit down periodically. They are losing their jobs because they need to pump breast milk to feed their babies.
When working women become pregnant, many have expressed feeling as if they are walking a proverbial tightrope and could lose their jobs at any second. When pregnant women are fired from their jobs, everyone suffers.
A result of pregnancy discrimination and mothers' losing their jobs could be increased applications for government benefits, including unemployment compensation, medical assistance, and the federally funded Women, Infants and Children nutrition program. Pregnant workers and their families desperately need protection from the government to regulate and hold these employers accountable for their actions.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.
A Pennsylvania woman said that she was fired because she missed 11 days of work after complications from her pregnancy. After she sued for sex and pregnancy discrimination, her employer counter-sued for $50,000, saying she broke a four-year employment contract. She is suing for an unspecified figure for back and front pay, with 2.5 years left from her employment contract, punitive damages, compensatory damages, and attorneys fees and costs.
Philadelphia Labor and Employment Lawyers say the case represents inconsistency in enforcing pregnancy discrimination laws, which the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has said is a long overdue issue.
The woman, a chiropractor based in Pennsylvania, began working at Herman Chiropractic Center in Waynesboro in January 2006. She notified her employer that she was pregnant in February 2007, and then missed 11 days of work because of hyperemesis gravidarum, which is a severe form of morning sickness that can cause dehydration, her court filing states.
After various doctor appointments, visits to the emergency room and submission of doctors notes, she called her employer March 26, 2007, stating that she was coming into the office. The owner of the practice informed her that the way the office was being run was unsatisfactory, and told her not to come back.
Her employer cancelled her health insurance benefits within days of the phone call. She never received a termination letter. The employer hired her replacement in early April, according to Pittsburgh Labor and Employment Defense Lawyers.
According to her employment agreement, if she left her job before the end of the four-year period, she was required to pay $50,000 for training and lost patient services. Her employer is counter-suing for that amount.
She filed discrimination claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and sued for pregnancy and sex discrimination. While many discrimination cases get dismissed on summary judgment, the case will get a jury trial, scheduled for May.
With her daughter almost 5 years old, her attorney said that it can take a woman this long to get through the court system.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) hosted a public meeting on the subject of pregnancy discrimination and caregiver issues Wednesday morning in Washington, D.C. The commission invited experts to testify about recent trends in discrimination against pregnant workers and workers with caregiving responsibilities.
The vice president and general counsel with the National Women's Law Center, said more women work during later stages of pregnancy now than before, but still face obstacles at the workplace.
During the meeting, representatives called for the EEOC to issue guidelines for courts and employers, which have found confusion in the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it illegal to discriminate against a woman because of pregnancy, childbirth or a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth. Court enforcement of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act has been inconsistent. Other experts have said there is still work to be done regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act and Family and Medical Leave Act regarding maternity and paternity leave.
When the EEOC asked the meeting's panelists why discrimination continues to persist 35 years after the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was passed, a law professor and director of the Center for Work Life Law at the University of California-Hastings, said the stereotype regarding gender and caregiving are very strong.
Herman Chiropractic said it was not required to provide maternity leave as a small employer because the Family and Medical Leave Act applies to employers with 50 or more employees for each working day during each of 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year.
According to the court filing, her former employer, recalls their last conversation differently. He remembers asking if she were able to return to work and she stated she was not coming back or able to do so, the filing states. The owner understood this to mean that she was quitting.
Now living in New Jersey with her husband and daughter, she said she did not just lose a job, she lost almost everything, including her income and health insurance. She said she lost her marital home and had to move into her sister's basement. She has been unable to get another position like the one that was lost, and her daughter is now 4 years old.
Instead of complying with even simple, pregnancy-related medical restrictions, all too often employers seize the opportunity to rid themselves of the supposed liability pregnant workers pose to them. Pregnant women are losing their jobs because they might need to use the bathroom more frequently than 'normal,' and because they may need to sit down periodically. They are losing their jobs because they need to pump breast milk to feed their babies.
When working women become pregnant, many have expressed feeling as if they are walking a proverbial tightrope and could lose their jobs at any second. When pregnant women are fired from their jobs, everyone suffers.
A result of pregnancy discrimination and mothers' losing their jobs could be increased applications for government benefits, including unemployment compensation, medical assistance, and the federally funded Women, Infants and Children nutrition program. Pregnant workers and their families desperately need protection from the government to regulate and hold these employers accountable for their actions.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
