Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Judge Rejects Stay in SEC Subpoena Fight with Deloitte | Main | Q&A: McDermott's Bobby Burchfield & Paul Thompson »

April 22, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e2017eea7a782a970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Fired Latham Secretary Alleges Pregnancy Discrimination:

Comments

Libbie K

In my professional capacity, I've been "served" a few times. Before you pass judgment on the HR director (or the managers for that matter), I would caution that plaintiffs have been known to, shall we say, "enhance" their reports of the wrongs allegedly done to them, taken things out of context, misremembered - with the help of the attorney crafting the complaint of course. But I guess it's nice sometimes to have a place to be judgmental without having all of the facts.
(Could anybody at L&W really be that ignorant of the legal implications of their treatment of a pregnant employee???)

Rose

That "Director of Human Resources" needs to go back to school or be retrained. Who in business these days reacts with such insensitivity. He was asking for a lawsuit.

Gilda Sateri

To the gentleman who wrote about "un-wed" pregnancy -- your attidude is exactly why this young girl will receive justice. She is and WAS married. Read the Complaint before you open your mouth. And for the record, being "un-wed" does not prevent pregnancy discrimination claims. You need to think - if you can - before you write and post.

WhenBusinessDoesStupidThings

The interesting thing here is that if she was on required bed rest, she would not have been able to return to work until at least August. Based on most the disability rules, employers do not have to keep the job open that long. She been let go through the proper channels and invited to re-apply. It is interesting that this has taken 5 years to get to this point. Unfortunatly, if the comments of ColorBlindJustice above are any indication, L&W might as well get the checkbook out. CBJ, the last business taking moral stands should be lawfirm!

LAB

Looks like she didn't have any time to take; she could be terminated for over-extending her time, but should be invited to re-apply. Also, she could have been given unpaid family leave up to the legal limit, brought back one day and then let go. All perfectly legal. You can't expect to be coddled if you're a short term employee with possibly not enough time on the job to accrue any vacation, sick days or personal days. The pay-out was because the language used toward the employee was out of line completely and that is the fault of the management and the culture of the firm. Otherwise, the payout should never have been made.

Andy

Robert,

Hire a temp.

ColorBlindJustice

It's no wonder Ms. Peart had no "history of work-related complaints or problems" since she'd only been on the job less than six months before announcing her unwed pregnancy. Did it ever occur to her that her new employer might not be impressed by such a showing of irresponsibility and fecklessness?

Her case reminds me of that filed some years ago by a few female D.C. Fire Department rookies in their probationary period. Because the department spends tens of thousands to train recruits and expects them to actively fight fires for at least a few years before settling into a cushy desk job, their female instructor had warned them against getting pregnant within their probationary period. But they did anyway and were fired. They sued and got settlement money the rest of us might call an extortion payment.

In any case, employers will invariably make judgments about applicants' and employees' character and morality as reflected in choices and behavior. Meanwhile, Ms. Peart should look for work with a leftwing firm that endorses out-of-wedlock child-rearing.

Robert

Wow, I had no idea pregnancy could result in such a windfall. What's an employer to do when its front end personal are missing in action. I'm all for fairness but I think this one might be contrived
anctax com

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements