Fired Latham Secretary Alleges Pregnancy Discrimination

A former legal secretary in the Washington office of Latham & Watkins is suing the firm for alleged pregnancy-related discrimination and unlawful termination, claiming she was subjected to "outrageous, misogynistic attitude, behavior, and treatment of a woman that shocks the conscience."

According to the complaint, filed this morning in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Demetria Peart was hired as a legal secretary at Latham in April 2007. She learned she was pregnant in October 2007 and said that after she took short-term disability leave due to "extreme medical complications" related to her pregnancy, she was fired in late January 2008.

A firm spokeswoman declined to comment. Peart accused the firm of firing her for taking approved leave to deal with pregnancy-related complications. At the time she was fired, she said, the director of human resources told her that her pregnancy complications "were not his problem."

Peart, who said her doctor put her on bed rest after she suffered a tear in her placenta, said she learned that the human resources director told others in the office she was fired for taking leave for morning sickness.

"I was on mandated bed rest," she said in an interview. "I did everything I was supposed to do as far as getting my disability and checking in.…They just terminated me at my lowest point, regardless of all that I had done."

Peart said in the complaint that she was a "well-regarded" employee and did not have a history of work-related complaints or problems. Her attorney, local solo practitioner Jonathan Dailey, said he had never used the word "misogynistic" in a pleading before, but thought it was warranted. "That's exactly why this law was passed, to prevent that," he said, referring to the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

Besides filing a claim under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Peart is suing for wrongful termination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a violation of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act.

She is seeking $1 million in compensatory damages and upwards of $10 million in punitive damages.

The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer.

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