Big Victory for Working Moms
What happens when a working mother is denied a promotion because "she has too much on her plate"? According to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in the new opinion Chadwick v. Wellpoint, Inc. her employer can be held liable for sex discrimination. Here's what happened in the case. 
Laurie Chadwick was an employee of WellPoint, an insurance company, since 1997. In 2006 she was encouraged by her supervisor to apply for her second promotion to "Team Leader" because:
- she was already performing several of the functions of the Team Lead position
- the supervisor believed she was the front-runner for the job
- she received excellent reviews
At the time of the decision Chadwick was the mother of an eleven year old son and six year old triplets in kindergarten. Her husband stayed home with the kids while Chadwick worked. She took care of the kids while he worked nights and weekend shifts. She was also taking one college course a semester.
There was no allegation nor any evidence whatsoever that Chadwick's work suffered because of her childcare responsibilities.
Even though Chadwick was the more qualified candidate, she did not get the promotion. Another employee, Donna Ouelette, with less experience and inferior evaluations, got the position instead.
When Chadwick didn't get the job, Nanci Miller, the manager responsible for making the decision explained why:
It was nothing you did or didn't do. It was just that you're going to school, you have the kids and you just have a lot on your plate right now.
The federal district court threw out Chadwick's claim because, according to the court, nothing in the record showed that Wellpoint failed to promote Chadwick because of her sex.
Chadwick appealed the decision. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court, finding in Chadwick's favor, and stated:
- an employer is not free to assume that a woman, because she is a woman, will necessarily be a poor worker because of family responsibilities.
- unlawful sex discrimination occurs when an employer takes an adverse job action on the assumption that a woman, because she is a woman, will neglect her job responsibilities in favor of her presumed childcare responsibilities
In sum, according to the Court of Appeals:
The essence of Title VII in this context is that women have the right to prove their mettle in the work arena without the burden of stereotypes regarding whether they can fulfill their responsibilities.
In reaching it's decision, the Court relied on two important lines of cases involving gender discrimination:
1. Stereotyping based on Sex:
- The Supreme Court of the United States identified sex-based stereotyping as an impermissible form of discrimination in the landmark case of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins.
- The Supreme Court most recently addressed the topic of working mothers and sex stereotyping in Nevada Dep't of Human Res. v. Hibbs in the context of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
2. "Sex Plus" Discrimination:
- cutting edge cases in which an employer may be liable under Title VII when it does not discriminate against the class of men or women as a whole, but
- treats a subset differently -- for example, the employer discriminates against working mothers as opposed to all women
The new First Circuit case is an extremely important win for working women who are discriminated against because of their family responsibilities. In my experience, this kind of discrimination often occurs in situations just like Laurie Chadwick's -- a woman deserving of a promotion is passed over on account of a presumption that she just can't do the job because she has "too much on her plate."
The lower court refused to recognize Wellpoint's failure to promote Chadwick as a discriminatory decision even in the face of undisputed evidence that she was the more qualified candidate for the job. In so doing, it chose to ignore United States Supreme Court decisions which plainly state that sex stereotyping is sex discrimination.
Thankfully, the First Circuit Court of Appeals set the record straight.
Image: www.makkstrategies.com
