Employee Rights Short Takes: Supreme Court Hears Equal Protection Case, Firing For Facebook Posts May Be Illegal & More

Texas Doctor To Collect Over 10 Million On Defamation/Breach of Contract Case

The Supreme Court of Texas cleared the way for Dr. Neal Fisher, a Dallas physician, to collect his 9.8 million dollar verdict against Pinnacle Anesthesia Consultants – an anesthesia group of which he was a shareholder and founding member.

Fisher sued Pinnacle for defamation and breach of contract when Pinnacle falsely accused him of alcohol and drug abuse after he raised concerns about an increasing volume of patient complaints and questionable billing practices. In 2007, a Dallas jury unanimously rendered a verdict in his favor. Last year the court of appeals upheld the verdict. 

This month, the Supreme Court of Texas issued an order declining to hear the case which means that the verdict stands. With pre and post judgment interest, it is reported that Pinnacle will have to pay Dr. Fisher somewhere in the vicinity of $10.8 million dollars. Fisher has been recognized as one of the top five anesthesiologists in the state of Texas. For more about the case, read here.

EEOC Issues GINA Regulations

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued final regulations this month for purposes of implementation of the Genetic Information Non Discrimination Act of 2008 (GINA). Under GINA, it is illegal to discriminate against employees or applicants for employment because of genetic information. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:

GINA was enacted, in large part, in recognition of developments in the field of genetics, the decoding of the human genome, and advances in the field of genomic medicine. Genetic tests now exist that can inform individuals whether they may be at risk for developing a specific disease or disorder. But just as the number of genetic tests increase, so do the concerns of the general public about whether they may be at risk of losing access to health coverage or employment if insurers or employers have their genetic information.

Congress enacted GINA to address these concerns....

 The final GINA rules published by the EEOC on November 9, 2010 prohibits the use of genetic information or family medical history in any aspect of employment, restricts employers from requesting, requiring, or purchasing genetic information, and strictly limits employers from disclosing genetic information. Family medical history is covered under the Act since it is often used to determine whether someone has an increased risk of getting a disease, disorder, or condition in the future. The Act also prohibits harassment or retaliation because of an individual’s genetic information. For more about  the new rules and how to lawfully comply with them read here.

Firing for Facebook Posts About Work May Be Illegal

A Connecticut woman who was fired after posting disparaging remarks about her boss on Facebook has prompted the National Labor Board to prosecute a complaint against her employer – and this is big news. As noted by Steven Greenhouse in the NY Times:

This is the first case in which the labor board has stepped in to argue that workers' criticism of their bosses or companies on a social networking site are generally protected activity  and that employers would be violating the law by punishing workers for such statements.

Dawnmarie Souza, an emergency medical technician was fired late last year after she criticized her boss on her personal Facebook page. The Harford, Connecticut office of the NLRB announced on October 27th that it plans to prosecute a complaint against her employer, American Medical Response of Connecticut as a result of its investigation.

The NLRB determined that the Facebook postings constituted “protected concerted activity" and that the employer’s internet policy was overly restrictive to the extent that it precluded employees from making disparaging remarks when discussing the company or its supervisors.

It is not unusual for companies to have comparable policies in place as they attempt to deal with  lawful restriction of social networking by their workforce and that's why this news made a huge impact in the employment law world this month.

Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) restricts employers’ attempts to interfere with employees’ efforts to work together to improve the terms or conditions of their workplace. The NLRB has long held that Section 7 was violated if an employer’s conduct would “reasonably tend to chill employees” in exercising their NLRB rights and that's what prompted the complaint.

You can bet that both employers and employees will be keeping a careful watch for the decision  which is expected some time after the hearing before  an administrative law judge currently scheduled for January 15, 2011. For more about it, read here.

Supreme Court Hears Case Claiming Unconstitutional Gender Bias In Citizenship Law

The Supreme Court heard arguments in Flores-Villar v. U.S.  this month, a case which challenges the constitutionality of a law that makes it easier for a child of unwanted parents to obtain citizenship if the mother is a U.S. citizen rather than the father.

Ruben Flores-Villar was born in Mexico but grew up in California. He was convicted of importing marijuana, was deported, and illegally reentered the country. In 2006, immigration authorities brought criminal charges against him. At that time, Flores-Villar sought citizenship, claiming his father was a U.S. citizen. The request was denied by immigration authorities because of  a law requiring that a citizen father live in the United States for at least five years before a child is born in order for the child to obtain citizenship. Mothers need only to have lived in the county for one year for the child to obtain citizenship.

Flores-Villar claimed a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment claiming that the Act discriminated on the basis of gender. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found against him and held that the law’s disparate treatment of fathers was not unconstitutional. The last time the Court considered the issue of gender differences in citizenship qualification was the case of Nguyen v. INS in which the Court upheld a law creating a gender differential for determining parentage for purposes of citizenship. Flores-Villar’s attorney argued that Nguyen was distinguishable because it was based on biological differences whereas this case was based on antiquated notions of gender roles.

There is no doubt that this will be an interesting and important decision from the Supreme Court. For more about the case, including the Supreme Court filings, read here.

Images:  mexico.vg/wp-content  www.hecouncil.org static.technorati.com www.lawforwa.org

Truck Driver Wins Gender Discrimination Case In Fourth Circuit

Court Elaborates On Types Of  Evidence For Proof Of  Discrimination

The recent case of Merritt v. Old Dominion Freight is hands down one of the best decisions I have come across in a long time.

It addresses gender discrimination, sex stereotyping, and a corporate culture of discrimination in a way few cases have. It’s simply a great case for employees – particularly for victims of sex discrimination.

What Happened In The Case

Merritt worked as a line haul truck drive for Old Dominion, a nationwide trucking company. As a line haul driver, Merritt made lengthy cross-country trips. She performed her duties without incident or complaint. At some point, Merritt became interested in becoming a pickup and delivery driver so she could work more regular hours and spend  nights and weekends at home.

To prove that she could do the job, she filled in numerous times as a pickup and delivery driver, and once again performed the duties without incident or complaint.

When a permanent pickup and delivery position became available at Old Dominion’s Lynchburg Virginia terminal, Merritt talked to Bobby Howard, the terminal manager about it. Howard told her that he lacked the authority to fill the position and proceeded to hire a less experienced man for the job.

The following year another permanent pickup and delivery position became available in Lynchburg and Merritt again expressed an interest in the position to Howard. Once again, Merritt was passed over in favor of a less experienced male.

When Merritt asked why she was not hired, Howard told her that :

  • it was decided and they could not let a woman have that position.
  • the company did not really have women drivers in the city (as pick up and deliver drivers)

On another occasion he told her:

  • the Regional VP was worried about hiring a female pickup and deliver driver because women were more injury prone and he was aftaid a female would get hurt
  • the VP didn’t think a girl should have that position

Finally, a year later, Old Dominion hired Merritt to fill a permanent Pickup and Delivery position in Lynchburg. Merritt was placed on a ninety-day probationary and told she could lose her job if any performance problems arose. Male drivers were not subject to similar probationary terms.

For the next two years, Merritt performed her Pickup and Delivery duties without a problem. Unfortunately, she then suffered an ankle injury at work which was diagnosed as plantar fascititis with a superimposed strain. She was put on light duty work by her doctor at first, but a couple of months later, he gave her a clean bill of health.

When she attempted to return to her regular duties, Brian Stoddard, Vice President of Safety and Personnel, required Merritt to take a physical ability test (“PAT”), a full-body test divided into six components that evaluates the test taker’s general strength, agility, and cardiovascular endurance. The test was graded on a pass/fail basis. The PAT was created for Old Dominion to be used in the hiring process and had been used to evaluate potential hires, but only on a variable basis.

Merritt struggled with several segments of the test and received a failing grade. According to Merritt, the tasks she had problems with had nothing to do with her ankle. In one portion of the test, for example, Merritt was unable to place a box of weight on an overhead shelf simply because she was too short.

After receiving the results of Merritt’s PAT, Stoddard terminated Merritt’s employment. Merritt filed a charge of sex discrimination with the EEOC and then filed a lawsuit in federal court in Western District of Virginia claiming that Old Dominion terminated her because of her gender in violation of Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The district court granted judgment against Merritt because it found that Old Dominion produced a legitimate reason for firing Merritt (she failed the PAT) and because she had not produced any evidence that Stoddard (the decision maker) harbored any “discriminatory animus” towards Merritt. Merritt appealed.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses

Title VII makes it unlawful to discriminate against an individual on the basis of sex. The most prevalent  method of establishing discrimination is under the burden-shifting framework set forth in the Supreme Court case of McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Green which goes like this:

  • The plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of discrimination
  • The burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory justification for its allegedly discriminatory action
  • If the employer carries this burden, the plaintiff then has an opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the neutral reason offered by the employer was not a true reason but a pretext for discrimination.

Ultimately, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that he or she was a victim of intentional discrimination.

In this case, Old Dominion put forth its legitimate non discriminatory justification for discharging Merritt – her failure to pass the PAT.  That proved, according to Old Dominion, that Merritt did not have the “requisite physical strength to safely perform the job duties.” Merritt insisted that this rationale was a pretext for discrimination.

 The Court of Appeals agreed with Merritt and found that the “record as a whole supports Merritt’s claim that a jury could find that discrimination on the basis of gender was afoot."

According to the Court, Merritt produced plenty of  evidence that Old Dominion’s explanation for her discharge was “unworthy of credence.” For example, Merritt’s doctor stated that there was nothing about Merritt’s medical condition which would have prevented her from performing her job duties as a Pickup and Delivery driver. As the Court pointed out:

Old Dominion terminated a good employee who, pre-injury, performed her job ably and without complaint and who, post-injury was both willing and able to report to this same job for work. These facts, if believed, would allow a jury to think Old Dominion was simply looking for a reason to get rid of Merritt.

 In addition, the Court found that Merritt produced evidence of discriminatory intent. For one:

  • Injured male employees did not have to take the PAT test
  • Merritt produced evidence that the policy requiring all injured employees to take the PAT test did not exist

As the Court stated:

While a neutral policy serving Old Dominion’s legitimate business interests in public and employee safety could certainly be put in place, a trier of fact could reasonably find that Old Dominion’s selective application and ever-changing rationales for the PAT were designed to conceal intent to reserve the plum Pickup and Delivery positions for male drivers.

In addition, the district court ignored evidence of the corporate culture of discrimination produced by Merritt. The Court stated:

It is not unfair to observe that the corporate culture evinced a very specific yet pervasive aversion to the idea of a female Pickup and Delivery Drivers. Old Dominion employees, of all ranks, seemed to share a view that women were unfit for that position. …..

While the views of others are no proof of the views of Stoddard, at some point the corporate environment in which he worked places Stoddard’s own selective use of the PAT in Merritt’s case in a less neutral context.

In Lattieri v. Equant, ….[w]e deemed the plaintiff’s ‘powerful evidence showing a discriminatory attitude at her company of employment toward female managers’ sufficient to ‘allow a trier of fact to conclude that these discriminatory attitudes led to plaintiff’s ultimate termination.’ Likewise here.

The sum, the Court said:

Old Dominion fired an employee who was, according to the district court, able to do her job without assistance and in a satisfactory manner’ due to a treatable ankle injury, while hiding behind the results of a selectively administered physical fitness test that test that did not even purport to test the injury, and while dubiously claiming that its decision was compelled by a late-blooming policy, all in the context of, to put it mildly, a sexually stereotype work environment.

In this case, it not any single piece of evidence but rather the evidence taken in its entirety that leads us to believe Merritt deserves a trial….

 Based on all of the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Old Dominion and remand for trial on Merritt’s Title VII claim.

Take Away

This case helps women in circumstances similar to Merritt’s – firefighters, police officers, constructions workers, etc. --- those in male dominated physical professions who still face widespread discrimination because they are simply not wanted.

Just this past fall, I counseled a female firefighter who was repeatedly seeking a promotion, and forced to take numerous tests that were not required of her male counterparts. It’s not an unusual scenario though this type of discrimination is precisely what Title VII is aimed to prevent. The Merritt case, no doubt, should help women fight for equality in the workplace.

In a broad sense, this case hits so many of the issues that come up in discrimination cases all of the time – “stray remarks,” “post- hoc justifications,” “shifting explanations,” the parsing of evidence by district court judges -- to name a few, and frames them in a way that will be extremely helpful to employees and their lawyers in discrimination litigation in the future.

 images: rlv.zcache.com

Court Upholds $1.9 Million Dollar Verdict In Gender Discrimination Case Against Wal-Mart

Female Pharmacist Wins Appeal Including Punitive Damages and Huge Front Pay Award

It’s one thing to prove discrimination. It’s an altogether different thing to prove damages which occurred as a result of it.

In the recently published gender discrimination case of Haddad v Wal-Mart Stores Inc,*, the  Supreme Court Court ("SJC") of Massachusetts affirmed a jury verdict which included $733,000 for 19 years of front pay (future economic loss) and $1 million dollars in punitive damages – and that’s big news.

What Happened In The Case

Cynthia Haddad worked as a pharmacist at Wal-Mart for ten years (seven of those in the Pittsfield, Massachusetts store) mostly as a staff pharmacist..Throughout her time at Wal-Mart, she received excellent evaluations.  

Towards the end of her employment, Haddad accepted the position of pharmacy manager.

During that time, she received less pay than any male pharmacy manager which she consistently complained about.

On April 14th, 2004, Haddad was questioned by three Wal-Mart managers about abut two fraudulent prescriptions.

One of the prescriptions was written in 2002 while Haddad was on duty, and another was written in 2004 while a male pharmacist was on duty.

Haddad told the managers that she did not know anything about the fraudulent prescriptions.

She did admit that the 2002 fraudulent prescription could have been written when she briefly left the pharmacy area to buy a soda at a nearby counter, or when she was in the restroom, eating lunch, or talking to customers.

Haddad’s employment was terminated that same day.

She was told that the reason for her termination was based on her statement during the interview that she failed to secure the pharmacy and left Baran (the technician) unattended in the pharmacy area. Baran, who admitted that she falsified the prescription,was also terminated.

The other pharmacist involved -- Richard Blackbird -- was on duty the day the fraudulent 2004 prescription was written. That prescription contained his initials.

In a clear case of unequal treatment, neither Blackbird, nor any other pharmacist was questioned about or disciplined for the 2004 fraudulent prescription.

In stark contract to the treatment Haddad received,  Blackbird was appointed to be pharmacy manager at the time of Haddad's departure.

In addition, Blackbird testified that he commonly left the pharmacy area unsecured to talk to a customer, go the restroom, or get a snack – and that he was unaware of any policy prohibiting this practice.

Haddad filed a lawsuit alleging unequal compensation and termination of employment in violation of Massachusetts laws against discrimination. ( M.G.L. c. 151B, s.4) The complaint also stated a claim for defamation.

The jury found in Haddad’s favor and awarded $922,774 in compensatory damages which included:

  • $17,700 in special damages
  • $125,000 for emotional distress
  • $95,000 in back pay
  • $733,000 in front pay

The jury also awarded $1 million dollars in punitive damages.

The Appeal

Wal-Mart appealed claiming a number of errors.

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Wal-Mart claimed that Haddad did not introduce enough evidence to prove discrimination. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts disagreed. It held that there was sufficient proof to support the verdict including evidence that:

  • Wal-Mart’s proffered reasons for terminating Haddad were false
  • Similarly situated male employees were treated differently than Haddad for similar infractions of the same policy
  • Other incidents occurred  in which male pharmacists were not disciplined for far more serious infractions, ie. one pharmacist was caught writing prescriptions and taking drugs for himself and was not fired
  • Wal-Mart failed to follow its progressive discipline policy

Front Pay

The jury awarded the plaintiff nineteen years of future economic loss which consisted of the difference in pay and benefits that Haddad would have earned at Wal-Mart compared to the pay and benefits she earned at the job she held at the time of trial.

Nineteen years of compensation represented Haddad’s loss of earning through age 65.

Wal-Mart contended that the front pay award was excessive and speculative. The Court disagreed:

While the award of $733,307 represents a significant dollar figure for front, pay, the evidence supported such an award ....

The plaintiff testified to her difficulty in obtaining a new job. There was evidence that Wal-Mart’s allegations concerning her alleged responsibility for drug losses became generally known....

[T]he award of lost income of nineteen years is consistent with the plaintiff’s anticipated retirement age of sixty-five.

Based on the plaintiff’s ten-year tenure at Wal-Mart, her testimony that she had planned to continue working at Wal-Mart for the remainder of her career, and the limited number of pharmacies in the area around Pittsfield, the jury permissibly could have concluded that an award of nineteen years was appropriate.

The Court discussed other cases (both state and federal) in which employees were awarded economic loss for long periods of time into the future – particularly where the circumstances indicated that plaintiffs would have difficulty obtaining comparable employment.”

It’s a very helpful opinion for plaintiffs and their lawyers on the issue of damages for future economic loss in wrongful discharge cases

Punitive Damages

It’s not often that we see cases in which an award of punitive damages is affirmed on appeal.

To sustain the award of punitive damages in this case, Haddad had to prove that the defendant’s act "was outrageous, egregious, evil in motive, or undertaken with reckless indifference to the rights of others."

Some of the evidence which the SJC of Massachusetts relied upon to support the award included proof that:

  • Wal-Mart was aware that gender discrimination was not illegal
  • Wal-Mart refused to pay Haddad the hourly rate it paid male pharmacy managers
  • Wal-Mart fired a ten-year employee for a single infraction after a sham investigation
  • Male pharmacists were not disciplined for similar or far more serious infractions

It wrote:

The jury was warranted in concluding that Wal-Mart’s pattern of unequal treatment of male and female pharmacists was outrageous and reprehensible.

Lessons To Be Learned

There is no doubt that in today’s economic climate the chances of finding comparable employment after a discharge are slim. What this means is that when employees unlawfully lose their jobs, and prove it, it’s likely that we will see larger and larger verdicts just like this one. It’s an important case both for its content and as a harbinger of what’s to come.

* Reprinted from Westlaw with permission of Thomson Reuters

 Images:

63.135.122.65/bergdahlphoto/Wal-Mart

www.a-fib.com/images

Big Settlements InTwo Male Sex Discrimination Cases

Sex Discrimination Against Men Violates Title VII

It’s not often that you see cases involving discrimination against men, but in the last few weeks the EEOC has reported two noteworthy settlements.

The Sex Discrimination Case Against Lawry’s

In early November, the EEOC announced a $1,025,000 settlement of a class action lawsuit against Lawry’s Restaurants Inc., which operates steak houses in Las Vegas, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Beverly Hills and Corona del Mar, California. 

In the lawsuit, the EEOC charged Lawry’s with maintaining a longstanding company wide policy of hiring only women for server positions.

The policy, which has been in place since 1938, is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination because of sex.

Lawry’s claimed that the policy was based on long standing tradition. The EEOC found that the policy adversely affected a class of men on the basis of sex.

The parties reached an agreement to settle the case in early November. Under the consent decree Lawry’s agreed to:

  • change its practice and actively promote the hiring of men into server positions
  • provide monetary relief including a class fund of $500,000
  • pay over $300,000 to initiate an advertising campaign regarding the hiring of food servers
  • pay $225,000 for training its employees on compliance with Title VII and related laws
  • take additional steps to insure compliance with Title VII and the decree

In its announcement of the settlement, Olophious E. Perry, who managed the EEOC investigation said:

The EEOC will never condone discrimination in the name of so-called tradition. Every individual deserves a fair chance to obtain a job based on their talent and qualifications, regardless of gender.

It seems to me that there are lots of restaurants out there that still have male only, or female only servers. This case makes it clear that this is one "tradition" that has seen its day.

Cheesecake Factory Settles Case Of Male On Male Sexual Harassment 

The EEOC announced this week that Cheesecake Factory, Inc, a nationwide restaurant chain, will  pay $345,000 to settle a sexual harassment suit involving six male employees who were subjected to repeated sexual harassment at the company’s Chandler Mall location outside of Phoenix.

The complaint charged that the restaurant knew about and tolerated repeated sexual assaults against six male employees by a group of kitchen staffers.

The evidence included abuse involving the harassers:

  • directly touching the victims’ genitals
  • making sexually charged remarks
  • grinding their genitals against them
  • forcing victims into repeated episodes of simulated rape

According to the EEOC, managers witnessed employees dragging their victims kicking and screaming into the refrigerator. Victims’ complaints  were made to virtually every manager in the restaurant but the conduct never stopped. Eventually the police were called and an EEOC charge was filed.

Mary Jo O’Neill, Regional Attorney of the EEOC’s Phoenix office had this to say:

The evidence was clear, and everyone knew about it. Behind the lavish décor that the company boasts on its web site was a horribly dysfunctional workplace where male workers lived in fear.

I would like to think that this situation is unusual, but the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office’s press release points out that it's currently prosecuting a similar case against Fleming’s Prime Steak House.

What’s with these restaurants?

Lessons To Be Learned

When most of us think about sex discrimination, we think about discrimination against women, and that’s certainly what was contemplated when the “because of sex” language was added to Title VII.

(Interestingly, the addition of "sex" by a southern congressman to Title VII in 1964  was seen by most as a cynical attempt to torpedo the bill which was primarily targeted to address race discrimination)

Likewise, when most of us think about sexual harassment, we think of men as the harassers and women as the victims.

(Not so, said the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services,Inc in 1998; for more on this topic, see my article: What's Going On With Male On Male Sexual Harassment )

These recent EEOC cases draw attention to the fact that men can be victims of gender discrimination as well as outrageous sexual harassment.  Both forms of discrimination are against the law and can lead to serious consequences for all involved.

Images:  www.foodgps.com

www.family-vacation-getaways

Few Women Law Partners Comes As No Suprise

It's very well known and often bragged about that over 50% of law school graduates are women. So what's the problem with women in the legal profession?

The problem reported last week is that while women represent over 50% of those graduating from law school, they made up only 28% of those granted partnership at the 85 major law U.S. law firms according to a  new study published by the Project for Attorney Retention at the Hastings College of Law.

The disparity between the number of female law school graduates and female partners is quite remarkable. And it's not because the women are less intelligent or capable than their male counterparts. As cynical as I may be, I don't think anyone would even argue that.

While few want to come out and accuse the legal profession of  gender discrimination,  I have no problem doing so. (Of course, not every firm, not every lawyer)  It's all over the legal profession -- wage discrimination, lack of promotional opportunity, sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination, stereotyping, including a particularly horrible record  for women of color. It's all there, and it occurs for many reasons.

We all know that many law firms have a hard time accommodating the needs of working wives and mothers.  While firms are certainly much better than they were twenty-five or thirty years ago about flexible schedules and part-time work, they still have a long way to go.

The Amercian Bar Association's (ABA) Commission on Women in the Profession studies this subject and published it's findings in 1988, 1995, and 2003. The contents are neither encouraging nor surprising. The last report notes:

Current data indicates that more and more firms are allowing part-time schedules, but women testifying at the the 2003 hearings still reported that choosing the part-time option posed professional risks.  A partner at a large national law firm reported a consensus at her firm that the part-time policy is simply 'words on a piece of paper''. . .[Y]our commitment to the firm is still questioned once you have decided to go on a reduced hours schedule.

In addition, women who have obligations to their families are eliminated from mentoring and networking opportunities with clients.  Often times even single women are eliminated from these events -- the golf game, the baseball game, the hunting trip -- simply because they are women.  If you don't  meet and interact with the clients, you don't get the business.  If you don't get the business, you don't produce the revenue and you don't make partner. It's really pretty straightforward.

There's also the plain old fashioned gender bias that is rampant in law firms. Many men believe that women should be home with their children and not working at all or don't have the appropriate composition to practice law. The fact that these views are held by lawyers, and that this attitude is illegal when acted upon in the workplace, does not seem to prevent many partners from discriminating against the women in their firms in a variety of ways.

The latest  ABA report on this subject included the following:

The 1995 report noted that '[b]oth men and women report that women lawyers are viewed as insufficiently aggressive, uncomfortably forthright, too emotional, or not as serious as men about their careers.  When women opt for family leave or report sexual harassment, these stereotypes are reinforced.'

In 2003, there was evidence that those stereotypes have not dissipated .....

One can hardly go a week without reading an article about a law firm being sued for or settling, or  losing  some kind of discrimination lawsuit.   It's not just because law firms are easy targets.  They really do discriminate against their lawyers at an extraordinary rate.

The fact is that many women simply leave the profession and won't sue.  I have had dozens of calls through the years from women who were discriminated against and sexually harassed at their firms.  Without exception, each decided not to sue for fear that they would never find another job.

So while it's better than it was, we are not nearly where we should be in our profession in terms of providing equal opportunity in the workplace. Wouldn't it be nice if we were at the forefront, instead of the rear, on this issue?

image:http://nylawblog.

Firing Because of Abortion is Illegal Gender Discrimination

What happens when a woman gets fired because she has an abortion? The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in Doe v. C.A.R.S Protection Plus decided that the discharge was gender discrimination and reversed the lower court which had thrown out the case.

The Jane Doe plaintiff worked as a graphics designer for CARS, a car insurance business with offices in several states. During her pregnancy, Doe learned that the baby had severe deformities. In accordance with her physician’s recommendation she and her husband chose to terminate the pregnancy.

Doe’s husband called CARS on his wife's behalf and asked for a week’s vacation for her.  According to his testimony  the request was approved.  CARS discharged Doe several days later  -- on the same day as the baby’s funeral.

In a question of first impression for the Third Circuit, the Court held that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act’s coverage extended to women who elected to terminate their pregnancies. In so doing, the Court relied on:

  1. Precedent from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Turic v. Holland Hospitality , Inc.
  2. EEOC guidelines ( which state that “a woman who is affected by pregnancy and related conditions must be treated the same as all other employee … and is therefore protected against such practices as being fired merely because she is pregnant or has had an abortion”) ;and
  3. Language from the legislative history of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act ( “no employer may fire or refuse to hire a woman simply because she has exercised her right to have an abortion” and concluded:

Clearly, the plain language of the statute, together with the legislative history and the EEOC guidelines, support a conclusion that an employer may  not discriminate against a woman employer because she has exercised her right to have an abortion.

In comparing Doe to other employees who were temporarily disabled, the Court found evidence that Doe had been treated differently when she was fired instead of given leave.

Although we have held that the 'PDA does not require that employers treat pregnant employees better than other temporarily disabled employees '... the PDA does require that employers treat pregnant employees no worse.

The judgment of the district court was reversed and Jane Doe was given the right to have her day in court.

The opinion is certainly an important one for all working women. There is certainly no room in the law for discrimination in the workplace based upon a woman’s Constitutional right of privacy and freedom of choice. Fortunately there are some courts which agree.

Image: http://www.methodist.org.uk/static/interface/if_distressedwoman_05.07.jpg