[Law Suit] Expectant Mother v. Employer

[Joe Wordsworth]

PREGNANCY 'LEAVE' SUIT VS. SALON

April 28, 2008 -- Don't let the Red Door hit you on the way out.

That was the message from an Elizabeth Arden Red Door salon in Woodbury, LI, that fired an assistant sales manager for taking too much time off during her high-risk pregnancy, according to a lawsuit filed in Brooklyn federal court.

Sandra Madero, 35, of Valley Stream, said the company violated her rights and is suing the high-end salon for $4 million.

"I don't understand why they treated me like this," she said.

Madero became pregnant with her second child in 2005, while she said she was working 60 hours a week. When she began losing weight and having contractions, her doctor told her to cut back on hours.

Her bosses said that as a salaried staffer, she wasn't entitled to a lighter schedule, her suit alleges. Instead, she took unpaid leave under the Family Medical Leave Act, which allows pregnant workers to take three months off.

When the three months were up, she faced the same problem. Her doctor didn't want her working more than 30 hours a week - but her bosses wouldn't accept her taking on a lighter workload, the suit claims.

She used vacation days, and she was fired when those ran out - a week before her baby was born, the suit alleges.

A representative for Elizabeth Arden declined to comment.

I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, a shame that motherhood can be presented with such dire problems; on the other hand, I don't see a business as having an obligation to oblige beyond fair and equitable allowance. Don't entirely know which side of this I fall down on, though I'm leaning toward the more sound side.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Women generally pay eleven years less into social security than men do, because of time away from the workforce while they are mothering.
Just thought I'd mention that.

what do you consider "the sound side" Joe?

 

[Weird Harold]

Madero became pregnant with her second child in 2005, while she said she was working 60 hours a week. When she began losing weight and having contractions, her doctor told her to cut back on hours.

Her bosses said that as a salaried staffer, she wasn't entitled to a lighter schedule, her suit alleges.

I think she's probably got a case becaue the employer made no effort to accomodate her health concerns -- as a result they lost her services compeletely and fired her at the first legal opportunity.

As a salaried employee, she should have been paid overtime or granted "comp time" for everything over 40 hours unless there is some specific clause in her contract that specifies her salary was based on more than forty hours/week.

I think $4Mil is a bit excessive, but her employers were jerks.

 

[Oblimo]

In the majority of US states, the employment at will doctrine states that you can be fired for any reason, even no reason at all, except the wrong reasons: age, sex, race, religion, and retaliation. With the ADA we also add impairment that limits major life activities.

In other words, unless the job function she fulfilled could not be performed by a 30 hour per week employee, I'd say that Elizabeth Arden is pretty much fucked.

 

[starrkers]

In Australia pregnancy is a "wrong" reason for firing/descriminating against an employee. This situation would never have arisen here, because the employee wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[alyxen]

I think she's probably got a case becaue the employer made no effort to accomodate her health concerns -- as a result they lost her services compeletely and fired her at the first legal opportunity.

As a salaried employee, she should have been paid overtime or granted "comp time" for everything over 40 hours unless there is some specific clause in her contract that specifies her salary was based on more than forty hours/week.

I think $4Mil is a bit excessive, but her employers were jerks.

Salaried in this case refers to someone not paid by the hour (meaning no OT or comp time). You are thinking of an hourly employee I believe.

I am salaried now, and have been in other jobs in the past. While it's nice not to have to worry about hours, I have also put in my fair share of long days. Course in this case, I also got my 4th week of vacation a year earlier than I would have.

 

[Weird Harold]

Salaried in this case refers to someone not paid by the hour (meaning no OT or comp time). You are thinking of an hourly employee I believe.

I'm well aware of tthe difference between salaried and hourly employees -- I have been both at various times over the years. More to the point, I've beena supervisor of salaried federal employees and have some familiarity with federal labor laws.

It is a common misconception that salaried employees don't have to be paid overtime or comp time. Unless specifically stated in an employment contract, a weekly salary is the equivalent of 40 hours pay and anything over 40 hours must be paid or otherwise compensated. It doesn't have to be paid at overtime rates for a salaried employee, but hours worked over eight hours a day or forty hours a week (or specifically contracted time periods) is still "overtime" according to labor laws and must be compensated.

Employers get away with the "you're salaried so we can abuse you as much as we want and don't have to compensate you" line because most employees are ignorant of the labor laws and so are most supervisory employees and small business owners. Corporate Human Resources people otoh do know the law and tend to gloss over the relevant disclosures when hiring someone so the newby won't notice that even salried employees have rights under US labor laws.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Women generally pay eleven years less into social security than men do, because of time away from the workforce while they are mothering.
Just thought I'd mention that.

what do you consider "the sound side" Joe?

The sound side would be with the company, given a few things which aren't clear.

1) This was information she could have readily known before the pregnancy (at the time of hire, perhaps) out of a handbook or something.
2) The pregnancy is voluntary--specifically not "forced upon her", though including "whoops".
3) There is no contractual arrangement otherwise.

Given that, it makes sense to me--from a purely value-judgement free way--that she knew the rules, she didn't have to get pregnant or have a child, and all parties have been fair. Any objection to that that stems purely from the idea that women are a special class of employee, requiring a special class of privileges, that directly (and in a negative way) effect production leaves me inclined to favor just not hiring them.

It'd be like having a business and someone telling me that due to their religious proclivities, they're going to require four months off this year... that's fine enough, and more power to anyone who makes a free choice to live their life in the way they want over the way that's practical, but I'd just rather not hire them.

*shrug*

Personally, I choose to not have kids for the very reason that I can't afford the time to actually attend the responsibility over those required by my job. That may change, one day, but I'm not going to expect my employer to accomodate me getting paid to not work. That makes little sense to me.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That's what I assumed you'd say.

Generally though, women do not expect to find themselves bedridden for the duration of a pregnancy. I worked straight through both of mine, for instance. She could hardly have known this unusual condition would develop. Her plan was, I'm sure, to take a month or two months off and then get back to it, as so many women do.

Of course, she could have aborted, once she realised how troublesome it was going to be-- that was one choice she neglected to consider.

Personally, I choose to not have kids for the very reason that I can't afford the time to actually attend the responsibility over those required by my job. That may change, one day, but I'm not going to expect my employer to accomodate me getting paid to not work. That makes little sense to me.

Joe, if you get pregnant and carry a baby to term, you'll never have to work again, what with the book and movie rights you could sell!

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

That's what I assumed you'd say.

While not saying whether morally right nor wrong, its an easy pick for "rational response". If we want to start adding emotive or normative judgements into the mix, then anything goes.

Of course, if she wins I totally want the ability to just not hire women in the future. I, honestly, don't want to carry the cost risks associated if this is what could well happen.

 

[Stella_Omega]

This I think, is a fair case;

A friend of mine was the manager of a Pet Co store-- employees must be able to lift twenty pounds minimum. One woman applied for a job, and on the very first day of work, told the manager that she couldn't lift anything because she was pregnant.

She knew this before she applied. The manager was able to fire her for lying about her ability to do the work required. The woman fought the firing, but her complaint was denied.

Joe, of course I assumed you'd say that! Rational Uber Alles with you.

(why come to porn site to exercise Xtreem Rationality... but everyone brings a hobby horse here. )

If we want to start adding emotive or normative judgements into the mix, then anything goes.

I was the one who suggested that her pregnancy could have been aborted, to save her and her employers the trouble. You can't get less normative than that. Or any more dispassionate.

Oh-- A way to not worry about pregnancy? Hire post-menopausal women. Not as pretty, but they won't give you that kind of medical grief. Some of them have big tits.

 

[Guest]

Well, let me put it this way. Society needs new people. We working women are listening. And not having as many children.

Europe now depends on immigration to renew itself.

Do the math.

Maharat

 

[Stella_Omega]

There are many ways to avoid hiring women, without making it obvious that you are basing your decisions on their sex.
Here's one;
Make a strength requirement-- every employee must, potentially be able to lift the bumper of one of those cars you sell. Just in case someone gets run over in the showroom. Hey, it could happen!

Give your male employees steroids.

 

[millennium_bard]

Back before I retired I owned a couple of different companies.
When one of my employees became pregnant I worked with them to re-arrange their schedules whenever possible.
When the time came for them to take maternity leave, I made sure to keep their jobs open for them. Yes it was sometimes inconvenient for me personally but I had a lot invested in these employees.
It was much more cost efficient to be able to have these women return to the company than to train up someone to take their places.
I must have been doing something right as almost all of the women chose to come back to work when they were able.
I paid for day care for their children when needed and about 60% of the women took us up on that offer so that they could feel free to return to work. Most of the rest had family to help care for their children.
If I had had an employee who had a high risk pregnancy like the woman in the article, she would have had no problems getting her hours arranged to best suit her needs.
I have no sympathy for employers who treat their employees like faceless numbers.
Employers who act like the one in the article soon find themselves sued into insolvency. As they should be.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Thanks, Bard. I appreciate hearing that. Yes, taking care of your employees makes sense, in some rare cases.

Joe sounds like one of those 80's movie, yuppie Wall-street sharks, doesn't he? A cliche of the heartless money-man. I envision his home as being stereotypically white walls, grey industrial carpet and one black leather sofa.

It puzzles me, Joe, when you act surprised that people on this particular site bring emotions into their calculations. This is an erotica forum, after all. There's a notable tendency amongst erotically-minded hedonists to put a certain amount of emphasis on those intangible benefits that sentimentality, empathy, and weak-minded loving gestures bring to the bedchamber. We come here to get away from money-lovers, our businesses, our fuckwad bosses.

Just sayin'.

 

[Crea(m)]

Back before I retired I owned a couple of different companies.
When one of my employees became pregnant I worked with them to re-arrange their schedules whenever possible.
When the time came for them to take maternity leave, I made sure to keep their jobs open for them. Yes it was sometimes inconvenient for me personally but I had a lot invested in these employees.
It was much more cost efficient to be able to have these women return to the company than to train up someone to take their places.
I must have been doing something right as almost all of the women chose to come back to work when they were able.
I paid for day care for their children when needed and about 60% of the women took us up on that offer so that they could feel free to return to work. Most of the rest had family to help care for their children.
If I had had an employee who had a high risk pregnancy like the woman in the article, she would have had no problems getting her hours arranged to best suit her needs.
I have no sympathy for employers who treat their employees like faceless numbers.
Employers who act like the one in the article soon find themselves sued into insolvency. As they should be.

Amen.

 

[starrkers]

Joe's argument works fine, as long as the only reason for existing is to create more wealth.

But, if everyone lives as Joe does, from where will the next generation come? Who will continue the prosperity drive? And for what purpose?

 

[Crea(m)]

Any objection to that that stems purely from the idea that women are a special class of employee, requiring a special class of privileges, that directly (and in a negative way) effect production leaves me inclined to favor just not hiring them.

It'd be like having a business and someone telling me that due to their religious proclivities, they're going to require four months off this year... that's fine enough, and more power to anyone who makes a free choice to live their life in the way they want over the way that's practical, but I'd just rather not hire them.

Those pesky laws against sex and religion discrimination are a problem for short sighted capitalists who don't share all the American values of freedom for every individual.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Joe's argument works fine, as long as the only reason for existing is to create more wealth.

But, if everyone lives as Joe does, from where will the next generation come? Who will continue the prosperity drive? And for what purpose?

Joe is going to keep putting off having his babies, until his biological alarm clock simply can't be ignored any longer.
It'll be all over the news;
MPREG!

 

[matriarch]

Well, let me put it this way. Society needs new people. We working women are listening. And not having as many children.

Europe now depends on immigration to renew itself.

Do the math.

Maharat

Well said.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Because I'm still floored by this

The sound side would be with the company, given a few things which aren't clear.

1) This was information she could have readily known before the pregnancy (at the time of hire, perhaps) out of a handbook or something.
2) The pregnancy is voluntary--specifically not "forced upon her", though including "whoops".
3) There is no contractual arrangement otherwise.

so, you are sharing information which you could have shared with us in your first post? I'm sure you had a good reason to not mention it. Would you like to share that reason?

Given that, it makes sense to me--from a purely value-judgement free way--that she knew the rules, she didn't have to get pregnant or have a child, and all parties have been fair. Any objection to that that stems purely from the idea that women are a special class of employee, requiring a special class of privileges, that directly (and in a negative way) effect production leaves me inclined to favor just not hiring them.

Or, like I suggested, she could have aborted. Any objection to that stems from the idea that fetuses are a special class of human being, requiring a special class of privileges that directly (and in a negative way) effect production in your workplace. I certainly don't believe that. I don't remember where you stand on abortion choice.

It'd be like having a business and someone telling me that due to their religious proclivities, they're going to require four months off this year... that's fine enough, and more power to anyone who makes a free choice to live their life in the way they want over the way that's practical, but I'd just rather not hire them.

What religion is that,Joe? It's one I've never heard of-- I thought I was pretty well up on all of the fringe cults. Oh, I get it, you made that up! You are so right, having children is not practical. It must be a cult. Or a religious thing.Don't hire women, they are all religious nuts.

*shrug*

Personally, I choose to not have kids for the very reason that I can't afford the time to actually attend the responsibility over those required by my job. That may change, one day, but I'm not going to expect my employer to accomodate me getting paid to not work. That makes little sense to me.

*Shrug*
Don't assume you must have children. There is plenty of room for childless workers who never let their personal preferences get in the way of production. Unless, of course, you oops.


Seriously, dude. You have said some truly bizzare things since I've been here-- this one takes the cake. To decide that all women are going to get pregnant and have severe complications that put them at risk just because you've hired them. And to claim that was her choice to be ill ? That's some stellar logic, Mr logical. What a class act you are.

 

[English Lady]

I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, a shame that motherhood can be presented with such dire problems; on the other hand, I don't see a business as having an obligation to oblige beyond fair and equitable allowance. Don't entirely know which side of this I fall down on, though I'm leaning toward the more sound side.

it makes sense to me--from a purely value-judgement free way...*snip*

I don't think Joe wants to eliminate all women from the workforce, I don't think Joe thinks that women getting pregnant is bad, I don't think Joe is only concerned about the money.

He's saying, if pushed, what he'd decide. He's a business man, calculates things without emotion in a debate and explores all the options. He doesn't know the woman, how well she works, if you could ismply get a temp in to do her work whilst she deals with the prergnancy and it's problems etc.

I also think Joe's never been pregnant *grins* (it's not all written down in a book, love, sometimes things happen that no one expects. )

My own opinion? I think she's justified to an extent. The amount of money seems extreme,but I don't know how much money she makes in her job. It does seem like they've tried to push her out from what I can read, but maybe there is more to this than meets the eye.

 

[DeeZire]

Of course, if she wins I totally want the ability to just not hire women in the future....

Joe - The year is 2008, not 1950. I think you let that big Buick go to your head.

 

[Guest]

The sound side would be with the company, given a few things which aren't clear.

1) This was information she could have readily known before the pregnancy (at the time of hire, perhaps) out of a handbook or something.
2) The pregnancy is voluntary--specifically not "forced upon her", though including "whoops".
3) There is no contractual arrangement otherwise.

Given that, it makes sense to me--from a purely value-judgement free way--that she knew the rules, she didn't have to get pregnant or have a child, and all parties have been fair. Any objection to that that stems purely from the idea that women are a special class of employee, requiring a special class of privileges, that directly (and in a negative way) effect production leaves me inclined to favor just not hiring them.

It'd be like having a business and someone telling me that due to their religious proclivities, they're going to require four months off this year... that's fine enough, and more power to anyone who makes a free choice to live their life in the way they want over the way that's practical, but I'd just rather not hire them.

*shrug*

Personally, I choose to not have kids for the very reason that I can't afford the time to actually attend the responsibility over those required by my job. That may change, one day, but I'm not going to expect my employer to accomodate me getting paid to not work. That makes little sense to me.

She knew beforehand about her work situation, certainly.

But you posted that this was her second child.

I worked straight through with both of my pregnancies, perhaps her first pregnancy had no complications and she expected the second to be the same.

When it took a medical turn for the worse, and her employers would not attempt to work with her, despite doctor certification, it seems she applied everything she could in an attempt to keep her job.

If we as humans want to continue the species, women have to be pregnant. And unfortunately, that does seem to cause some disruption at places of employment. I'm sure many ladies here have seen the sneers on a boss or coworker's face because you had to run out of a meeting to throw up from morning sickness, or leave for the third time to pee because of the late trimester child pressing on your bladder. Not to mention child care issues after the fact.

We are punished for being pregnant.

And that, quite frankly, is ridiculous. You have to deal with everything else that being pregnant entails, physical, emotional, financial, and it's quite a bit, by the way, and then you have to be concerned that you are in some way inconveniencing your boss and coworkers because you dare to have a child.

What nonsense. I think many women would gladly share the ability to be pregnant with men. I wonder if that would change the employer viewpoint?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

It puzzles me, Joe, when you act surprised that people on this particular site bring emotions into their calculations.

I'm not suprised when it happens. I'm suprised when people think that its the same thing as being rational... you know, because its not.

Those pesky laws against sex and religion discrimination are a problem for short sighted capitalists who don't share all the American values of freedom for every individual.

I would disagree. Freedoms of choice are a part of American values, at least I believe so and think that's well supported; a restriction on that seems very un-American.

so, you are sharing information which you could have shared with us in your first post? I'm sure you had a good reason to not mention it. Would you like to share that reason?

No particular reason.

Or, like I suggested, she could have aborted. Any objection to that stems from the idea that fetuses are a special class of human being, requiring a special class of privileges that directly (and in a negative way) effect production in your workplace. I certainly don't believe that. I don't remember where you stand on abortion choice.

Sure, she could have. But, I think I've been accounting for that possibility the whole time.

That religion is that,Joe? It's one I've never heard of-- I thought I was pretty well up on all of the fringe cults. Oh, I get it, you made that up! You are so right, having children is not practical. It must be a cult. Or a religious thing.Don't hire women, they are all religious nuts.*Shrug*

Its an analogy. As such, it doesn't have to be any more "actually real" than Plato's cave needs to actually exist somewhere or there has to be a ring that actually makes people invisible. Its explanatory power isn't in its actuality, but its correspondance to what is possible and what it shows of other propositional relationships. Are you getting hung up on the example in the analogy, really?

And I haven't a clue what you're talking about regarding cults.

Don't assume you must have children. There is plenty of room for childless workers who never let their personal preferences get in the way of production. Unless, of course, you oops.

I don't mind personal preference going before production, people are people and I think I even praise that earlier in this thread... but why is it a business's concern what people do with their private lives? If I make a personally preferential choice to take a vacation or get cosmetic surgery or take a few months off to help raise my newborn--can they not make a personally preferential choice to simply hire someone with fewer personally preferential taxes on their time?

Seriously, dude. You have said some truly bizzare things since I've been here-- this one takes the cake. To decide that all women are going to get pregnant and have severe complications that put them at risk just because you've hired them. And to claim that was her choice to be ill ? That's some stellar logic, Mr logical. What a class act you are.

I didn't say it was a matter of class. Just reason. There's nothing bizarre about it, really. None of this is any kind of revolutionary or alien thinking. Its really quite basic.

I don't think anyone here has decided that "all women are going to get pregnant and have severe complications that put them at risk...". Nor has anyone claimed it was her choice to be ill. I think you're either being willfully ignorant here (you can go back and read where neither I, nor anyone else I can see, have said those things) or purposefully fraudulent--the motivation there being a mystery to me. And if you're basing a decision on my ability to be rational on those two premises--then, your argument is just... well, invalid.