pregnancy discrimination

ADEQUATE DEFENSE OF PREGNANT WOMEN IN LABOR MATTERS. PREGNANT WOMEN ARE CONSIDERED A VULNERABLE GROUP AND THEREFORE THE JUDGE SHALL RULE BASED ON A GENDER PERSPECTIVE.

The plaintiff-appellant was an employee of Totes/Isotoner Corporation. For two weeks, she had taken breaks to lactate without her employer’s knowledge. After the defendant-employer fired her “for her failure to follow directions,” the plaintiff filed suit alleging wrongful termination on the basis of her pregnancy. The Butler County Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment in favor of her employer, and the Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed.

The study is an in-depth analysis of 190 records of cantonal conciliation hearings and judgments under the Federal Gender Equality Act, 1996 (the “Act”) over the period of 2004 to 2015 by authors Karine Lempen (Law Professor, University of Geneva) and Aner Voloder (Lawyer, Office for Gender Equality of the Municipality of Zurich).  Among the major findings and conclusions reached in the study are the following:

The Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 makes it unlawful to directly or indirectly discriminate on the basis of certain grounds (‘attributes’), including sexual orientation, lawful sexual activity, gender, gender identity, sex characteristics, marital status, relationship status, pregnancy, breastfeeding, parental status, family responsibilities, irrelevant medical record, association with a person who has, or is believed to have, any of these attributes.

Fatmeh Badih, a recent immigrant from Sierra Leone, was hired in 1987 as a medical assistant by Dr. Leonard Myers. Nearly three years later, when Badih informed Myers that she was pregnant. Myers then fired her, stating: “If you told me you were going to get married and have babies, I wouldn’t have hired you.” Badih sued Myers for pregnancy discrimination and was awarded over $20,000 in damages plus attorney fees.

The respondent’s group insurance plan provided weekly benefits for loss of pay due to accident or sickness. The plan covered pregnant women subject to an exclusion from coverage during the period commencing on the tenth week prior to the expected week of childbirth and extending to six weeks after it (even if the accident or sickness was unrelated to the pregnancy).

Quijote, S.R.L., (the “Company”) fired the plaintiff while she was pregnant. The labor appeals court found that the firing was illegal because the law seeks to protect pregnant women, and though the medical certificate is a guarantee for the employer, it is not a requirement. The Court ordered the company to reinstate the plaintiff to her position and pay her lost wages. The Company challenged the court order in 1993, but the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge as an unconstitutional action in 1995. Consequently, the labor appeals court ruling remained in effect.

The plaintiff was the defendant’s employee. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s management began treating her poorly after her pregnancy, culminating in her eventual dismissal. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s actions were prohibited by the Sex Discrimination Ordinance. The court found that management had, among other things, had made derogatory remarks to the plaintiff, reduced her income, compelled her to transfer teams, and failed to investigate her internal complaints about her treatment.

The plaintiffs were two unmarried female teachers in the permanent establishment who were pregnant for the second time and were subsequently dismissed from their employment by the Teaching Service Commission. The first plaintiff was initially granted three months of maternity leave. She was only paid for one month and was told at the end of her three-month maternity leave that she should not return to work.

Article 4 of the Labor Code prohibits sex discrimination during recruitment, work implementation and division, professional training, promotion, remuneration, benefits or termination of employment. Article 126 also recognizes the principle of equal work for equal pay. Article 170 guarantees paid maternity leave and Article 171 ensures women’s employment security while on maternity leave.