Laws Lawyers Find Laws Legal Forms State Laws Bills
Home » Legal News » Woman Sues Target After Being Fired While Pregnant

Woman Sues Target After Being Fired While Pregnant

December 04, 2012 08:19pm  
Claiming that the company violated her rights according to the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, a former employee is suing Target Corporation.Last week, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania announced that they would not grant summary judgment to Target.This ruling allows the case to go forward, and it is expected to be decided at the trial level sometime in 2013. According to Christina Spigarelli's attorneys, Spigarelli was employed by Target for approximately two years before she became pregnant and found out.At the time when she notified her employer that she had become pregnant, she had not faced any disciplinary action within the company for over 10 months.Prior to that, she had been disciplined at one time for apprehending a shoplifting suspect in a way that violated the company's protocols for asset protection and loss prevention. However, her announcement of her pregnancy seemed to change how her supervisor treated her.She was given repeated warnings suddenly for violating parts of her job's protocol—parts which she had not been accused of violating even once in the time before she announced her pregnancy.After the third of these violations was recorded within a two week period, Spigarelli says that her supervisor informed her that her employment had been terminated. The violations being recorded weren't just suspicious because of their timing.According to Spigarelli, her supervisor actually spoke with her about her pregnancy, and did so in an alarming way.The supervisor told her that “pregnancy hormones” made women into poor decision makers, and talked about experiences with other pregnant women that made her feel this way.These comments had the effect of making Spigarelli feel belittled for her pregnancy and delegitimized her authority in her department according to the complaint. The supervisor told Spigarelli that pregnant women “get emotional and their hormones get all affected,” and that Spigarelli “was being too emotional and getting caught up into things.”The district court judge ruled that these comments, in combination with the suspicious timing of the new conduct warnings, made summary judgment impossible in the case. When being accused of discrimination under Title VII or the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, it is not enough in courts for companies to simply give someone enough written warnings until they are forced to leave.If the courts determine that the relationship between a woman's pregnancy and her termination were causal, then the company will be held liable for that discrimination even if they were able to indicate some other reason for the termination. Employers are also not allowed, according to standards set by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to “constructively terminate” an employee by creating a workplace environment that would make a reasonable person quit.The fact that the EEOC is now pursuing these cases for pregnancy discrimination in the workplace means that employers should be especially careful to make sure that pregnant women are being treated in accordance with the law. Source: uscourts.gov, eeoc.gov
Loading...
  • Play
  • Pause
  • Volume:
  • Mute
  • Half
  • Max
  • Woman Sues Target After Being Fired While Pregnant

     

    Claiming that the company violated her rights according to the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, a former employee is suing Target Corporation.  Last week, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania announced that they would not grant summary judgment to Target.  This ruling allows the case to go forward, and it is expected to be decided at the trial level sometime in 2013.

    According to Christina Spigarelli's attorneys, Spigarelli was employed by Target for approximately two years before she became pregnant and found out.  At the time when she notified her employer that she had become pregnant, she had not faced any disciplinary action within the company for over 10 months.  Prior to that, she had been disciplined at one time for apprehending a shoplifting suspect in a way that violated the company's protocols for asset protection and loss prevention.

    However, her announcement of her pregnancy seemed to change how her supervisor treated her.  She was given repeated warnings suddenly for violating parts of her job's protocol—parts which she had not been accused of violating even once in the time before she announced her pregnancy.  After the third of these violations was recorded within a two week period, Spigarelli says that her supervisor informed her that her employment had been terminated.

    The violations being recorded weren't just suspicious because of their timing.  According to Spigarelli, her supervisor actually spoke with her about her pregnancy, and did so in an alarming way.  The supervisor told her that “pregnancy hormones” made women into poor decision makers, and talked about experiences with other pregnant women that made her feel this way.  These comments had the effect of making Spigarelli feel belittled for her pregnancy and delegitimized her authority in her department according to the complaint.

    The supervisor told Spigarelli that pregnant women “get emotional and their hormones get all affected,” and that Spigarelli “was being too emotional and getting caught up into things.”  The district court judge ruled that these comments, in combination with the suspicious timing of the new conduct warnings, made summary judgment impossible in the case.

    When being accused of discrimination under Title VII or the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, it is not enough in courts for companies to simply give someone enough written warnings until they are forced to leave.  If the courts determine that the relationship between a woman's pregnancy and her termination were causal, then the company will be held liable for that discrimination even if they were able to indicate some other reason for the termination.

    Employers are also not allowed, according to standards set by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to “constructively terminate” an employee by creating a workplace environment that would make a reasonable person quit.  The fact that the EEOC is now pursuing these cases for pregnancy discrimination in the workplace means that employers should be especially careful to make sure that pregnant women are being treated in accordance with the law.

    Source: uscourts.gov, eeoc.gov

    Comments

    Must Read

    Affirmative Action Explained Affirmative Action Explained
    People who are interested in the question of “What is affirmative action?” should refer specifically to the legislative history of the United States, in which affirmative action was first conceived and implemented as a means of reversing the effects of systemic discrimination in the educational and employment arenas with respect to members of groups deemed to be underprivileged.
    Civil Law Civil Law
    Civil law refers to the general category for legal systems derived or descended from the framework of laws through which the Roman Empire was administered.
    Direct Discrimination vs. Indirect Discrimination Direct Discrimination vs. Indirect Discrimination
    The concept of discrimination as an offense and a meaningful ground for legal action and remedy is understood in the legal system of the United Kingdom as being split into two specific subjects: direct discrimination and indirect discrimination.
    What are Civil Rights? What are Civil Rights?
    Civil rights are a basic category of human rights afforded to and held by all people according to the modern legal and political theory of the last few hundred years.
    Operation Confirm
    Are you sure you want to delete it?
      
    Tips