• Home
  • News
  • 1st Circuit Ruling Helps Working Moms

Labor & Employment

1st Circuit Ruling Helps Working Moms

Posted Mar 27, 2009 3:20 PM CST
By Martha Neil

Workplace discrimination against pregnant women and women with children is commonplace, many suspect, but hard to prove.

But a decision yesterday (PDF) by the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals may offer some relief.

Reversing a dismissal, by a federal judge in Maine, the appeals court said plaintiff Laurie Chadwick had pleaded enough to allow her federal sex discrimination complaint to proceed to trial, reports Legal Blog Watch. Chadwick claims she was passed over for a promotion in favor of a less-qualified colleague without children.

Among other allegations, Chadwick contends that when she asked her supervisor, Nanci Miller, why she didn't get the promotion, Miller replied: "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."

In addition to an 11-year-old son, Chadwick and her husband also had 6-year-old triplets at the time the promotion decision was made. Her husband was a stay-at-home dad and the primary caretaker.

Related coverage:

New York Times: "When the Stork Carries a Pink Slip"

Comments

1.

B. McLeod
Mar 28, 2009 7:56 PM CST

Of course, when a business (especially, say, a law firm) has a special project that needs to be wrapped up by 3:00 A.M., it will be the single worker with no children who gets the honor of being tapped for that.  If, at promotion time, employers are not permitted to consider such factors, there will still be injustice for someone.

Flag this comment

2.

DR
Mar 30, 2009 9:12 AM CST

Yes, McLeod, the single person with no family usually gets picked….I was that person for many years before I had a family.  But, me and my peers were rewarded then for our performance.  Now, many first year associates, with much less experience,  make much more than me because I opted to take reduced pay for reduced availability.  It is a good trade-off in my opinion. 

I’d have to read the above opinion to determine for myself whether the decision was fair or unjust to some.  The article is short on facts.

Flag this comment

3.

Reading and Reacting
Mar 30, 2009 3:48 PM CST

I think the First Circuit was spot on!

If an employee has proven capable of more work and greater responsibility, and subsequently requests more work, then it seems unfair for an employer to declare that employee presumptively unable to meet the demands of more work merely because she is a mother (whether of one child or of eight children).  Title VII was intended to protect employees against that presumption.  In this case, the employer didn’t even know the plaintiff was a mother of triplets (who were, at this time, SIX YEARS OLD) until just before the promotion decision was made.  An employer should not be allowed to assume limitations if the female employee has never demonstrated those limitations in the workplace.

When a couple is trying to make child care and professional decisions together (for instance, that the father will stay at home, and that the mother will work longer hours for more income), the employer subverts those decisions with presumptions regarding what a woman can and should be able to handle between work and home.  Ironically, in this case, the employee exceeded the employer’s expectations, and yet was still denied the promotion.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.