Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this workplace harassment/sex discrimination case and its proceedings.)
PLAINTIFF FINDS OUT SHE IS PREGNANT AND DISCLOSES HER PREGNANCY TO HER SUPERIORS AND MANAGEMENT AND THERE IS AN IMMEDIATE NEGATIVE REACTION
Plaintiff finds out she is pregnant and discloses her pregnancy to management. Plaintiff found out she was pregnant in May of 2006. In mid-May of 2006, Plaintiff informed her supervisors that she was pregnant. That included telling Paul Chan.
Immediately after disclosing her pregnancy Plaintiff is treated poorly because of her pregnancy. On May 12, 2006, Plaintiff is issued a verbal warning and placed on an action plan for telling employees she was pregnant. Defendant’s admits that one of the reasons for the verbal discipline on May 12, 2006 had to do with Plaintiff discussing her pregnancy. There is no policy against telling employee about a pregnancy, yet Plaintiff was still disciplined. An employee should not be disciplined for telling people she is pregnant. Nonetheless, she was disciplined.
HER PREGNANCY HAD COMPLICATIONS FOR WHICH SHE REQUESTS ACCOMMODATION AND IS TREATED POORLY AS A RESULT
Plaintiff’s pregnancy required some accommodations. Plaintiff was told by her doctor to avoid any heavy lifting of items over ten pounds. She informed her co-worker and management about that issue in late May of 2006. Her supervisors admit to knowing of Plaintiff’s lifting request. Plaintiff is told by management to tell employees to lift items for her and do not lift herself. Nonetheless, employees refuse to help her. Her supervisors start to act very cold and distant to her right after she asked for the accommodation as well.
Within a few days of disclosing her pregnancy and asking for accommodation, Plaintiff is harassed by her supervisor and she is not wanted because of her pregnancy. In later May of 2006, Plaintiff is called into Mr. Davis’s office. He accuses her of false things such as swearing at a customer. Ms. Smith never swore at a customer. Instead, she always treated each customer with great respect. In that conversation, Mr. Davis starts yelling at Plaintiff. He tells her that he does not want her there because she is pregnant and she should either quit or go on disability.
Mr. Davis yells at Plaintiff that she cannot handle the job because she is pregnant and that she should quit. Plaintiff responds that he is harassing her because she is pregnant and to stop yelling at her. He continues to yell at her, telling her to quit or go on disability over her pregnancy. Mr. Davis tells Plaintiff that pregnant women have hormones and attitudes and she should quit or go on disability.
Mr. Davis yells at Plaintiff that she cannot handle the job because she is pregnant and that she should quit. Plaintiff responds that he is harassing her because she is pregnant and to stop yelling at her. He continues to yell at her, telling her to quit or go on disability over her pregnancy. Mr. Davis tells Plaintiff that pregnant women have hormones and attitudes and she should quit or go on disability.
Again, that same day, Plaintiff is harassed by her supervisor over her pregnancy at told she is not wanted as a pregnant person. After the initial meeting, Plaintiff returned to work. . However, later on that day, Mr. Davis calls her into his office again. He yells at her again. Mr. Davis tells Plaintiff that she cannot ask other employees to help her lift anything heavy. This is within a few days of Plaintiff disclosing that because of her pregnancy she cannot lift heavy items. In addition, again Mr. Davis tells Plaintiff that she should quit or go on disability because of her pregnancy. Again, Plaintiff complains that she is being harassed over her pregnancy. Mr. Davis’s response is to tell Plaintiff to quit or go on disability. (See Part 5 of 19.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.