Dear HR Executive:
Here's an article that will appear next week in our Business 21 Publishing's HR newsletter, Human Resources 21, about a new legal case you need to know about. It adds a new twist to our understanding of pregnancy discrimination and could open the door to more lawsuits. Read on.
Stephen Meyer
B21 Publisher
Treating pregnant employees equally
may not be enough
You know you can’t discriminate against pregnant employees. But according to a new federal court decision, you may have to be more careful how you treat them, lest they sue for emotional distress – and win big.
The worker in this recent case, in Illinois, got a whopping $500,000 jury award for pain and suffering, medical care, and front and back pay.
She felt that her supervisor, knowing she was pregnant, pushed her too hard, making her climb a rickety stairway to a mezzanine level where she had to crawl under desks to install computer equipment. She claimed her computer was sabotaged and her office moved so she couldn’t locate essential paperwork. On top of that, the supervisor gave her what she perceived to be an impossible mountain of work, and fired her when she couldn’t do it all.
She successfully sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The court said the jury was allowed to consider the fact that the worker was “particularly susceptible” to distress because of her pregnancy.
Different discipline
In this case, the courts ruled that a demanding boss went too far. But all companies have demanding bosses, and employees don't always agree what's reasonable and what's not. This case teaches us that criticism and discipline that might be appropriate for a male worker, or a non-pregnant female one, could be seen as inflicting an unacceptable level of distress on a pregnant colleague.
One bright spot: Infliction of emotional distress is tough to prove. The court here noted that a lot of things that happen in the workplace could be seen as distressing, but aren’t illegal. But it appears it’s easier for a pregnant worker to make a case than other people.
Cite: Naeem v. McKesson Drug Co., No. 04-3816, 7th Cir., 4/12/06.
Comments